R.J.W. v. Department of Human Services
139 A.3d 270
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Oct. 2011 Washington County CYS filed an "indicated" child-abuse report naming R.J.W. as perpetrator of sexual abuse against his then-4/5‑year‑old daughter (L.F.).
- CYS's investigation relied principally on the child’s statements, a SANE nurse’s physical exam (child pushed examiner away and said “Don’t touch me there like Daddy does”), mother’s observations (redness, spontaneous disclosure, bed‑wetting, nightmares), a forensic interview, and therapy records.
- The ALJ held three hearing days; the child testified live and was found competent and credible; the ALJ credited Mother, the SANE nurse, and the therapist, but discredited R.J.W.’s testimony and character witnesses.
- The CAC had an audio‑video recording of the forensic interview that neither CYS nor the defense reviewed; CYS did not introduce the recording and the ALJ admitted the interviewer’s testimony about the interview over defense objection.
- After criminal proceedings (nolo contendere plea to endangering a child) CYS temporarily changed the registry entry from “indicated” to “founded” and then back to “indicated”; by agreement the ALJ decided the matter on the original record.
- The BHA and Department adopted the ALJ’s findings; Commonwealth Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, admission of the forensic‑interviewer testimony without the tape, and the registry amendment process.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (R.J.W.) Argument | Respondent (DHS/CYS) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYS met its burden to maintain the "indicated" report (substantial evidence/weighing dynamic) | ALJ failed to perform the required statutory "weighing dynamic," ignored or failed to analyze defense evidence and thus the indicated report is not supported by substantial evidence | ALJ evaluated credibility and demeanor, credited the child and corroborating witnesses; a child’s live testimony alone can constitute substantial evidence | Court held evidence (child’s live testimony plus corroboration) outweighed inconsistent evidence; affirmed indicated finding |
| Whether excluding/withholding the CAC videotape of the forensic interview violated due process and required exclusion/remand | Withholding the videotape prejudiced defense (precluded expert review); ALJ erred by allowing interviewer to testify about the interview without the recording | Videotape was not in CYS possession; interviewer testified and was subject to cross‑examination; ALJ gave the interview little weight and principally relied on live testimony and corroboration | Court held no due‑process violation requiring remand: exclusion of interview testimony would not have changed result because live, credited testimony and corroboration supported the finding |
| Whether CYS/ALJ improperly amended status from "indicated" → "founded" → "indicated" and then adjudicated on prior record | ALJ lacked authority to permit substantive use of the earlier "indicated" record after amendments; process was improper | Parties agreed the ALJ could decide the appeal on the original record; CYS conceded insufficiency for "founded" status and the ALJ adjudicated by agreement | Court held the issue waived because petitioner agreed below to proceed on the original record; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- G.V. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 91 A.3d 667 (Pa. 2014) (adopted statutory "substantial evidence" standard for CPS registry adjudications)
- A.Y. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 641 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 1994) (limits on admissibility of unrecorded child hearsay; recorded interviews needed to validate uncorroborated hearsay)
- In re E.A., 82 A.3d 370 (Pa. 2013) (hearsay testimony plus corroboration can constitute substantial evidence)
- A.P. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 98 A.3d 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (statutory "weighing dynamic" requires factfinder to explain credibility determinations and address conflicting evidence)
- D.T. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 873 A.2d 850 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (a victim’s testimony alone can constitute substantial evidence)
- G.S. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 521 A.2d 87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (same principle on sustaining indicated reports)
- DePaolo v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 865 A.2d 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (ALJ discretion to accept/reject testimony; credibility findings are for the factfinder)
- A.O. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 838 A.2d 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (burden on county agency to prove accuracy of an indicated report)