Title: C.S. v. P.G. County Social Services

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 115
September Term, 1995
_____________________________________
C. S.
 
v.
  
  PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY
   DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
____________________________________
Murphy, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Chasanow
Karwacki
Bell
Raker,
JJ.
____________________________________
OPINION BY MURPHY, C.J.
____________________________________
       Filed:  July 31, 1996
In this case, we address the procedural mechanisms provided in
the Family Law Article applicable to those who have been accused of
abusing or neglecting a child.
I
A
Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl. Vol., 1995 Supp.) §§ 5-701 to
5-715 of the Family Law Article comprise Maryland's statutory
procedures for investigating, reporting, and detecting child abuse.
These provisions define who must report suspected child abuse and
when and how a report must be filed, §§ 5-704 and 5-705, the
procedures by which law enforcement and social services agencies
must conduct investigations of such reports, §§ 5-706, and the
procedures by which children endangered by child abuse can be
protected.  §§ 5-709 to 5-713.  The statute divides the
responsibilities of investigating and reporting on child abuse or
neglect among the State's Department of Human Resources (DHR), the
Social Services Administration (SSA) within the DHR, the local
departments 
of 
social 
services 
in 
each 
county 
("local
departments"), and law enforcement agencies.  The statute also
provides certain protections to a person suspected of child abuse,
by limiting the uses to which records and reports can be put and
providing certain procedures by which an alleged abuser can
challenge the conclusions drawn by an investigating social worker.
See §§ 5-706.1, 5-706.2, 5-707, 5-714(c), 5-715.
Upon receiving a report of child abuse, § 5-706(a) requires a
2
local department of social services or law enforcement agency to
"make a thorough investigation."  This investigation includes
examining and interviewing the child and his or her caretaker, and
requires the department to determine the nature and cause of the
abuse.  §§ 5-706(b) and (c).  Within 10 days after the suspected
abuse is first reported, the local department must report its
preliminary findings to the local State's Attorney, and it must
provide the State's Attorney with a complete written report of its
findings within 5 days of the investigation's completion.  §§ 5-
706(h) and (i).
The local department may make one of three findings when it
completes the investigation.  If the local department finds that
"there is credible evidence, which has not been satisfactorily
refuted, that abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse did occur," then it
must find that child abuse was "indicated."  § 5-701(k); see also
Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) 07.02.07.12(A)
(1996) (providing guidelines for determining when abuse is
"indicated"); COMAR 07.02.07.13(A) (providing guidelines for when
child neglect is "indicated").  If it finds that "abuse, neglect,
or sexual abuse did not occur," then the alleged child abuse has
been "ruled out."  § 5-701(t); see also COMAR 07.02.07.12(C) and
07.02.07.13(C).  Finally, if "there is an insufficient amount of
evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out," the local
department may find that the abuse was "unsubstantiated."  § 5-
701(v); see 
also 
COMAR 
07.02.07.12(B) 
and 
07.02.07.13(B).
     As codified, § 5-706.1(d) is ambiguous as to whether the
1
local department or the DHR must review the record.  Throughout the
subtitle, the local departments are consistently referred to as
"local department" and the DHR is referred to as the "Department."
Section 5-706.1(d), however, provides that "the department" shall
review the record.  The Department of Human Resources, in its
regulations, provides that this review will be performed by the
local department.  COMAR 07.02.26.08.  As we discuss below,
however, the DHR's regulations improperly apply § 706.1 on a number
of points.  See infra, section II.B.  It is possible that this
section was intended to refer to "the Department" but was codified
incorrectly.  § 5-706.1 was enacted by House Bill 617 (1993) and
became ch. 318, Laws of Maryland (1993).  Because § 706.1 comprised
new matter added to existing law, the statutory section was enacted
entirely in capital letters.  See ch. 318, Laws of Maryland at 1858
(1993); see also Laws of Maryland at 5 (1993) (describing
significance of various type-faces in 1993 legislative enactments).
