G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare
625 Pa. 280
| Pa. | 2014Background
- In 2009 Lancaster County CYS investigated and labeled G.V. an "indicated" perpetrator of sexual abuse of his great-niece; a summary was entered in the statewide ChildLine Registry.
- G.V. requested expungement from DPW claiming the report was inaccurate or improperly maintained; DPW denied and an administrative hearing upheld the indicated finding based on substantial evidence and credibility findings.
- G.V. appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which agreed substantial evidence supported the indication but held that due process required a higher, "clear and convincing" standard to keep an indicated summary in the Registry.
- The Commonwealth Court applied Mathews v. Eldridge balancing and emphasized reputational and employment harms from Registry disclosure.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Commonwealth Court erred by imposing a clear-and-convincing standard when the CPSL defines an indicated report by a substantial-evidence threshold.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the legislatively prescribed "substantial evidence" standard governs expungement hearings and that imposing clear-and-convincing was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof required to maintain an indicated report on the ChildLine Registry at an expungement hearing | G.V.: due process and reputational harms require clear and convincing proof to avoid stigma and employment consequences | DPW: CPSL defines "indicated" by substantial evidence and limits disclosure; protecting children outweighs the accused's reputation interest | The Court held the CPSL's substantial evidence standard applies; Commonwealth Court erred imposing clear and convincing proof |
| Protected interest and Mathews balancing | G.V.: reputation and employment are constitutionally protected; Mathews factors favor heightened protection | DPW: statutory confidentiality and limited dissemination reduce stigma and risk of erroneous deprivation | Court found reputation is protected but concluded statutory disclosure limits and governmental interest in child protection support using the statutory substantial-evidence standard |
| Whether Commonwealth Court’s prediction of unauthorized disclosure justified raising the standard | G.V.: actual use creates a substantial risk of wider disclosure to employers and groups | DPW: such speculation overstates dissemination controls in the statute and understates protections | Court held Commonwealth Court improperly speculated about dissemination and overstated risk, undermining its Mathews analysis |
| Statutory construction: conflict between creating an indicated report and post-entry expungement standard | G.V.: silence in §6341(c) allows judicial supplementation to protect reputation | DPW: §6303 defines "indicated" by substantial evidence so §6341(c) must be read consistent with that standard | Court and concurring opinion concluded §6341(c) should be read with §6303; requiring clear and convincing would create inconsistency and anomalous results |
Key Cases Cited
- R. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 636 A.2d 142 (Pa. 1994) (treated dissemination limits and applied Mathews balancing in a child-abuse expungement context)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for due-process procedural-balancing analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear-and-convincing standard required in certain state proceedings that cause stigma)
- P.R. v. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 801 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (describing CPSL purposes and limits on disclosure from the ChildLine Registry)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 935 A.2d 865 (Pa. 2007) (definition of clear and convincing evidence in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 838 A.2d 710 (Pa. 2003) (discussing when clear-and-convincing is required in state proceedings)