94 A.3d 1095
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- 2003 CYS indicated report naming J.M. as perpetrator of abuse.
- 2004 dependency adjudication found E.W. abused and J.M. as perpetrator; report changed to founded.
- 2004 DPW notified J.M. of the founded status; J.M. sought expunction later under mistaken belief of indicated status.
- 2012 J.M. again sought expunction and requested a hearing; BHA issued Rule to Show Cause.
- 2013 BHA dismissed the appeal as impermissible collateral attack; J.M. challenged due process and expunction.
- Court vacates BHA’s order and remands to determine whether J.M. had reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard in the underlying dependency proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.M. was afforded due process in the underlying dependency proceeding | J.M. lacked notice and absent presence/hearing | Record shows some representation and oath taken at the dependency proceeding | Entitled to an administrative hearing to evaluate due process not satisfied by record |
| Whether BHA erred by dismissing the appeal without determining due process viability | Appeal is necessary to address due process violation in underlying proceedings | Dismissal proper if collateral attack on adjudication | Vacated and remanded for hearing on notice and opportunity to be heard; if due process denied, underlying adjudication cannot support founded report |
| Whether good cause arguments can sustain expunction without collaterally attacking the underlying adjudication | Good cause warrants expunction despite underlying findings | Expunction arguments would impermissibly relitigate underlying facts | Dependent on due process; if due process satisfied, good cause argument comes as collateral attack and is rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- J.G. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 795 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (founded report constitutes an adjudication; due process requires hearing)
- K.R. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 950 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (collateral attack concerns when underlying dependency findings foreclose separate hearing)
- R.F. v. Department of Public Welfare, 801 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (permitted appeal related to the nature of plea and underpinning findings; not collateral attack)
- C.S. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 972 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (substantial evidence approach when underlying dependency supports findings)