Thus, the word "DEPARTMENT" could have been intended to be either
"department" or "Department."  In its Fiscal Note for House Bill
617, the General Assembly's Department of Fiscal Services assumed
that DHR would conduct the pre-hearing review of the local
department's report.  The Fiscal Note states that "[t]he Department
of Human Resources (DHR) is required to review records and reports
concerning a request for an administrative hearing and determine,
3
Following each investigation, the local department must determine
which of these three labels should be applied and document the
factors 
upon 
which 
it 
made 
its 
determination. 
 
COMAR
07.02.07.11(A).
After it completes its investigation, if it finds that the
abuse or neglect was indicated or unsubstantiated, the local
department must notify the person allegedly responsible for the
abuse or neglect of the department's finding and that the person
may request an administrative hearing to appeal the finding.  § 5-
706.1(a).  If an administrative hearing is requested, the local
department's records must be reviewed to determine whether its
finding should be modified or expunged.  § 5-706.1(d).   If the
1
prior to the hearing, whether an indicated or unsubstantiated
finding must be amended, modified, or expunged."  We do not resolve
this ambiguity at this time, but note its presence so that our
discussion in the text is not taken as a resolution of the issue.
4
finding is not changed to "ruled out" as a result of this review,
the department shall forward all of its reports and records to the
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), the agency that must
conduct the hearing.  § 5-706.2(b).
Section 5-706.2 defines the procedures under which this
hearing must be conducted.  For example, § 5-706.2(a) allows the
alleged abuser to request that the administrative law judge (ALJ)
conduct an in camera review of the full report or record to
determine its accuracy and sufficiency.  Section 5-706.2(c)
provides that after the ALJ determines that the information in the
report is "sufficient and accurate for purposes of determining an
issue in a proceeding," the ALJ may provide the full report or
record to the alleged abuser, so long as the ALJ takes measures to
protect the confidentiality of the persons who provided the
information to the local department.  The alleged abuser can submit
additional written information to the ALJ, and the ALJ must
determine the correctness of the local department's finding based
upon the department's report and this additional information.  §
706.2(d)(1).  If the ALJ determines that the finding is incorrect,
the ALJ must order the department to change the finding.  §
706.2(d)(2).  The hearing and administrative review mechanism
provided in §§ 706.1 and 706.2 is commonly referred to as a
5
"Chapter 318 hearing," in reference to the legislative act creating
§§ 706.1 and 706.2.
There are several different ways in which information relating
to child abuse is stored by the local departments of social
services and by the Social Services Administration.  First, each
local department is required to maintain a case record of all
investigations.  COMAR 07.02.07.15(A).  This paper record includes
the written report of the department's findings, copies of medical
records, pertinent letters, and any other documentation relating to
the investigation.  COMAR 07.02.07.15(B).  This record is expunged
within 120 days of the conclusion of the investigation if abuse or
neglect was ruled out and no further reports are received.  § 5-
707(b)(2); COMAR 07.02.07.18(B).  If the alleged abuse or neglect
was unsubstantiated, the reports must be expunged within 5 years if
no 
further 
reports 
are 
received. 
 
§ 
5-707(b)(1); 
COMAR
07.02.07.18(A).
In addition to the local department's report, "[t]he Social
Services Administration and each local department may maintain a
central registry of cases reported [under the child abuse
statute]."  § 5-714(a).  Information stored in such a central
registry is at the disposal of the protective services staff of the
SSA.  § 5-714(c)(1).  In addition, the protective services staffs
of the local departments and law enforcement personnel have access
to the central registry when they are investigating a report of
suspected abuse or neglect.  § 5-714(c)(2) and (3).
