G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 201
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- G.V. sought expungement of an indicated child abuse report listing him as a perpetrator after a CYS investigation alleging sexual abuse of 16-year-old C.S.
- ALJ and BHA upheld the indicated report; G.V. appealed to this Court challenging substantial evidence, statutory interpretation, and standard of proof.
- Evidence showed multiple alleged incidents of touching and fondling by G.V. during backrubs, with C.S. testifying and other witnesses corroborating credibility issues for G.V.
- DPW regulations define indicated reports and set out that maintaining disclosure on the ChildLine Registry is permissible when substantial evidence proves abuse; the standard for expungement is higher (clear and convincing) for continuing disclosure.
- The court recognized a significant reputational and livelihood interest at stake for the accused and held that, while substantial evidence suffices to support an indicated report, the information to be disclosed from the registry must meet a clear and convincing standard to remain disclosed.
- The case was remanded for a hearing to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence to maintain disclosure on the ChildLine Registry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports the indicated report | G.V. argues the evidence does not establish substantial evidence alone. | DPW/BHA relied on credible C.S. testimony and supporting witnesses to find substantial evidence. | Substantial evidence supported the indicated report. |
| Whether BHA properly interpreted sexual abuse or exploitation under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a) | G.V. contends misinterpretation; the statute requires clearer proof. | BHA’s interpretation was consistent with regulations and prior interpretations supporting alleged conduct as sexual abuse or exploitation. | The court upheld a correct interpretation that supported maintenance of the indicated report. |
| What standard of proof applies to maintaining information on the ChildLine Registry | G.V. argues due process requires clear and convincing evidence to keep disclosure. | DPW statutes require substantial evidence to sustain the indicated report; no explicit standard for maintaining disclosure. | Substantial evidence is required to sustain an indicated report, but clear and convincing evidence is required to maintain disclosure on the ChildLine Registry. |
| Due process balance under Mathews v. Eldridge for expungement proceedings | Reputation is a protected interest; the standard should be higher (clear and convincing). | Child protection and statute support a balance favoring child safety with disclosure to limited parties; process is adequate. | Court adopts Mathews-based analysis; holds that clear and convincing standard applies to maintaining disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.T. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, Lackawanna Cnty. Office, Children, Youth & Family Servs., 681 A.2d 853 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (credibility determinations in expungement proceedings are for the fact-finder)
- J.S. v. Department of Public Welfare, 528 Pa. 243 (1991) (standard of proof and due process concerns in child abuse expungement)
- R. v. Department of Public Welfare, 535 Pa. 440 (1994) (Mathews-based due process factors for government actions affecting reputation)
- Maldonado, 576 Pa. 101 (2000) (intermediate standard of proof in government-initiated proceedings affecting substantial interests)
- A.Y. v. Department of Public Welfare, Allegheny County Children & Youth Services, 537 Pa. 116 (1994) (recognition of substantial reputational interest and the impact of registry)
- Greenberg, In re, 561 Pa. 154 (2000) (application of Mathews factors in professional/civil protective contexts)