R.A. v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare
623 Pa. 146
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Child (E.A.), age four, made a recorded forensic interview alleging father sexually abused her; New York investigator conducted and recorded the interview, which was viewed by Broome County caseworker and forwarded to Wyoming County CYS.
- Wyoming County CYS filed an "indicated report" of child sexual abuse; father appealed to DPW Bureau of Hearings and Appeals seeking expunction; ALJ presided over a three-day administrative hearing and viewed the videotape.
- Father was pro se on first hearing day (when ALJ held in camera proceeding and ruled the videotape admissible subject to viewing) and had counsel on the second day when the tape was played and formally admitted; counsel said "no objection" at admission.
- ALJ found the videotaped interview (and mother’s testimony about a doll incident) credible, found father not credible, and denied expunction for lack of demonstrated insufficiency of substantial evidence.
- Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that uncorroborated out-of-court statements of a very young child were insufficient to support an indicated report and requiring corroboration; DPW and Wyoming CYS appealed.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court: father waived hearsay/admissibility objections, and under this Court’s precedent (A.Y.) the videotaped interview — alone or corroborated by mother’s testimony — provided the substantial evidence required to sustain the indicated report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of videotaped interview under hearsay exception (42 Pa.C.S. §5986) | Father argued the tape was inadmissible and statements were product of leading questions/coaching | DPW/CYS: §5986 applies; ALJ followed statutory/in‑camera procedures; interviewer trained in forensic techniques | Waived by father for failing to object before the ALJ; Court therefore did not decide merits of admissibility on appeal |
| Whether an uncorroborated recorded out‑of‑court statement of a child can constitute "substantial evidence" for an indicated report | Father: single recorded statement of a four‑year‑old (with inconsistencies/leading questions) cannot alone support indicated report; needs corroboration | DPW/CYS: A.Y. permits uncorroborated recorded statements to constitute substantial evidence if criteria met (accurate recording, identifies participants, not result of improper suggestion) | Under A.Y., the videotape met the uncorroborated‑hearsay criteria and could alone constitute substantial evidence; Court upheld ALJ credibility findings and affirmed substantial evidence |
| Whether additional corroboration (medical or investigative) is required for very young children | Father/Commonwealth Court: for very young children, corroboration is needed to find acts like intercourse/cunnilingus/digital penetration | DPW/CYS: Requiring medical/investigative corroboration conflicts with statutory definition of "indicated report" and A.Y.; many sexual‑abuse cases lack physical evidence | Rejected Commonwealth Court’s heightened corroboration rule; Court held A.Y. balancing governs and statutory standard does not require medical corroboration |
| Standard of review / deference to ALJ credibility findings | Father: ALJ erred in crediting videotape and mother over father; substantial‑evidence lacking | DPW/CYS: ALJ witnessed evidence, credited trained interviewers and mother, and found father not credible; appellate court should defer | Court applied administrative substantial‑evidence standard and deferred to ALJ credibility determinations; ALJ’s findings supported denial of expunction |
Key Cases Cited
- A.Y. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 641 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 1994) (sets guidelines for when a child’s out‑of‑court statement may be admitted and when uncorroborated recorded statements can constitute substantial evidence)
- P.R. v. Com., Dep’t of Public Welfare, 801 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (standard of review for administrative expungement proceedings — agency decision affirmed unless error of law, procedural defect, constitutional violation, or lack of substantial evidence)
- R. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 636 A.2d 142 (Pa. 1994) (due process considerations in expungement hearings; cross‑examination and procedures protecting accused’s rights)
- E.A. v. Com., Dep’t of Public Welfare, 41 A.3d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (Commonwealth Court decision reversing expungement denial; held corroboration required for very young child’s out‑of‑court sexual‑abuse statements)