6
Certain protections are provided to persons suspected of abuse
or neglect in relation to central registries.  First, before a name
can be entered in a central registry, the alleged abuser is
entitled to notice.  § 5-715(b).  In addition, unless the person
has already been adjudicated a child abuser, such as in a criminal
proceeding, the alleged abuser may request an administrative
hearing "for the purpose of allowing the person to appeal the entry
of the person's name in the central registry."  § 5-715(c)(1).  No
person's name may be entered into the central registry unless that
person has been adjudicated to be a child abuser, or was given the
hearing provided for in § 5-715(c) and was unsuccessful, or failed
to request a hearing within 15 days of notification by the
department seeking to enter the alleged abuser's name in a central
registry.  § 5-715(d).  Once a person's name has been entered in a
central registry, it must be removed after seven years if no
further entries have been made for that person.  § 5-715(e).
In addition to the local department's paper records and state
and local central registries, information about suspected child
abusers is stored in an "automated master file" or "client
information system."  The automated master file (AMF) or client
information system (CIS) is defined in DHR's regulations as "the
automated electronic system that maintains data related to services
provided by a local department." COMAR 07.02.07.02(B)(3); COMAR
07.02.07.02(B)(9).  The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has
referred to the AMF as "a statewide, comprehensive database
     At least one court has disagreed with this contention and
2
found that the AMF is a central registry under Maryland law.  See
Hodge v. Carroll County Dep't of Social Services, 812 F. Supp. 593,
603 (D. Md. 1992) (finding that "any computerized database that
includes records of cases of suspected child abuse is a 'central
registry' under Maryland law."), rev'd on other grounds, Hodge v.
Jones, 31 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 581.
7
containing records of all cases, including those of suspected child
abuse, which are handled by local departments of social services."
Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Bill Analysis for House Bill
617, at 1 (1993).  No statutory provisions refer to the AMF by
name, and DHR has asserted that it is not a "central registry"
because it is not "designed solely to list the names of adjudicated
child abusers."  Id. at 2.2
B
On November 26, 1993, the Prince George's County Department of
Social Services (PGDSS) notified C.S. that it had conducted an
investigation and concluded that C.S. was responsible for an
incident of "indicated" abuse, and that it was entering C.S.'s name
on the central registry.  After C.S. requested a hearing, the PGDSS
reviewed its records and declined to modify its finding.  After the
file was transferred to the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH), an ALJ conducted an in camera review of the documents.  C.S.
was allowed to submit additional written information to support his
position that abuse was not "indicated," and oral argument was
presented before the ALJ.  The ALJ upheld the local department's
decision.
8
On July 25, 1994, C.S. filed with the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County a petition for judicial review and a motion to stay
the ALJ's order affirming the PGDSS.  The PGDSS moved to dismiss
the petition, arguing that judicial review was not provided for in
the statute and that the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) providing judicial review in some cases do not apply to
findings of indicated child abuse.  In an opinion and order filed
on January 26, 1995, the circuit court (Platt, J.) dismissed the
petition on the grounds that the PGDSS was not a state agency and
that the APA's provisions granting judicial review in contested
cases only apply to actions taken by state agencies.
C.S. filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals and at
the same time petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari.  We
granted certiorari before the Court of Special Appeals heard
arguments in this case.
C
C.S. contends that the circuit court was incorrect in
dismissing his petition and that he is entitled to judicial review
of the decision made by the ALJ.  First, C.S. notes that he seeks
review of the ALJ's order, which constitutes an action taken by the
OAH, a state agency.  C.S. argues that judicial review of the ALJ's
order is appropriate, because the dispute with the PGDSS is a
"contested case" within the meaning of the APA and that review is
therefore available under that statute.  C.S. also contends that
his rights to due process under the Maryland and federal
9
constitution will be violated if he is denied judicial review in a
case where the state seeks to label him as a child abuser.
The PGDSS concedes that the ALJ's order is an action of a
state agency, but contends that the circuit court's decision was
correct even if for the wrong reasons.  The PGDSS argues that the
legislature did not intend Chapter 318 proceedings to be contested
cases within the meaning of the APA, and that the APA therefore
provides C.S. with no grounds upon which to request judicial
review.  The PGDSS also asserts that C.S. has no due process right
to judicial review in this case.
