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

MURPHY, Chief Judge. 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 ¹⁸ 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 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 (CO-MAR) 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). Following each investigation, the local department must determine which ¹⁹ 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). 1 If the 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). ²⁰ 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 “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); CO-MAR 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, “[tjhe Social Services Administration and each local department may main ²¹ tain 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).

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 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 ²² 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.

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. ²³ 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 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 ²⁴ 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 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 , 632 A.2d 753 (citing Mohler, supra, 318 Md. at 225-27 , 567 A.2d 929 ). 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 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 depart ²⁵ ments 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, § 11 A. 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. 3 That Act amended the central registry provision, now codified as Art. 27, § 35A(i), to 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 ²⁶ 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. 4 First, the 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 ²⁷ 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 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