A.P. v. DHS, 1929 C.D. 2016

In 2010 CYS filed an indicated child-abuse report naming A.P. ("Uncle") for sexually abusing his nephew (born 1992) in 2006; Uncle sought expungement and a hearing followed.
Child testified at hearing that Uncle masturbated in front of him while they watched a DVD in 2006; his testimony was vague, inconsistent with prior statements to police, and lacked corroboration.
Uncle denied the allegations, produced a paper calendar documenting travel and testimony from a long-term girlfriend and family witnesses supporting his whereabouts and character; police did not file criminal charges for lack of corroboration.
The ALJ repeatedly credited Child’s testimony (citing demeanor) and discredited Uncle and his witnesses (family bias), finding Uncle a perpetrator; the Department adopted the ALJ’s recommendation.
This Court twice remanded instructing the ALJ to address inconsistent evidence and explain credibility findings; on second remand the ALJ again credited Child mainly on demeanor and rejected rebuttal evidence.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the ALJ applied an improper, one-sided weighing, failed to justify why Child’s uncorroborated, inconsistent testimony outweighed contrary evidence, and demonstrated bias/abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Uncle)	Defendant's Argument (Department/CYS)	Held
Whether CYS presented "substantial evidence" under 23 Pa. C.S. §6303(a) to support an indicated report	Child’s testimony was too vague, inconsistent, and uncorroborated to outweigh Uncle’s evidence; legal standard not met	Factfinder discretion to credit child’s demeanor; ALJ reasonably found testimony outweighed inconsistencies	Reversed — ALJ erred: Child’s testimony did not legally outweigh conflicting evidence; substantial-evidence standard not satisfied as applied here
Whether the ALJ improperly disregarded or gave no weight to Uncle’s rebuttal evidence (character, calendar, witnesses)	ALJ capriciously dismissed family witnesses and documentary proof without adequate justification	Crediting witness demeanor is within ALJ’s province; weighing is for factfinder	Reversed — ALJ applied a double standard, failed to consider inconsistent evidence adequately, and gave insufficient reasons for discounting rebuttal evidence
Whether ALJ’s reliance on demeanor and prior adherence to a clear-and-convincing finding created bias or deprived Uncle of a fair hearing	ALJ exhibited entrenched conclusions and applied different standards to each side, suggesting partiality	Department defends ALJ’s discretion to assess credibility and adopt recommendations	Reversed — ALJ’s conduct and reasoning showed abuse of discretion/bias; due-process concerns supported reversal

Suber v. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 885 A.2d 678 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (clear-and-convincing standard description cited for comparison)
Stafford v. Reed, 70 A.2d 345 (Pa.) (standard of proof is a legal question reviewable on appeal)
Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Tristate Transport), 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa.) (demeanor-based credibility determinations may be brief but are entitled to deference)
In re: S.H., 96 A.3d 448 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (where no physical evidence exists, all of child’s testimony must be considered, not selective parts)
R.J.W. v. Department of Human Services, 139 A.3d 270 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (ALJ may base credibility on witness demeanor)
F.V.C. v. Department of Public Welfare, 987 A.2d 223 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (appellate review of credibility/weight requires abuse of discretion to reverse)
G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, 91 A.3d 667 (Pa.) (substantial-evidence standard clarified to replace clear-and-convincing in this context)