After 
reviewing 
the 
relevant 
statutes, 
the 
relevant
legislative history, and the regulations promulgated under the
statutes, we find no need at this time to address whether an
alleged abuser can seek judicial review of a Chapter 318 hearing.
Instead, we conclude that §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2, which implement
Chapter 318 hearings, are only applicable to a review of the local
department's records.  Section 5-715 provides an alleged abuser
with a separate and independent right to an administrative hearing
before his or her name may be entered into a central registry.  We
further hold that the hearing under § 5-715 qualifies as a
"contested case" hearing under the APA, and that it was improper to
provide C.S. with only the limited hearing specified by Chapter
318.  For this reason, we vacate the circuit court's order and
remand this case to the circuit court.  We shall further direct the
circuit court to remand the case to the OAH in order for it to hold
10
a hearing in accordance with this opinion.
II
A
We have repeatedly stated that "[t]he cardinal rule of
statutory construction is to ascertain and carry out the true
intention of the legislature."  Condon v. State, 332 Md. 481, 491,
632 A.2d 753 (1993).  To discern the legislative intent, we must
consider the "general purpose, aim, or policy behind the statute."
Id.  While great weight is given to the plain meaning of the
statute's language, Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 308 Md. 69,
73, 517 A.2d 730 (1986), we examine this language in the context in
which it was adopted.  Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Mohler, 318 Md. 219,
225, 567 A.2d 929 (1990).  In this light, "[i]t is often necessary
to look at the development of a statute to discern legislative
intent that may not be as clear upon initial examination of the
current language of the statute."  Condon, supra, 332 Md. at 492
(citing Mohler, supra, 318 Md. at 225-27).  The statute before us
embodies thirty years of legislation, in which the legislature has
repeatedly balanced the need to report and investigate child abuse
with its desire to protect those who have been falsely accused.  It
is helpful, therefore, to review the history of those provisions
relating to the central registries, as well as those provisions
restricting the use of information relating to alleged abusers.
By ch. 743, Laws of Maryland (1963), the legislature adopted
Maryland Code (1957, 1964 Supp.) Art. 27, § 11A, criminalizing
     Two changes were made to this section between 1966 and 1973.
3
The legislature in 1968 changed the references to the departments
of welfare throughout the child-abuse statute into references to
departments of social services.  See ch. 702, § 1 Laws of Maryland
(1968).  In 1970, Art. 27, § 11A was moved to Art. 27, § 35A.  Ch.
500, Laws of Maryland (1970).
11
child abuse in Maryland and requiring physicians to report
suspected cases of child abuse to the police department.  The
Legislature amended § 11A in 1966 and expanded it to include
reporting to and investigations by local departments of welfare in
addition to criminal enforcement of the law.  As amended, the
statute provided guidelines for the state and local welfare
agencies to follow when investigating child abuse, and gave them
authority to take steps to remove the child from the home of an
abuser.  See ch. 221, Laws of Maryland (1966); Maryland Code (1957,
1967 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 11A.  As a part of this expanded role
of welfare agencies, the Legislature provided for a central
registry of child abuse cases:
The State Department of Welfare shall maintain a central
registry of cases reported under this Act, which data
shall be furnished by the respective local welfare boards
throughout the State of Maryland and this data shall be
at the disposal of public welfare, social agencies,
public health agencies, law enforcement agencies, as well
as licensed health practitioners and health and education
institutions licensed or regulated by the State of
Maryland.
Maryland Code (1957, 1967 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 11A(h).
The next significant alteration to this provision was made in
1973, when the Legislature enacted ch. 835.   That Act amended the
3
central registry provision, now codified as Art. 27, § 35A(i), to
     This enactment provided:
4
The Secretary of the Department of Human Resources shall
adopt rules and regulations necessary to protect the
rights of suspected child abusers.  The rules and
regulations shall include the following:
(1)  Notice to the suspected child abuser prior to
the entry of his name to the child abuse central
registry.
