Title: In re THE FAIR HEARING REQUEST OF RM

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

In re THE FAIR HEARING REQUEST OF RM1998 WY 18953 P.2d 477Case Number: C-97-2Decided: 02/20/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

In 
the Matter of the Fair Hearing Request of RM and SM, Appellants

(Petitioners),

v.

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, 
Appellee (Respondent).

                                

Appeal from the District Court, 
Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

    

     Wendy S. Owens, of 
Counsel, Brooks, Henley & Drell, P.C., Casper, for 
Appellants.

      William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Rowena Heckert, 
Senior Assistant Attorney General; Claudia S. Angelos, Assistant Attorney 
General (argued), for Appellee.

 

     Before TAYLOR, 
C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

 

     GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 [¶1]           RM and SM, the parents 
of the child GM, appeal from the judgment of the district court, which denied 
their petition for writ of mandamus and affirmed the Wyoming Department of 
Family Services' (Department) decision that RM and SM subjected the child, GM, 
to physical and emotional abuse. The parents also

appeal from the district 
court's denial of their motion for reconsideration.

 

[¶2]           We affirm the district 
court's decisions.

 

                                
ISSUES

 

[¶3]           Appellants, RM and SM, 
present the following arguments:

 

1. The actions of the Department of Family Services 
in substantiating claims of abuse were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 
discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law and were unsupported by 
substantial evidence.

 

2. 
The actions of the Wyoming Department of Family Services in rejecting the 
Recommended Decision of the Hearing Examiner were arbitrary, capricious, an 
abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with 
law.

 

3. The District Court should not have denied 
Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration.

 

[¶4]           Appellee, State of 
Wyoming, Department of Family Services, presents its own arguments and issues 
thusly:

 

I. The actions of the Department of Family Services 
in substantiating claims of abuse were in accordance with law and supported by 
substantial evidence.

 

A. What is the standard of review applied on review 
of an administrative decision? Which party bears the burden of 
proof?

 

B. Was there substantial evidence in the record to 
support the determination that Appellants subjected the child to physical 
abuse?

 

C. Was there substantial evidence in the record to 
support the determination that Appellants subjected the child to emotional 
abuse?

 

II. The action of the Wyoming Department of Family 
Services in rejecting the Recommended Decision of the Hearing Examiner was in 
accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence.

 

A. Under what conditions may the final decision maker 
modify the conclusions recommended by the Hearing Officer?

 

     III. The District 
Court correctly denied the Appellants' Motion for 
Reconsideration.

 

                                 
FACTS

 

[¶5]           On February 27, 1996, 
the Department of Family Services1 received a report that GM was 
abused. RM and SM were notified of the allegations against    them. The Agency investigated 
the allegations by contacting the victim, SM, RM, three "school personnel," the 
school nurse, and GM's grandmother. The Agency's findings, based on its 
investigation, were:

 

Physical Abuse substantiated because of documented 
injuries caused by discipline (push ups) and evidence of injury/potential injury 
to hands from dishwashing.

 

Emotional Abuse substantiated by documentation of 
child's behaviors, repeated counseling referrals, and parental 
refusals.

 

The Agency's social worker then listed the following 
as his observations and recommendations (emphasis in 
original):

 

       This child 
MUST be out of home before [SM] kills him!!!

 

       If she 
transfers behaviors to other children, they will be at high 
risk.

 

The report indicates that SM 
was interviewed twice, once with RM present, on February 29, 1996, and again, 
alone, on March 8, 1996. RM and SM were notified that the abuse allegations were 
substantiated. Specifically, the Agency found that physical abuse injuries were 
inflicted as a result of discipline; emotional abuse existed in the form of 
psychopathology in the child; family counseling was refused by the parents 
several times; and a case plan and services were needed.

 

[¶6]           The Agency performed a 
risk assessment to determine the safety, or lack thereof, for GM and determined 
GM was at high risk. RM and SM requested a hearing as a result of the 
substantiated finding of physical and emotional abuse and the "high risk" 
rating. At the hearing, the hearing examiner received evidence of other 
incidents of alleged abuse, one incident of abuse was substantiated, and the 
other was not. However, as a result of the investigation on the unsubstantiated 
abuse, the Department suggested family counseling. Apparently that request was 
refused by the parents. The hearing examiner also heard evidence that GM had 
bruises on his head because he was angry about having to do push-ups and he 
slammed his head into a candle which the parents placed on the floor, that GM's 
hands were red and roughlooking from doing dishes for long periods of time, that 
GM had a gash on the back of his left hand as a result of being hit with a 
spatula wielded by SM, and expert testimony that the parents' other actions, 
including failure to use positive reinforcement and almost total reliance on 
negative reinforcement, constituted emotional abuse.

