## Facts

- New York created a Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment that retained reports and disclosed listed individuals’ status to certain child-care employers.
- Reports were classified as “indicated” upon a finding of “some credible evidence,” a low evidentiary threshold.
- Child-care employers were required to consult the Register when considering applicants and faced strong disincentives and potential liability risks if they hired listed individuals.
- Anna Valmonte, a former home day care provider, was investigated in 1985 for alleged neglect; the report was deemed “indicated,” and her name was placed on the Register.
- Valmonte alleged that dissemination of her listing to employers effectively foreclosed her from child-care employment despite no court adjudication of abuse or neglect and despite later passing a licensing review.
- The statutory scheme allowed administrative challenges and expungement requests, but listing could persist and be disclosed to employers for extended periods before meaningful review.

## Issues

1. Whether the state’s maintenance and employer-directed dissemination of an “indicated” child abuse/neglect listing implicates a protected Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest under a “stigma-plus” theory.
2. If a liberty interest is implicated, whether the state’s procedures—especially the “some credible evidence” substantiation standard and the timing of review—provide constitutionally sufficient process.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that the combined effect of the stigmatizing designation and state-imposed employment consequences stated a protected liberty interest.
- The court held that the statutory procedures, as alleged, violated due process because the risk of erroneous inclusion and disclosure was too high.

## Legal Principles

- Reputational injury alone does not create a due process liberty interest; a plaintiff must show “stigma” plus a state-imposed alteration of legal status or tangible burden (including significant employment disabilities).
- A registry scheme that communicates a stigmatizing accusation to employers and effectively blocks access to a defined employment sector can satisfy the “stigma-plus” requirement.
- Under Mathews v. Eldridge balancing, due process requires procedures that reasonably reduce erroneous deprivation in light of (1) the private interest (ability to seek work), (2) the risk of error and value of added safeguards, and (3) the government’s interest (including child protection).
- An “extraordinarily low” evidentiary standard for substantiation, combined with delayed or non-adversarial review while disclosures continue, can create an unconstitutional risk of error when the employment consequences are severe.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that disclosure of “indicated” child abuse/neglect reports to child-care employers, coupled with statutory employment barriers, states a “stigma-plus” liberty interest and that due process may be denied where listings are substantiated under a very low evidentiary standard and remain disseminated without timely, meaningful procedural protections.


Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994)