(2)  Upon request of the suspected child abuser, the
Department 
of 
Human 
Resources 
shall 
convene 
an
administrative hearing for the purpose of allowing the
suspected child abuser to appeal this entry.  This
administrative hearing shall be convened in the county of
the residence of the suspected child abuser.  This
paragraph does not apply to those who have been
adjudicated a child abuser.
(3)  The Department of Human Resources may not enter
into the child abuse central registry the name of any
person, unless that person has:
(a)  Been adjudicated a child abuser; or
(b)  Unsuccessfully appealed the entry of his
name in the child abuse central registry through
12
provide that "[t]he State Department of Social Services shall and
each local Department of Social Services may maintain a central
registry of cases."  No alterations were made by this Act to the
provision granting access to the central registry to the various
organizations and individuals quoted above.
When the legislature next addressed the central registry, it
enacted ch. 504, Laws of Maryland (1977), which added a new
subsection to Art. 27, § 35A; it provided procedures by which
alleged child abusers could attempt to clear their names before the
names could be entered on the central registries.  Originally
codified as Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol., 1978 Supp.) Art.
27, § 35A(j), the subsection provided three new protections for
those whose names were to be entered on the registry.   First, the
4
procedures established by the department and this Act; or
(c)  Failed to respond within 15 days to
notification by the Department of Human Resources of the
Department's intent to enter his name in the child abuse
central registry.
(4)  Upon the request of a suspected child abuser,
the Department of Human Resources shall remove the
suspected child abuser's name from the registry, if there
has been no entry made for that individual for seven
years prior to the date of this request.
     The legislative history does reflect the opinion of the
5
Prince George's County Department of Social Services, however.  In
a letter to the Chairman of the House of Delegates Judiciary
13
statute required the Department of Human Resources to enact
regulations to "protect the rights of suspected child abusers."  §
35A(j).  Second, it required the Department of Human Resources to
provide notice to the alleged abuser, and if requested by the
alleged abuser, to hold a hearing at which that person could appeal
the decision to enter his or her name on the registry.  § 35A(j)(1)
and (2).  The statute specifically forbade the DHR from putting a
person's name on the registry unless such an appeal was
unsuccessful or was not requested.  § 35A(j)(3).  Finally, if a
person's name was entered on the central registry, the entry would
be expunged from the registry after seven years if no further
entries were made for that individual and if the individual
requested the removal.  § 35A(j)(4).  Neither the bill nor its
legislative history reflect whether § 35A(j) was intended to apply
only to the central registry managed by the Department of Human
Resources, or whether it was intended to apply to the registries
managed by the local departments as well.5
Committee, Albert Northrop, the Chairman of PGDSS's Youth Action
Committee, stated that "[w]e are strongly in favor of House Bill
997 [enacted as ch. 504] because we feel it extends the necessary
protection to the person accused of abuse."
14
In 1981, the legislature shortened the list of individuals and
organizations who were eligible to use the information kept in the
central registry.  Ch. 770, Laws of Maryland (1981) amended Art.
27, § 35A to provide that the data in the central registry "shall
be at the disposal of protected services staff of the Social
Services Administration, protective services staff of the local
departments of social services who are investigating a report of
suspected child abuse, and law enforcement personnel who are
investigating a report of suspected child abuse."  This change
limited the uses to which the information in the central registry
could be put in two distinct ways.  First, even though law
enforcement personnel and the local departments of social services
still had access to the central registry, such access was now
expressly limited to instances where they were investigating a
report of suspected child abuse.  In addition, while licensed
health practitioners and health and education institutions had
previously been given access to the central registry, ch. 770
removed any reference to these individuals and organizations.
