If you have any problems reading this file, please let me know so that I
can mail it to you via U.S. Mail.

Thanks,
Mark

Arner Story
DATE: 12/9/99
RE: Superior Court Case #726629

I have a chilling, previously private story to share. On October 1,
1999, I agreed to settle a lawsuit against San Diego County's Health and
Human Services Agency over its once "secret" decision in 1997 to list my
name on a national law enforcement database of suspected child abusers.

I am telling this story in hopes that it will help fix a government
child protective system that I believe was poorly designed and has long
been dysfunctional, because its investigators have been given powers
usually granted only to judges.

Most men, when falsely accused of child abuse and investigated by the
Department of Social Services - Children Services Bureau, have suffered
in silence. Even after clearing their names, as I did. That's because
the mere accusation of such a crime can severely damage a person's
reputation. But I believe that keeping silent won't solve anything for
others. By sharing my story publicly, I hope to help force changes to
this secretive, intimidating and - I believe - institutionally biased
system to stop it from abusing the reputations, families and bank
accounts of other innocent parents. I also want to stress that I am
speaking as a private citizen, not as a representative of my employer.

I was falsely accused by an anonymous "reporting party" of the heinous
crime of child molestation in October, 1997, at the height of a bitter
custody battle over my two young boys. When I was told of the
accusation, I promptly submitted to an investigation by a protective
service worker named Srisuda Walsh. I Insisted from the beginning that I
was innocent and that I was not capable of committing such a crime
against my own children. But, it took me roughly 500 hours, a lawsuit
and hundreds of hours of effort by two attorneys to disprove Mrs.
Walsh's secret conclusion that my case should require a criminal
listing, because she had deemed the accusation to be "unsubstantiated,
but not unfounded." Only by disproving her secret finding was I able to
clear my name and eliminate the listing.

My nightmare is one that has been shared by thousands of divorced dads,
and some divorced moms. County and state health officials Insist that
they don't track child abuse suspects by gender, but national child
abuse dab shows that males have historically been deemed responsible for
nearly 90 percent of all child sexual abuse.

San Diego County's data shows there are more than 14,000 allegations of
sexual child abuse countywide each year, among roughly 90,000
allegations of varying forms of child abuse. Of those 14,000 molestation
cases, county data suggests that only 200 to 300 result in some form of
actual social service intervention.

Another previously private fact is that the county's protective service
worker staff is overwhelmingly composed of women, who apparently
investigate mostly men. The year I was investigated - 1997- the staff of
550 child abuse investigators was 76 percent female. The county this
year has increased its PSW staff to roughly 700 - larger than most
police forces in the county. But most police forces are required to
reflect the gender and ethnic diversity within their jurisdictions.

According to records of Walsh's Investigation, my anonymous accuser told
a child abuse hotline worker that they only knew my first name, but knew
that I was divorced and that I had "visitation with a son. The accuser
also said they didn't know my son's name and didn't know exactly where I
lived, but they knew the address of my apartment complex, and alleged
that someone - possibly named 'Mark Daily,' had molested a boy.

Walsh used a bizarre technique to “find" her suspect: she pushed her
business cards in the door jambs of numerous apartment doors in the
20-unit complex, writing on the back of each one that she was
investigating a child abuse claim and wanted the resident to call her. I
responded to a card addressed to Mark Dalby that had been sticking out
of my door jamb for nine hours for all my neighbors to see on the way to
the laundry room.

Most Of my neighbors knew me as a friendly divorced dad, who wrote for a
newspaper and had joint physical custody of his two young boys with his
former wife. There were other fathers in the complex, but I was the only
renter with young sons.

I telephoned Walsh the next morning and agreed to promptly meet at her
office. I was deeply hurt by the allegations, and swore they were
groundless To prove my innocence, I gave Walsh written permission to
interview both my sons at school that same day, as well as to interview
their child psychologist.

I learned months later that my two sons had told Walsh in separate
interviews that no one had improperly touched, or abused them in any
fashion. The psychologist had told Walsh that she had no reason to
suspect such a crime had occurred, and that I had instead been a caring
and concerned father, who had been bringing my boys for counseling for
more than two years during my separation and divorce. Walsh called me
back that same afternoon to tell me that I hadn't abused my kids. But,
she refused to give me a document saying that I had been cleared.

