Opinion ID: 2060464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: S. v. Prince George's County Department of Social Services

Text: In C.S., 343 Md. at 22, 680 A.2d at 474, the Prince George's County Department of Social Services (PGCDSS) notified C.S. that C.S. had been found responsible for indicated abuse and that it would enter C.S.'s name on the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry. C.S. received only a limited Chapter 318 hearing, not a contested case hearing. The ALJ upheld the local department's finding. C.S. filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. PGCDSS moved to dismiss that petition, arguing that the child abuse statute did not specifically provide for judicial review and that the APA, which provides for judicial review in some cases, did not apply to findings of indicated child abuse. The circuit court agreed with the PGCDSS and granted its motion. After an exhaustive review of the legislative history and evolution of Maryland's Child Abuse and Neglect statute and regulations, we reversed the circuit court and conclude[d] that [sections] 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[, however,] 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 h[e]ld that the hearing under [section] 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. Id. at 23-24, 680 A.2d at 475. Integral to our holding in C.S. was the developmental history of the statutory and regulatory provisions relating to central registries. We described the various procedural safeguards the Legislature incorporated into the child abuse statute over the years and determined that the Legislature's enactment of those provisions evidence[s] a deep concern on the part of the legislature to give individuals alleged 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, [sections] 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 labeled as child abusers on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information. Id. at 30, 680 A.2d at 478. See also id. at 24-30, 680 A.2d at 475-78 (describing in detail and analyzing the legislative history of the child abuse statute over the past thirty years). We then went on to discuss the history behind Chapter 318 hearings and described the Legislature's enactment of sections 5-706.1 and 5-706.2 as a new avenue of procedural protection ... [for] allowing alleged abusers to request administrative review of the findings made by a local department. Id. at 28, 680 A.2d at 477 (emphasis added). Finally, we discussed the Legislature's amendment of section 5-715 in Chapter 318, which broadened that provision's scope by replacing each reference to the central registry in section 5-715 to a central registry. We noted the significance, stating: Following this amendment, [section] 5-715's right to a hearing clearly applies to all central registries in Maryland, not one single central registry. Id. at 29, 680 A.2d at 478 (emphasis added). Thus, we recognized in C.S. that the fundamental distinction between the Chapter 318 protections and the protections previously provided in section 5-715 was that a Chapter 318 hearing was created to allow those found to have committed abuse or neglect to challenge those findings, even if their names are not to be placed on a central registry. Section 5-715, however, continues to provide procedural safeguards for those accused of abuse or neglect before their names can be entered into a central registry. Having noted the distinctions between the two types of hearings, we then went on in C.S. to analyze how those hearings actually were conducted. We concluded that DHR regulations provided only a limited Chapter 318 type hearing for the distinctly different appeals the departments were to provide under section 5-715. See id. at 31, 680 A.2d at 478. Accordingly, we struck down these regulations because they failed to properly implement the legislative scheme because the Chapter 318 hearing was created by the legislature as a new and independent means of review [for a local department's findings only]. 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 [section] 5-715. Id. The nature of the hearings required by section 5-715, we then determined, were contested case hearings under the APA. Id. See also SG § 10-202(d)(1) (defining a contested case hearing as a proceeding before an agency to 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 elements of a contested case hearing, we said, 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. Id. at 32, 680 A.2d at 479 (citing Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Northeast Waste Disposal Auth., 323 Md. 641, 653, 594 A.2d 1115, 1121 (1991) and Medical Waste Assocs. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, Inc., 327 Md. 596, 609, 612 A.2d 241, 247 (1992)). During the course of a section 5-715 hearing, the ALJ must answer the sole question of whether the alleged incident of abuse or neglect is correctly labeled as `indicated' or `unsubstantiated,' C.S., 343 Md. at 33, 680 A.2d at 479. In order to reach that determination, the ALJ must sift between potentially conflicting information presented by the DHR and the alleged abuser to determine whether the DHR's label is correct. Id. We held, therefore, that the Legislature intended that this appeal process be conducted as an administrative contested case hearing under the APA. Accordingly, section 5-715 entitles [persons accused of child abuse or neglect] to a contested case hearing before the DHR or [local department] can enter [the accused's] name on a central registry created under [section] 5-714. Id. at 34, 680 A.2d at 480 (footnote omitted).