A.P. v. Department of Public Welfare
98 A.3d 736
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- In 2010 a now-adult adopted child (Child) accused his uncle (Uncle) of sexual abuse that allegedly occurred while Uncle lived with Child’s family in 2005–2006; the County issued an "indicated" child abuse report and the DA declined criminal charges.
- Uncle sought administrative expungement; an ALJ held two-day hearings, heard testimony from Child, parents, relatives, a girlfriend, a police officer, and Uncle, and recommended denial of expungement.
- ALJ credited Child’s testimony (finding it sufficiently detailed and credible) and discredited Uncle and several defense witnesses as biased or unreliable; ALJ concluded abuse occurred in mid-2006 over several months.
- The Department’s Bureau of Hearings and Appeals adopted the ALJ’s recommendation and denied expunction; Uncle appealed to this Court.
- This Court addressed whether the ALJ applied the correct statutory standard (preponderance under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a)) and whether the ALJ properly performed the required evidentiary “weighing dynamic” rather than applying a double standard when evaluating witness credibility and conflicting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Uncle's Argument | County/Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for expungement hearing | ALJ applied too stringent (clear-and-convincing) standard; weigh evidence per statute | Department relied on ALJ’s credibility findings and recommended denial | Court reaffirmed statutory preponderance (weighing) standard applies and requires explicit weighing of conflicting evidence |
| Whether Child's uncorroborated testimony outweighed Uncle’s evidence | Child’s testimony is inconsistent, unreliable, and contradicted by Uncle’s travel/calendar and witnesses attesting to Child’s reputation for dishonesty | ALJ found Child credible and Uncle not credible; evidence supported indicated report | Court vacated and remanded because ALJ failed to engage in the required weighing and applied a double standard in evaluating witnesses |
| Credibility evaluation of family and nonparty witnesses | Uncle: ALJ improperly dismissed defense witnesses as biased without adequate explanation; County should also be subject to bias scrutiny | Department: ALJ’s credibility assessments were within his province | Court: ALJ’s credibility conclusions were conclusory and reflected a double standard; must explain demeanor/substance and consider bias on both sides |
| Sufficiency of findings for appellate review | Uncle: findings lack reasoned explanation of how evidence was weighed under §6303(a) | Department: adopted ALJ’s recommended adjudication | Court vacated adjudication and remanded for findings that explicitly weigh all conflicting evidence to enable meaningful review |
Key Cases Cited
- G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, 52 A.3d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (earlier panel decision applying clear-and-convincing standard)
- G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, 91 A.3d 667 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversing and holding preponderance/statutory §6303(a) standard governs)
- Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (question of law whether evidence satisfied statutory standard)
- B.B. v. Department of Public Welfare, 17 A.3d 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (appellate review limitations: cannot reweigh evidence)
- Agostino v. Township of Collier, 968 A.2d 258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (definition of preponderance of the evidence)
- Súber v. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 885 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (definition of clear-and-convincing standard)