 

 [¶7]         The hearing examiner then 
determined that these facts would not lead a reasonable person to believe GM was 
abused. He based this decision on the fact that the gash was not seen by a 
doctor, and the gash and the other physical signs of abuse were minor, therefore 
not sufficient to substantiate physical or emotional abuse. The hearing examiner 
also determined that the diagnostic criteria for emotional abuse include "severe 
psychopathology."  Since severe 
psychopathology was not diagnosed, apparently the hearing examiner determined 
there was no emotional abuse.  
Finally, the hearing examiner determined that although SM had refused 
family counseling on one or more occasions, she was in counseling when the 
hearing was held. The hearing examiner went on to conclude that he did not 
believe the persons who said GM's behavior was markedly improved since he was 
removed from the home and that he did not believe the expert who testified that 
GM was emotionally abused.

 

[¶8]           The hearing examiner 
included the following pertinent portions of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Child Protective Services, Department of Family Services, in his recommended 
decision:

 

a. Physical Abuse: Deliberate physical injuries 
inflicted by parents, caretaker, or babysitter, or physical injuries 
resulting from indifference, negligence or improper supervision, also called 
non-accidental trauma. These could be rated as mild (a few bruises, welts, 
scratches, cuts, scars), moderate 
(numerous bruises, minor burns, a single fracture), or severe (major burns, 
central nervous system injury, abdominal injury, multiple fractures, or any 
life-threatening abuse). In its extreme, the result is death. Often the injury 
stems from an angry attempt to punish the child for misbehavior. Sometimes it is 
an uncontrolled lashing out at a child who happens to be in the way when some 
unrelated crises [sic] is occurring.  
Hitting a child with a closed fist or kicking a child is physical abuse. 
Use of an instrument to strike a child may be abusive. Rough handling, spanking, 
yanking, or pushing are not always physical abuse . . . Chapter I, Section 
4(a)(i).

 

b. Emotional Abuse: The continual scapegoating and 
rejection of a child resulting in behavior indicative of pathologically 
disturbed emotional adjustment or behavior. Severe verbal abuse and beating can 
be present. Conversely and just as 
significant is the near to complete absence of appropriate loving, touching, 
holding and reassuring verbal behavior necessary for emotional health. . . . The 
diagnostic criteria of emotional abuse 
are:

 

(A) 
Severe psychopathology in the child is diagnosed as a result of required 
medical, psychological, psychiatric, social work or other data resulting in the 
differential diagnosis.

 

(B) 
Treatment offered or recommended for the child on at least two occasions, but 
not acted on.

 

(C) 
Treatment refused by the parents at least once.  (Chapter I, Section 
4[(a)](vii)).

 

c. "Credible Evidence" means that the available facts 
when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances would cause a reasonable 
person to believe that a child was abused or neglected. In mild cases, 
determination of abuse or neglect may hinge upon the objective degree of risk at 
which the child's well-being was placed, in addition to whether the trauma 
constituted an isolated incident or part of a pattern. (Chapter I, Section 
4(k)).

 

d. "Substantiated Report" means any report of child 
abuse or neglect made to the Department for which it is determined, after an 
investigation, that credible evidence of the alleged abuse or neglect 
exists.

            (Chapter I, 
Section 4(x)).

 

e. "Unsubstantiated Report" means any report of child 
abuse or neglect for which it is determined, after an investigation, that no 
credible evidence of the alleged abuse or neglect exists. (Chapter I, Section 
4(z)).

 

The hearing examiner then 
concluded that there was "a lack of `credible evidence' to support the 
substantiation of abuse, and the substantiation should be reversed and set 
aside."

 

[¶9]           When the Department 
entered its Final Decision on the matter, however, the Director of the 
Department determined that GM was punished in an unreasonable and excessive 
manner, that "the degree of discipline appears beyond the level of 
reasonableness for a nine year old child," and that "[t]he incidents 
collectively form a pattern of abusive behavior posing a high risk to [GM]." The 
Department also determined that GM exhibited "severe psychopathology," the 
parents had refused family counseling more than once, and the parents' 
continuing pattern of using strictly negative reinforcement with the child 
constituted emotional abuse. The Department concluded that the substantiation of 
physical and emotional abuse was supported by a preponderance of reliable, 
probative and credible evidence.