I suffered incredible trauma, because the investigator had recklessly
trampled around my complex and asked anyone she encountered about this
vicious, groundless lie. The, she refused to give me something to prove
to my neighbors that I wasn't a monster. What had she told my neighbors?
What did my neighbors think? Who else had been asked about this? The
investigator refused to say.

I began seeking the records of the investigation with a personal public
records request, and it took me six months to find out about the secret
listing. And I only discovered that after representing myself in two
juvenile court hearings. A team of attorneys for the county, and social
service workers strenuously opposed my efforts to review any records,
but Judge Hideo Chino disagreed. In December 1997, Chino ordered the
county to show me the records, but not to photocopy them. However, Chino
declined to order the county to give me a letter stating the outcome of
the investigation.

When I appeared for a subsequent appointment to review the records at
county offices, I quickly realized that the county hadn't prepared them.
I complained, and an hour later, two social service clerks gave me four
unnumbered, mostly blank computer printouts and Insisted that was the
entire file. However, I knew from researching state law that there had
to be more.

I also felt humiliated by a procedure that the county required me to
endure on each of the half dozen times that I appeared to review either
public records or the records that Judge Chino had ordered the county to
show to me. Each time, the manager of the county social services
department, Yvonne Campbell, required me to wait in an unemployment line
for up to 30 minutes. At the end I was then grilled by a security guard
about what I had in my pockets, before her staff would allow me to
review the records. I repeatedly complained about this procedure, saying
that it appeared intended to dehumanize me and to intimidate me from
continuing my review of the records. But, even Judge Chino refused to
order it stopped. He said that was "up to the department."

After my first visit to view the records, I asked for another hearing
before Judge Chino and again asked to see all records. I also asked
Chino to fine the county for failing to follow his order. Again, county
counsel strenuously opposed my request. Again Chino granted my request
to review all records of the investigation. However, he declined to
sanction the county and refused to reveal the name of my accuser.

Two days later, I learned from what had mushroomed Into a 75-page file
that I had been secretly listed as a suspected child abuser on a
California Department of Justice database, and on the National Crime
Information computer. But, in the entire file, I found nothing
supporting the initial accusation made against me. There was only
evidence that I had done nothing to harm my children.

So, with the help of an attorney and friend, Bob Glaser I filed a
16-page claim using the name "Father A" against the Health Department
alleging that they had mishandled the investigation, and improperly
given me a criminal listing. County counsel rejected that claim, without
showing it to the Board of Supervisors. Six months later, Glaser and I
filed a 138-page lawsuit alleging that the county had negligently
handled the investigation, and had violated my Due Process rights by
never notifying me of the listing.

County counsel ignored the lawsuit, and refused repeated requests to
meet to discuss settlement.

My big break came in June, 1999, when a prominent trial attorney,
Richard A. Williams agreed to take over the case. He promptly filed a
claim for a hefty sum in damages: $1.5 million. Money talks.

County counsel then began taking my case seriously. In a stunning letter
dated Aug.17, 1999, Senior Deputy County Counsel Deborah McCarthy wrote
that she had decided to review the 18-month-old records of Walsh's
investigation "without regard to the lawsuit." That review by an unnamed
county "ombudsman,” and Walsh's general manager, Yvonne Campbell,
determined that Mrs. Walsh had made a mistake, that the allegations
against me should have been deemed "unfounded," and that my name should
be removed from the criminal database.

We then asked for a settlement hearing and on Oct. 1, 1999, before
Superior Court Judge Sheridan Reed, Williams proved that the county had
violated my constitutional rights to due process, as well as a state
statute, because I had never been notified in writing of the criminal
listing.

Unfortunately for me, Judge Reed said that state law provides such
iron-clad immunity for health workers that I could collect nothing in
damages, and could not even obtain any reimbursement of the more than
$20,000 in attorney's fees expended.

It is not enough to show that health workers have made mistakes,
committed perjury, falsified records or violated my constitutional
rights. Citizens must prove that those employees committed such acts
with “malice” - a very difficult and expensive thing to prove. But, even
if I managed to prove malice, I would have been out of luck, because I
didn't have what the law views as "actual" damages. If I had lost my
job, been denied employment, or been jailed because of the listing,
those would have qualified as actual damages. Case law, I was told by
the Judge, does not recognize the emotional trauma that I suffered while
bearing the stigma of being listed as a suspected child molester for
more than 700 days.