In 1984, Art. 27, § 35A was moved to the new Family Law
Article, and the provisions relating to the central registry were
codified as § 5-911 and § 5-912 of that Article.  Ch. 296, Laws of
Maryland (1984).  In 1987, the legislature combined the statutes
15
relating to child abuse and child neglect and recodified the
central registry provisions in their present location, §§ 5-714 and
5-715.  Ch. 635, Laws of Maryland (1987).  In both instances, no
substantive changes were made to these sections.
In 1991, the legislature provided additional protection to
persons who had been alleged to be abusers, but who had been
cleared following an investigation.  Ch. 461, Laws of Maryland
(1991) limited local departments' ability to retain files in cases
where abuse was "ruled out" by requiring the local departments to
expunge reports where abuse was ruled out within 120 days of the
report.  The previous version of § 5-707 had allowed the local
departments to retain such reports for up to five years.  The 1991
amendments to § 5-707 also added the requirement that local
departments expunge all assessments and investigative findings as
well as the reports.
The legislature added a new avenue of procedural protection in
1993 when it enacted ch. 318, Laws of Maryland (1993).  That bill
enacted §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2, the provisions allowing alleged
abusers to request administrative review of the findings made by a
local department.  The legislature was prompted to enact these
measures by the plight of David and Marsha Hodge, who were denied
any review by the DHS and local departments of records held by
those departments, even though it had been proven beyond any doubt
that no child abuse had occurred.  See Senate Judicial Proceedings
Committee, Floor Report for House Bill 617 (1993); see generally
16
Hodge v. Carroll County Dep't of Social Services, 812 F. Supp. 593,
594-600 (D. Md. 1992), rev'd, Hodge v. Jones, 31 F.3d 157 (4th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 581; Patrick J. Kiger, Abused By
the System, Baltimore Magazine, April 1993, at 49 (discussing in
detail the Hodges' circumstances and subsequent federal lawsuit).
The DHR and local departments asserted that their records were not
"central registries" and that no review was necessary.  Floor
Report for House Bill 617.  After a federal court ordered the
agencies to release their records to the Hodges, it was discovered
that the records incorrectly stated that sexual abuse was
indicated, even though no sexual abuse had ever been alleged and
any physical abuse had been ruled out.  Kiger, supra at 54-55.
The legislature sought to address this problem by establishing
"procedures to allow a person who has been accused of child abuse
or neglect access to reports and records concerning the alleged
abuse or neglect and allow[ing] the person to request an
administrative hearing."  Floor Report for House Bill 617, at 1.
In its report on House Bill 617, the Senate Judicial Proceedings
Committee stated that the legislature intended that the bill
provide a remedy in addition to the previously existing hearings
under § 5-715:
The bill is intended to more fully protect persons who
are wrongly accused of child abuse or neglect . . . by
creating another mechanism by which they can contest the
findings 
of 
investigations 
carried 
out 
by 
local
departments of social services.  This bill stands apart
from the notice and hearing provisions concerning central
registries, 
thereby 
giving 
persons 
a 
clear 
and
     Essentially identical language also appears in the Bill
6
Analysis.  Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Bill Analysis for
House Bill 617, at 2 (1993).
17
independent basis from which to contest findings of
investigations into alleged child abuse and neglect.
Floor Report for House Bill 617, at 2 (1993).6
In addition to creating a new hearing procedure, ch. 318 also
broadened the scope of § 5-715.  Ch. 318 replaced each reference to
"the" central registry in § 5-715 with a reference to "a" central
registry.  Following this amendment, § 5-715's right to a hearing
clearly applies to all central registries in Maryland, not one
single central registry.
Since 1993, only two minor changes have been made to the
relevant statutes.  In 1994, § 5-715 was amended to require the DHR
to automatically remove the name of a person suspected of abuse or
neglect after seven years.  The previous version of § 5-715
provided for removal after seven years only upon request of the
alleged abuser.  See ch. 281, Laws of Maryland (1994).  In 1995, §
5-706.1 was amended to insure that when a Chapter 318 hearing was
requested, and the child who was allegedly abused or neglected was
the subject of a Child In Need of Assistance petition, the Chapter
318 hearing would be postponed until after the CINA proceedings had
been concluded.  Ch. 570, Laws of Maryland (1995).
