Support Center for Child Advocates as G.A.L. for the Minor Child H.M. and H.M., the Minor Child v. DHS
189 A.3d 497
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2018Background
- The Support Center for Child Advocates (as guardian ad litem for minor H.M.) sought formal party status in an administrative expunction appeal concerning H.M.’s father, J.C., who is an indicated perpetrator on the ChildLine registry for alleged sexual abuse of H.M.
- H.M.’s G.A.L. requested acknowledgement of party status under the BHA’s Standing Practice Order (which lists a G.A.L. as a potential party); the ALJ issued a Rule to Show Cause and, after no opposition was filed, denied the G.A.L.’s Motion to Acknowledge Party Status.
- The ALJ treated the request as a petition to intervene under 1 Pa. Code § 35.28 and concluded the G.A.L. did not satisfy intervention criteria (not adequately affected or inadequately represented by existing parties).
- The G.A.L. appealed, arguing the denial was immediately appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 and that BHA misapplied its SPO by excluding the G.A.L. from party status.
- The Commonwealth Court considered (1) whether the order denying party/intervenor status was an appealable collateral order, and (2) whether the ALJ erred in denying party/intervenor status; it affirmed the BHA order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GAL) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ’s order denying party/intervenor status is an appealable collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 | Denial is separable from merits, the right to party status is too important to deny review, and the right would be irreparably lost if review were postponed | DHS concedes separability but disputes importance and irreparable-loss prongs; argues H.M.’s interests are represented by DHS | The court held the order satisfied all three Rule 313 prongs and is an appealable collateral order as of right |
| Whether the G.A.L. was entitled to party status or to intervene under 1 Pa. Code § 35.28 and BHA’s SPO | SPO expressly lists a child’s G.A.L. as a potential party; the G.A.L. had filed a writing requesting party status and thus should be recognized | J.C. is the party directly connected to the expunction outcome; DHS represents the child’s interests and § 35.28 intervention criteria are not met | The court held BHA did not err: the expunction appeal concerns whether J.C. should remain on the ChildLine Registry; H.M.’s interests are aligned with DHS, so the G.A.L. did not qualify to intervene or require separate party status under § 35.28 or SPO |
Key Cases Cited
- K.C. v. L.A., 128 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2015) (sets collateral-order analysis applied to intervention denials)
- Commonwealth v. Blystone, 119 A.3d 306 (Pa. 2015) (separability standard for collateral orders)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 86 A.3d 771 (Pa. 2014) (importance prong discussion for collateral-order doctrine)
- In re Barnes Foundation, 871 A.2d 792 (Pa. 2005) (denial of intervention can foreclose later appeal and must be timely appealed)
- G.V. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 91 A.3d 667 (Pa. 2014) (describing nature/consequences of an indicated child-abuse report)
- Dauphin Cty. Social Support Servs. for Children & Youth Servs. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 543 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (administrative hearings protect children’s interests; DHS’s role in expunction proceedings)