Opinion ID: 2227334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mauk's contentions and the agency's decision.

Text: Prior to the September 13, 1995, hearing, the ALJ sustained the DHS's motion to quash subpoenas issued for Mauk's daughter L.M. and for his son J.M., based on the ALJ's conclusion that L.M.'s memory of the alleged incident that occurred seven years previously, and when she was three and one-half years old, would not be reliable. The ALJ also commented that administrative hearings are stressful and that [t]o subject children to such a hearing when their testimony would provide minimal information would not be in their best interests. Mauk argues that the ALJ's action in quashing the subpoenas deprived him of his right to due process and a fair hearing guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applicable statutory and agency rules.