 

[¶10]        RM and SM petitioned 
the district court for a writ of review and mandamus, asking the court to compel 
the Department to adopt the hearing examiner's recommended decision. RM and SM 
then petitioned the district court for judicial review of the Department's 
action in accordance with WYO. R.APP. P. 12.  Following briefing by the parties, the 
district court filed a decision letter on December 30, 1996, which found that 
the Department's action was "not contrary to the law and is supported by 
substantial evidence." The district court filed its judgment on January 21, 
1997, and determined that the petitioners did not pursue their petition for a 
writ of mandamus and denied the same.  
Finally, the court affirmed the Department's decision that RM and SM 
subjected GM to physical and emotional abuse at the high risk level in all 
respects.

 

[¶11]        RM and SM then filed a 
motion for reconsideration with the district court on January 27, 1997. The 
parents stated that newly discovered evidence had come to light subsequent to 
the hearing before the hearing examiner which was material to the issues 
presented. The parents asked that the Department's final order be reversed and 
the matter be remanded to the hearing examiner for the taking of additional 
evidence. The motion stated that GM admitted to lying about various allegations 
against his parents and that he recanted his    statements in November and 
December of 1996. The district court filed its order denying the motion for 
reconsideration on January 31, 1997. This appeal followed.

 

                        
      DISCUSSION

 

   
Standard of Review

 

 [¶12]      When reviewing agency 
decisions, we must hold unlawful and set aside agency actions which are 
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance 
with the law, contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory 
jurisdiction or authority, without observance of procedure required by law, or 
unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an 
agency hearing provided by statute. WYO. STAT. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (1997). An 
aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the district court 
under the administrative procedure act by appeal to the supreme court. WYO. 
STAT. § 16-3-115 (1997). In such a case, the supreme court reviews the agency 
action as if the appeal came directly to the supreme court from the agency and 
does not give deference to the district court's decision. Reaves v. Riley, 782 P.2d 1136, 1137 (Wyo. 1989).

 

[¶13]        The parents argue that 
the Department's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was 
contrary to law. We have defined substantial evidence as relevant evidence which 
a reasonable mind might accept in support of the conclusions of the agency. 
Butts v. Wyo. State Bd. of Architects, 911 P.2d 1062, 1065 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting 
Devous v. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408, 414 (Wyo. 1993)). We review 
the entire record to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the 
agency's findings. Id. The party challenging the sufficiency of the evidence has 
the burden of demonstrating the decision of the agency is not supported by 
substantial evidence. Id. If the decision is supported by substantial evidence, 
it should only be reversed for errors of law. Id. If the agency committed an 
error of law, this Court corrects that error. Id.

 

   
The Department's Final Decision

 

[¶14]        In JM v. Department of 
Family Services, 922 P.2d 219, 224 (Wyo. 1996), we held that the Department 
acted contrary to law when it limited the issues for resolution in a contested 
case hearing, when it determined the substantial evidence standard applied in 
the contested case hearing, and when it placed the burden of proof on the person 
contesting the Department's substantiation of child abuse charges. Although RM 
and SM claim the Department made the same mistakes here, we do not 
agree.

 

[¶15]        It is clear from the 
record of the contested case hearing that the hearing was held in accordance 
with our holding in JM. The issues were not limited, the Department assumed the 
burden of proof and the preponderance of the evidence standard was applied.  Although the Department did not agree 
with the recommendation of the hearing examiner, the Department's final decision 
also conforms with the standards set out in JM. The Department held, after 
reviewing the entire record, that the abuse was substantiated because it found 
that the available facts, when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances, 
would cause a reasonable person to believe that the child was abused or 
neglected.