The amendments to Maryland's child abuse laws, and the
legislative history behind those amendments, evidence a deep
concern on the part of the legislature to give individuals alleged
18
to have committed child abuse or neglect an opportunity to clear
their name.  This history also demonstrates the legislature's
concern that before information relating to alleged child abuse can
be disseminated state-wide, that information must have been
demonstrated to be accurate either through adjudication or an
administrative hearing.  Clearly, §§ 5-701 to 5-715 grant broad
authority to social services and law enforcement agencies to
investigate and prosecute cases of child abuse and to prevent its
recurrence.  At the same time, the legislature has also shown that
this authority must be tempered to ensure that individuals are not
labelled as child abusers on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete
information.
B
The hearing procedures codified as §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2 are
implemented in the DHR's regulations at COMAR 07.02.26.  These
regulations provide a limited review of the local department's
documentation, to ensure the accuracy of the paper record.  They do
not provide for any type of hearing other than this limited
documentary review.  At the same time, COMAR 07.02.07.19 implements
the DHR's interpretation of §§ 5-714 and 5-715.  That regulation
provides that all appeals of an agency's decision to enter a
person's name on a central registry must be performed in accordance
with COMAR 07.02.26.  Thus, COMAR 07.02.07.19 limits hearings
granted under § 5-715 to the hearing procedures codified as § 5-
706.1 and 5-706.2.
19
We hold that COMAR 07.02.07.19 fails to properly implement the
legislative scheme because the Chapter 318 hearing was created by
the legislature as a new and independent means of review.  Thus,
Chapter 318 hearings were intended to supplement, rather than
replace, the pre-existing administrative review of an agency's
decision to enter a person's name on a central registry, available
under § 5-715.  This conclusion is mandated both by the language of
the statute and by the legislative history.
The language used in §§ 5-715 and 5-706.1 demonstrates that
two separate review processes have been created.  The two sections
contain duplicate provisions that would be unnecessary if they
referred to a single review process.  For example, both sections
specify where the hearing will be conducted.  See § 5-706.1(e); 5-
715(c)(2).  Also, while §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2 specify the
procedures by which the Chapter 318 hearing must be held in some
detail, § 5-715(d)(2) provides only that its hearing must be
conducted "under procedures established by the Department and this
section."
The evolution of the child abuse statutes and the legislative
history also support this conclusion.  Section 5-715 was enacted in
1977, sixteen years before the passage of §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2.
The legislature in 1977 obviously could not have intended to limit
hearings provided under § 5-715 to the procedures of §§ 5-706.1 and
5-706.2, since the 1977 Act contained no such provisions.  Unless
the legislature in 1993 intended Chapter 318 to supersede § 5-715's
20
pre-existing right to a hearing, the procedures of §§ 5-706.1 and
5-706.2 do not apply to § 5-715.
We have already described Chapter 318's legislative history,
which demonstrates that the 1993 enactment of §§ 5-706.1 and 5-
706.2 were not intended to affect the pre-existing hearings under
§ 5-715.  As stated in the floor report, Chapter 318 "creat[ed]
another mechanism by which [alleged abusers] can contest the
findings of investigations carried out by local departments of
social services" that "stands apart from the notice and hearing
provisions concerning central registries" and gives them a "clear
and independent basis from which to contest findings of
investigations into alleged child abuse and neglect."  Senate
Judicial Proceedings Committee, Floor Report for House Bill 617, at
2 (1993).  We conclude therefore, that the statute contains no
requirement that the procedures under § 5-715 be conducted in
accordance with §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2.