In other words, Judge Reed said 'tough."

The county offered me no money to settle the case. Ms. Campbell instead
offered not to charge me for the county's court costs. I found that
amazing, since it was the county who made all the mistakes. I had done
nothing wrong to anyone: I had merely submitted to their investigation
and trusted their staff to judge me fairly. It was the county that
betrayed my trust.

So, I asked for what I thought was common courtesy: I asked the county
to apologize for its mistakes. Mrs. Campbell refused to publicly
apologize.

Williams and I settled anyway, to cut our losses. since my fight with
the county had cleared my name, I could prove that I was an abuse
"victim" rather than part of the problem. I hoped that would help me
push to change the system - outside the courtroom – to protect others
from similar suffering.

County officials assure me that they have changed the system and that
now all people who are similarly accused receive written notification of
any listing, and can request a hearing to challenge the findings.

But, state laws have not been changed. The protective service
investigators still have a horrifying power. If you have the misfortune
to be accused of child abuse and you refuse to cooperate, they can take
your children. If you cooperate, and I did, they can give you a criminal
listing without even going to court. If you cooperate, as I did, they
can ruin your reputation. And you get to pay to try to prove them wrong.
Good luck. If you're lucky enough to dear your name, they don't even
have to say they're sorry.

Although my fight with the county lasted nearly two years, my custody
battle over my children was settled in December, 1997 and I have since
enjoyed a 50/50 custody arrangement of my children with my former wife.
I have also married again, to a strong beautiful woman who stuck by me
for the entire ordeal.

However, because the county considered me guilty until I was proven
innocent, I was emotionally and financially punished for a crime that
never occurred. My former wife insists she had nothing to do with the
accusation; the court has refused to reveal the accuser's name.

To put it simply, the immunities now in state law, and the definitions
or “actual damages" make my state and federal due process rights
meaningless. And the county's staff, which is charged wIth investigating
abuse, has instead become the abuser.

Judge Reed was surprised to learn that state law requires child abuse
suspects whose cases are deemed to be "unsubstantiated," to be listed
with the California Department of Justice, and the National Crime
Information Computer. She explained that it didn't seem fair to the
suspect, since it means there is not enough proof of a crime to
prosecute. Unfair or not, the law has actually been on the books since
1980 (Penal Code Section 11169).

As a volunteer for the La Jolla-based “Best Fathers Group" for three
years, I have met dozens of men who have faced similar false molestation
accusations during custody battles. It has become the nuclear weapon in
such bitter skirmishes and it is usually used against men. Many other
men have suffered more dearly than I. Some have been promptly fired from
their Jobs, lost custody of their children for years, and been obliged
to spend from $50,000 to as much as $650,000 each, to prove that the
allegations were groundless, and to regain custody of their children.

The State of Utah found it had a similar "secret” listing problem in 1997
and 1998, according to an Aug. 3,  1999 article In the Salt Lake
Tribune. Utah's legislature laws requiring that 25,000 people whose
names had been secretly added to the list should be notified in writing.
I have learned from a series of public records requests that the County
of San Diego added 32,852 names to the state Department of  Justice list
between 1994 and 1998.1 am still waiting for the full 20-year-count of
names on the database from San Diego County, but based on an average
listing of 6,500 names per year, the list probably contains more than
130,000 names. Statewide, 252,612 names were added to the DOJ database
between 1993 and 1997, according to Department of Justice reports. I am
still waiting for the full 20 years of data,  but based on an average of
250,000 listings every five years, the statewide list probably contains
more than 1 million names.

None of those 1 million people had court hearings, before receiving the
criminal listings. Most  probably have never received any notification
of their listings. I think California should follow  Utah's lead and
require notification of all those on its list. It should also put real
judges in the mix,  and require court hearings BEFORE any name is added
to the database, to give the accused an  opportunity to review, and
rebut any evidence against them. That would go a long way toward
screening out any anti-male bias in the system.  Finally, I think only
suspects whose cases are
proved to be "substantiated" should be added to the Child Abuse Central
Index. If you agree, we'd like you to sign our petition.

Innocent people shouldn't be treated this way.