J.F. v. DHS - Cmwlth. Court - 10-1-24 - reported case
Held: There was no due process violation by adjudication that was months past the statutory deadline or 45 days in 23 Ps. S.S. 6341(c.3). The requirement of a prompt decision was held to be directory rather than mandatory.
Of particular note: The alleged abuser did not challenge the substantive findings, but rather asked the court to vacate the decision "based solely on the delay in the issuance of the" admin. order. Also, the petitioner got adequate notice of the hearing and had an adequate opportunity to be heard and defend himself.
Due process balancing - private interest not compelling
Even though the constitutional right to reputation was implicated, Article I, sec. 1, of the state constitution, it was not compelling in this instance since only a "limited number of people in a limited set of circumstances" would have access to the information
Due process - value of additional safeguards limited -
"This [C]ourt has consistently held that provisions which impose time limitations on procedures before adjudicative tribunals are directory, rather than mandatory, even when phrased in mandatory language[.]" Winston v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 675 A.2d 372, 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (listing cases). Where an administrative agency fails to act within a specified time period, the Court reviews a number of other factors to determine whether the failure to comply with the time period merits relief, including the prejudice suffered by the parties, the penalties specified for failure to comply with the specified time period, and the intent of the law to which the time period applies. See J.L. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 575 A.2d 643, 646-47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990).
Due process - The state interest involved was strong - protection of children from abuse.
