McClanahan v. Washington County Department of Social Services
129 A.3d 293
Md.2015Background
- Mother (Lauren McClanahan) repeatedly took her young daughter (R.) to medical providers after R. reported abuse by her father; doctors observed vaginal redness/discharge but no conclusive signs of sexual abuse.
- Local Department of Social Services investigated and, after expert evaluations, found Mother responsible for indicated child abuse (mental injury) and placed her in DHR’s central registry; Mother appealed and requested a contested-case hearing.
- An ALJ credited child-welfare experts (Munson and Zuskin) who attributed R.’s diagnosed mental injuries to Mother’s conduct (suggestive statements, repeated allegations and medical exams) and affirmed a finding of indicated child abuse—mental injury.
- The Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the intermediate appellate court held that scienter (intent/recklessness) is not required for a finding of indicated child abuse—mental injury.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed: it held that, consistent with Taylor v. Harford County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., a finding of indicated child abuse (mental injury) requires proof of intent to harm or reckless disregard of the child’s welfare; the case was remanded for proceedings applying that standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McClanahan) | Defendant's Argument (DHR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a finding of "indicated" child abuse for mental injury may be imposed without scienter (intent or reckless disregard) | McClanahan: Taylor forecloses strict liability; statute and policy require scienter for inclusion on central registry to avoid chilling good‑faith reporting and parental protection efforts | DHR: FL §5‑701 and COMAR 07.02.07.12 contain no express scienter for mental injury; regulations permit listing without proving intent | Court: Reverse — scienter is required for mental‑injury findings; parent must have intended to harm or acted with reckless disregard; COMAR cannot be read to impose strict liability for mental injury because statute treats physical and mental injury identically and Taylor’s reasoning applies. |
| Remedy / Remaining issues (privilege, immunity, expert admissibility) | McClanahan raised privilege and statutory immunity and challenged experts | DHR relied on experts and challenged preservation | Court: Did not decide these issues (not reached); remanded to ALJ to apply intent/recklessness standard and make new factual findings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Harford Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 384 Md. 213, 862 A.2d 1026 (Md. 2004) (held scienter/reckless‑disregard relevant to ruling out physical child abuse and cautioned against a per se strict‑liability approach)
- Dep’t of Human Res., Balt. City Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Hayward, 426 Md. 638, 45 A.3d 224 (Md. 2012) (agency regulations must be consistent with statutory scheme; court refused to enforce regulation that conflicted with Family Law Article)
- Cosby v. Dep’t of Human Res., 425 Md. 629, 42 A.3d 596 (Md. 2012) (standard of appellate review for agency contested cases and deference principles)