John D. v. Department of Social Services
Massachusetts Appeals Court
744 N.E.2d 659 (2001)
- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
John D. (defendant) was the stepfather of a 15-year-old girl. According to his stepdaughter, John was a “nudist,” entered the bathroom while she was in the bathtub to have conversations, and asked to examine her genitals to determine whether she had been sexually active. The stepdaughter also said John asked if she knew how to perform oral sex, offered to help her practice kissing, and asked to see her hymen before asking her not to inform her mother about his request. The stepdaughter told her mother about the abuse, and a report was made to the Department of Social Services (department) (plaintiff). The department referred the allegation to the district attorney, who named John on its list of sexual perpetrators. John challenged that decision. The administrative-hearing officer determined that John exhibited a pattern of engaging in conversations containing sexual themes with his stepdaughter, which constituted inappropriate sexual conduct. The officer opined that sexual conduct was not limited to physical conduct but included verbal conduct as well. John requested a review of the decision, and the trial court affirmed. John appealed, arguing that while some of his conversations with his stepdaughter may have been inappropriate, they did not rise to the level of sexual abuse.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
