B.K. v. Department of Public Welfare
36 A.3d 649
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- B.K. petitions for review of the Western Regional Manager’s February 3, 2011 order denying expungement of an indicated child abuse report.
- The indicated CY 48 report alleged that B.K. abused R.D.C. by exposing him to cocaine; the report was placed on the Child-Line Registry.
- R.D.C., born February 27, 2008, was found in August 2009 with cocaine in his system after care by B.K. and R.C.; CYS investigated.
- Two DPW/ALJ hearings were held; testimony came from hospital doctors, CYS caseworkers, and B.K. and R.C.; Dr. Zinobile and Dr. Squires treated the child.
- The ALJ found the CYS witnesses credible, B.K. not credible, and the indicated report warranted; the Manager adopted the ALJ’s recommendation.
- B.K. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, spousal-privilege handling, and admissibility of Dr. Squires’ testimony; the Manager’s order was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indicated report is supported by substantial evidence | B.K. argues no substantial impairment. | DPW argues evidence shows significant impairment. | Yes, substantial evidence supports the finding. |
| Whether R.C.’s testimony violated spousal privilege | B.K. invokes 42 Pa.C.S. § 5923 privilege. | ALJ applied 42 Pa.C.S. § 5924(b)(3) exception. | Privilege did not bar testimony; no reversible error. |
| Whether Dr. Squires’ testimony was permissible without full records | CYS failed to provide records per prior order. | Record admissibility allowed; order not binding here. | Issue waived due to absence from certified record; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.O. v. Department of Public Welfare, 838 A.2d 35 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (burden on DPW in expunction proceedings; substantial evidence standard)
- D.T. v. Department of Public Welfare, 873 A.2d 850 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (DPW as ultimate fact-finder; substantial evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Spetzer, 572 Pa.17 (Pa.2002) (distinguishes spousal confidentiality vs. incompetence; privilege limits)
- Maras v. Department of Public Welfare, 111 Pa.Cmwlth. 404 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987) (sustains DPW decision if correct rationale appears in record)
- Smith v. Smith, 431 Pa.Super. 588 (Pa.Super.1993) (record completeness requirement; waiver for failure to include record)