R.A. v. Department of Public Welfare
41 A.3d 131
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Father contesting expungement of indicated child-abuse report regarding his daughter, based on a New York videotaped interview of the child; Wyoming County relied on the New York interview and notes as the sole basis for alleging abuse; the interview was conducted by New York authorities and shown via DVD; the hearing admitted the NY DVD under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5986 and allowed it to substitute for live testimony; substantial evidence standard applied to determine abuse; the Bureau and reviewing court reversed the expungement denial due to lack of corroboration and due process concerns.
- Daughter, born January 25, 2005, lived with Mother in New York and visited Father in Pennsylvania; interview occurred in New York; Mother testified about the alleged incidents and the timing of events; Wyoming County did not interview Daughter or corroborate the NY interview with medical or other independent evidence; substantial evidence requirement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5986 applied; court ultimately held the NY interview alone insufficient to prove abuse.
- The in camera proceeding allowed questioning of the child outside the presence of the alleged perpetrator; the NY DVD was admitted in lieu of live testimony; substantial reliance on hearsay without corroboration led to due process concerns; the State failed to establish substantial evidence given lack of independent corroboration.
- Wyoming County failed to investigate or present corroborating medical or expert evidence; the hearsay evidence did not meet the substantial evidence standard for uncorroborated statements; the New York DVD should not have been relied upon as the sole basis for a finding of abuse.
- Court's ultimate holding was that substantial evidence did not support the finding of sexual abuse and reversed the Bureau's denial of expungement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and reliability of the NY DVD under § 5986 | Father argues NY interview is unreliable hearsay | Wyoming County relies on NY interview as substantial evidence | Not substantial evidence; admission defective and without corroboration |
| Sufficiency of uncorroborated hearsay to prove abuse | Daughter's statements, uncorroborated, cannot establish abuse | Hearsay plus some corroboration could suffice | Uncorroborated hearsay cannot establish abuse per A.Y. guidelines |
| Procedural due process in admitting NY DVD and availability of Daughter | Father denied chance to confront; interview used without direct testimony | Procedural rules satisfied by in camera hearing | Procedural error; ruling improper to admit NY DVD on basis of Hall's statements |
| Need for corroboration and alternative evidence | No corroboration offered; no medical/expert corroboration | Corroborative evidence not required if substantial evidence exists | Corroboration required; no independent evidence present |
| Impact on due process when to expunge indicated report | Expungement denied based on insufficient evidence | Indicated finding supported by evidence | Expungement reversed; no substantial evidence of abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- A.Y. v. Department of Public Welfare, 537 Pa. 116 (Pa. 1994) (hearsay of child victims admissible with safeguards; corroboration required for uncorroborated statements)
- A.Y. v. Department of Public Welfare (reversed), 641 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 1994) (guidelines for admissibility and substantial evidence in child-abuse expungement cases)
- D.P. v. Department of Public Welfare, 733 A.2d 661 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (limitations on using uncorroborated hearsay; role of corroboration)
- C.E. v. Department of Public Welfare, 917 A.2d 348 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (corroboration required; medical testimony used to corroborate child-victim statements)
- A.O. v. Department of Public Welfare, 838 A.2d 35 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (expert testimony and corroboration in abuse findings)
- Mortimore v. Department of Public Welfare, 697 A.2d 1031 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (medical/psychological corroboration cited in some investigations)
- F.R. v. Department of Public Welfare, 4 A.3d 779 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (expungement standards; use of hearsay in certain proceedings)