G.H. v. Department of Public Welfare
96 A.3d 448
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Father challenges expungement of an indicated child sexual abuse report against him from the ChildLine Registry after an administrative adjudication.
- County filed an indicated report naming Father as perpetrator; no physical evidence and no witnesses to abuse.
- ALJ credited County witnesses; Child’s out-of-court statements and expert opinions supported the finding under the prior substantial-evidence standard.
- On remand, the Secretary changed the language to clear and convincing, but the Supreme Court later held the statutory standard governs expunction (preponderance) and the weighing framework applies.
- Court reverses the Secretary’s adjudication, expunging Father’s indicated report from the ChildLine Registry.
- The proceeding involves statutory standards for expunction under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a) and the CPSL’s reporting requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the County meet the statutory standard after G.V. II? | Father: evidence fails to outweigh inconsistent evidence. | County: evidence supports abuse under the statutory standard. | No; County fails to outweigh inconsistent evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). |
| Is polygraph evidence properly weighed or given dispositive weight? | Polygraphs should not dictate outcome and were not given proper weight. | Polygraph results may be considered as part of the record. | Polygraph results require careful, non-dispositive treatment; error to rely on them as determinative. |
| Did the ALJ and Secretary properly assess credibility and interview/coaching issues? | Child’s testimony was coached and lacks reliability. | Credibility findings supported by record; demeanor not always observable on transcripts. | Creditability of Child’s testimony insufficient to meet § 6303(a) standard. |
| Did the Secretary properly weigh expert testimony and reconcile inconsistencies in testimony? | Allenbaugh’s testimony undermines abuse finding; weight given to experts improper. | Experts credible and relevant; no improper weighting. | Secretary erred in discarding weight of Allenbaugh’s testimony and relying on others. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, - Pa. - , 91 A.3d 667 (2014) (Pa. 2014) (creates the statutory standard governs expunction (preponderance) with weighing framework)
- G.V. I, 52 A.3d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (held clear and convincing standard applied on remand (overruled))
- In re E.A., 82 A.3d 370 (Pa. 2013) (knowledge not typical for young child; supports credibility concerns)
- D.W. v. Department of Public Welfare, 2014 WL 929605 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (illustrates limits of child testimony without corroboration)
- J.S. v. Department of Public Welfare, 528 Pa. 243, 596 A.2d 1114 (Pa. 1991) (standard of review in CPSL proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Gee, 467 Pa. 123, 354 A.2d 875 (Pa. 1976) (polygraph reliability considerations in admissibility)
- Kozak v. Struth, 515 Pa. 554, 531 A.2d 420 (Pa. 1987) (experts do not testify to ultimate facts in civil actions)
- Daniels v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 574 Pa. 61, 828 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 2003) (requires articulated credibility basis for expert deposition testimony)
- Stafford v. Reed, 363 Pa. 405, 70 A.2d 345 (Pa. 1950) (general rule on appellate review of findings)