III
Having determined that the legislature did not intend for the
hearing provided in §§ 5-706.1 and 5-706.2 to supplant the hearing
required by § 5-715, we must determine the nature of the hearing to
which C.S. is entitled under § 5-715.  Here, we focus upon whether
§ 5-715 provides a "contested case" hearing as defined by
Maryland's Administrative Procedure Act, Maryland Code (1984, 1995
Repl. Vol.) §§ 10-201 through 10-217 of the State Government
Article.  We make this determination because "[u]nder the terms of
21
the APA, when a proceeding meets the definition of a 'contested
case,' the agency is required to provide certain trial type
procedures during the course of the proceeding."  Sugarloaf v.
Waste Disposal, 323 Md. 641, 651, 594 A.2d 1115 (1991).  Thus, if
§ 5-715 provides a contested case hearing, the DHR cannot limit a
hearing under that section to the procedures specified in §§ 5-
706.1 and 5-706.2.
Section 10-202(d)(1) of the APA defines a "contested case" to
include proceedings before an agency that determine "a right, duty,
statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by
statute or constitution to be determined only after an opportunity
for an agency hearing."  One of the key elements of a contested
case hearing is whether the entity conducting the hearing acts in
an adjudicatory capacity, i.e. by determining the facts of a case
and applying those facts to some legal standard in order to reach
a conclusion.  See Sugarloaf, supra, 323 Md. at 653 (finding that
where a hearing was merely "preliminary," it was not a contested
case hearing); Medical Waste v. Maryland Waste, 327 Md. 596, 612
A.2d 241 (finding that a hearing as to whether a permit should be
granted was adjudicatory rather than legislative) (1992).
The hearing provided by § 5-715 falls within the definition of
a contested case.  Section 5-715(c) provides the right to a
hearing, and § 5-715(d) provides that a person's name may not be
entered on a central registry unless their appeal at the hearing is
unsuccessful or the hearing is not requested.  The sole question at
     The statute provides an exception for cases where one has
7
already been adjudicated to have abused or neglected a child.
22
a hearing under § 5-715 must necessarily be whether the alleged
incident of abuse or neglect is correctly labelled as "indicated"
or "unsubstantiated."  In determining this issue, the ALJ must sift
between potentially conflicting information presented by the DHR
and the alleged abuser to determine whether there are sufficient
facts to meet the definitions of the two categories provided in §
5-701(k) and (v).  We conclude that the legislature has provided a
right not to have one's name on the central registry unless it is
determined in an administrative hearing that child abuse was
indicated or unsubstantiated.7
Since § 5-715 provides a right to a contested case hearing,
the DHR cannot limit a hearing under that section to the procedures
of a Chapter 318 hearing.  It is true that "the statute or
regulation which grants the right to a hearing may negate the fact
that the hearing is to be a 'contested case' or 'adjudicatory
hearing.'"  Sugarloaf, supra, 323 Md. at 653.  The statute
providing for the hearing, however, "should not be construed to
override the definition in the Administrative Procedure Act unless
[it] does so expressly or by clear implication."  Id. at 666 n.6.
We find no such implication in § 5-715.
It is true that § 5-715 requires that the hearings be held
"under procedures established by the Department and this section."
The mere fact, however, that the Department may establish some
     Because C.S. seeks review of PGDSS's decision to enter C.S.'s
8
name on a "central registry," we need not address the issues of
whether judicial review is available of a Chapter 318 hearing, or
whether such a hearing is a "contested case."  We similarly do not
address the question of whether records stored in the AMF are a
"central registry" within the meaning of § 5-714.
23
procedures relating to the hearing is not sufficient by itself to
override the APA's definition of a "contested case."  We therefore
hold that § 5-715 entitles C.S. to a contested case hearing before
the DHR or PGDSS can enter his name on a central registry created
under § 5-714.8
ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY VACATED; CASE
REMANDED 
TO 
THAT 
COURT 
WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO THE OFFICE
OF 
ADMINISTRATIVE 
HEARINGS 
FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION; COSTS TO ABIDE THE
RESULT.