"Indicated"
report of abuse by admin. agency was changed to "founded" after a court
dependency hearing in which child was found to have been abused by stepfather,
appellant here. Stepfather appealed the
administrative decision but not the court decision, as to which he claimed that
he had not received notice. Held: hearing was necessary to deteermination
whether stepfather had notice of the dependency hearing.
DPW
may rely on the factual findings of the trial court in a dependency
adjudication to dismiss an appeal for a request for expungement” of a founded
report. K.R. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 950 A.2d 1069, 1078 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2008); see also C.S. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 972 A.2d 1254, 1263-64
(Pa. Cmwlth.) (holding, in case wherein petitioner was never specifically named
as perpetrator of abuse in underlying dependency proceeding, that “a separate
administrative hearing before BHA is not necessary if there is substantial
evidence to support the findings made in the dependency proceeding that the
appellant was the perpetrator of the abuse of the minor” (emphasis omitted)), appeal
denied, 987 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2009)
However,
a founded report of child abuse constitutes an “adjudication” under the AAL,
and pursuant to the AAL, “[n]o adjudication of a Commonwealth agency shall be
valid as to any party unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of a
hearing and an opportunity to be heard.” J.G., 795 A.2d at 1092 (quoting
2 Pa. C.S. § 504). Because it is unclear whether J.M. was afforded these due
process protections in the underlying dependency proceeding before the trial
court, we conclude that BHA erred in denying J.M.’s appeal without a hearing. See, J.G. v. Department of Public Welfare,
795 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), and K.R. v. Department of Public Welfare,
950 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
The
court vacated DPW’s order and remand the matter for a hearing on the limited
issue of whether stepfather had
reasonable notice of the dependency hearing and an opportunity to be heard in
that proceeding. If stepfather was not
provided with these due process protections, then the underlying dependency
adjudication cannot serve as the basis for the founded report.
The
stepfather's due process argument held not to be a collateral attack on the underlying
dependency adjudication. Similar to the reasoning in R.F., the issue
here is whether the underlying dependency adjudication is one upon which a
founded report can be based. That is, his argument in this regard is not a
challenge to the underlying dependency adjudication itself, but is instead a
challenge to the use of that adjudication as support for a founded report
absent due process. Nevertheless, if due process concerns are satisfied, then his
second argument on appeal, relating to good cause, would constitute an
impermissible collateral attack on the underlying dependency adjudication.
If stepfather
was afforded reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the underlying
dependency proceeding, but did not take advantage of that opportunity, then he
would not be entitled to a hearing before BHA.
