Opinion ID: 2632272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony of Unsubstantiated Allegations

Text: Winston contends the presiding officer erroneously admitted and considered evidence of events other than the event that allegedly occurred on the weekend of August 23, 1998, in affirming the substantiation and validation of Winston for the emotional and physical abuse of D.W. Winston relies upon Section 2324 of the PPM in making this claim. Section 2324 provides: To validate an adult for inclusion in the child abuse and neglect central registry, the person must: (A) Have been substantiated as a perpetrator using the preponderance of the evidence standard, `more likely than not'; (B) Have committed one of more of the following qualifying acts: Any non-accidental or intentional act or failure to act toward a child which: .... 4. Results in serious or permanent impairment of the child's emotional, intellectual or social development or functioning. 5. Results in the child experiencing terror or intense dread. .... 8. Would likely have resulted in any of the outcomes in `1' through `7' above except discovery or intervention or accidental circumstances intervened. 9. Exhibits a pattern of continuing, repeated, or progressively more severe abuse or neglect. For purposes of determining whether a pattern exists, prior substantiations may include substantiation by Kansas or any other state, federal enclave or Native American tribe or association using the standards of that state or entity. Verified evidence of a prior conviction of a crime against a child may be counted as a prior substantiation of child abuse or neglect. .... (C) Have been given notice of the department's decision to validate the person for the purpose of placing their name in the child abuse and neglect central registry, and the perpetrator has not timely appealed the decision, OR the perpetrator has appealed the decision and was not sustained by the highest level to which the decision was appealed. Winston argues that Section 2324 limits SRS to considering only prior convictions and prior substantiations as being competent evidence in establishing a pattern of abuse. He contends that in order to protect the accused from allegations that are not supported by substantial evidence, other allegations are not allowed to be considered. This claim is grounded upon the theory that it was arbitrary and capricious for the presiding officer to admit and rely upon these unsubstantiated allegations, a ground for relief under K.S.A. 77-621(c)(8). SRS asserts that it is not precluded from using evidence that is obtained during the investigation of an alleged incident of abuse in determining whether there is evidence to support substantiation. As SRS points out, if Winston's argument were adopted, SRS would be required to ignore any evidence discovered during the investigation that related to prior unsubstantiated or even unreported allegations of abuse. This would be an illogical result. Section 2324 of the PPM does not prohibit SRS from using things discovered during investigation of a specific incident. Winston had access to SRS investigative files. Sarah Byall testified in her deposition that Winston was validated because he satisfied all the above quoted bases for validating a perpetrator under Section 2324 of the PPM. There is no indication that any of the evidence presented at the hearing was a surprise. Thus, there is nothing that would preclude this information from being used to substantiate and validate a perpetrator where the alleged perpetrator had notice of the information.