 

[¶16]        After reviewing the 
entire record and referring to the appropriate statutes and Department Rules, we 
agree with the district court that substantial evidence exists to support the 
Department's final order. See WYO. STAT. § 14-3-202(a)(xi) (1997) (an abuse 
report is deemed substantiated when the investigation reveals that credible 
evidence exists to support the allegations); Department of Family Services Div. 
of Youth Services, Child Protection Rules, Ch. I, § 4(k) (1995) ("`Credible 
evidence' means that the available facts when viewed in light of surrounding 
circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe that a child was abused 
or neglected. In mild cases, determination of abuse or neglect may hinge upon 
the objective degree of risk at which the child's well-being was placed, in 
addition to whether the trauma constituted an isolated incident or part of a 
pattern."); and WYO. STAT. § 14-3-202(a)(ii) (1997) (Abuse means inflicting or 
causing physical or mental injury, harm or imminent danger to the physical or 
mental health or welfare of a child other than by accidental means, including . 
. . excessive or unreasonable corporal punishment. . . . Mental injury means an 
injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of a child as 
evidenced by an observable or substantial impairment in his ability to function 
within a normal range of performance and behavior with due regard to his 
culture; and physical injury means death or any harm to a child including but 
not limited to disfigurement, impairment of any bodily organ, skin bruising, 
bleeding, burns, . . . .).

 

[¶17]        The parents complain that the Department 
improperly ignored the hearing officer's recommended decision and replaced it 
with its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. The director of the 
department has been given the responsibility to make the final decision in these 
cases by the legislature. WYO. STAT. §§ 9-2-2104 and 14-3-203 (1997). Although 
the legislature has provided for the use of hearing officers to take evidence in 
contested cases and to make recommended decisions, an agency cannot delegate the 
authority to make final decisions to an independent administrative hearing 
officer unless required by law. WYO. STAT. § 16-3-112 
(1997).

 

   
The Motion for Reconsideration

 

 [¶18]      After the district court 
entered its judgment, the parents filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to 
WYO. R.APP. P. 12.08. That rule provides, in pertinent 
part:

 

If, before the date set for hearing, application is 
made to the reviewing court for leave to present additional evidence, and it is 
shown to the satisfaction of the court the additional evidence is material, and 
good cause for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency 
existed, the reviewing court, in contested cases, shall order the additional 
evidence to be taken before the agency upon those conditions determined by the 
reviewing court. . . . Supplemental evidence may be taken by the reviewing court 
in cases involving fraud, or involving misconduct of some person engaged in 
the      administration of the 
law affecting the decision.

     . . 
.

 

[¶19]        First, the application 
was not presented before the date set for hearing; it was not presented until 
after the district court filed its decision letter and judgment. Therefore, the 
district court properly found the application to present additional evidence was 
not timely filed. Second, the district court did not find the additional 
evidence was material or that there was any fraud or misconduct involved. The 
child merely recanted his story. Considering the testimony and evidence 
presented in the record which did not involve the child's allegations, the 
recantation may very well have been immaterial. Although it was not appropriate 
to consider this evidence on a motion to reconsider, it may be relevant to any 
further proceedings involving the child and his parents under the child 
protection act.

 

                              
CONCLUSION

 

 [¶20]      The district court's 
judgment affirming all aspects of the Department of Family Services Final Order 
is affirmed.

 

     MACY, Justice, 
dissenting.

 

  [¶21] 
   I would reverse. This 
Court should not put its stamp of approval on the course of the proceedings in 
this case. It insults my sense of due process to allow an agency to investigate 
a complaint, prosecute the complaint through its counsel before a hearing 
examiner, and then make a final decision on the basis of its findings of fact 
which were contrary to the hearing examiner's findings. It is not only an 
appearance of impropriety which should not be tolerated, but it is also a 
violation of the constitutional right to due process.

 

[¶22]        I certainly understand 
the need for administrative law and the relaxation of rules of procedure as a 
matter of expediency, but the procedures which were followed in this case 
crossed the line to the point that a fundamental right was 
eradicated.

 

[¶23]        The hearing examiner's 
decision, as in worker's compensation contested cases, should have been the one 
subject to appeal, not that of an agency which was a party to the action. If 
such were the case in this instance, the hearing examiner's decision would have 
been affirmed in accordance with our appellate standards of 
review.

   

FOOTNOTES

    1 As in our recent case, JM v. 
Department of Family Services, 922 P.2d 219 (Wyo. 1996), the Department of 
Family Services had two different roles in this case. It was the investigating 
agency which substantiated the charges against the parents and acted as the 
responding party at the contested case hearing. It was also the decision-making 
body that issued the final decision from which the parents appealed to the 
district court. In order to avoid confusing the two separate roles which the 
Department of Family Services played in this case, we will refer to the 
Department of Family Services as "the Agency" when we are discussing its 
investigative activities and its position as a party at the contested case 
hearing. When we are discussing the entity which issued the final decision in 
this case, we will refer to the Department of Family Services as "the 
Department."