Department of Human Resources v. Hayward, 45 A.3d 224

This case asks whether an individual accused of child abuse who receives an unsubstantiated finding has a right to appeal.
Hayward and Dixon, employed by BCPSS, were found unsubstantiated after separate Department investigations and were entered into the central registry.
Both sought a conference under FL § 5-706.1(c) to review redacted records and potentially request corrections, and then an appeal.
The Department denied conference and appeal rights, interpreting § 5-706.1(c) to apply only to those found responsible.
The Circuit Court dismissed the mandamus actions; the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that unsubstantiated findings carry appeal rights and impact central registry placement.
The issue before the Court was whether the Department properly interpreted the statute and regulations, and whether the respondents thereby lacked a pathway to review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unsubstantiated findings grant a right to conference and appeal	Hayward argues § 5-706.1(c) provides appeal rights for unsubstantiated findings.	Department contends only those found responsible may appeal under COMAR 07.02.26.05B and related provisions.	Yes; statute grants conference and appeal rights for unsubstantiated findings.
Whether COMAR regulations conflict with the statute	Statutory rights should control; REGULATIONS must align with § 5-706.1.	COMAR clarifies ambiguities and aligns with the Department's interpretation.	Regulations conflict with the plain language of § 5-706.1 and yield to the statute.
Whether notice and conference rights are properly triggered by an unsubstantiated finding	Notice triggers conference and appeal rights; respondents were properly notified.	No right to conference or appeal if not found responsible.	Notice and conference rights attach to unsubstantiated findings; respondents were entitled to review.
Whether mandamus relief was appropriate to secure statutory rights	Mandamus is proper when there is a lack of an available procedure for review and the action is illegal/arbitrary.	A misinterpretation of the statute should be resolved without mandamus if possible.	Mandamus was appropriate to compel proper interpretation and review because of statutory rights.

Nolan v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689 (2000) (mandamus standards; review of discretionary acts requires lack of adequate remedy)
Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243 (2005) (agency action arbitrary or capricious if irrational or lacking basis)
C.S. v. Prince George's County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 343 Md. 14 (1996) (distinguishes pre-registry hearing procedures from post-registry review)
Montgomery County Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. L.D., 349 Md. 239 (1998) (central registry scope; balance between investigation and right to clear names)
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, 336 Md. 569 (1994) (scope of judicial review and deference to agency interpretations)