Department of Human Resources v. Hayward

BELL, C.J. We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether an individual accused of, but not found responsible for, child abuse or neglect has a right to appeal 1 when a local department’s investigation of the accusation results in a finding of “unsubstantiated.” The Court of Special Appeals answered this question in the affirmative, Hayward v. Dep’t of Human Res., 177 Md.App. 402 , 935 A.2d 493 (2007), and, so, reversed ⁶⁴³ the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which had dismissed a mandamus action seeking that relief. We agree and, thus, affirm. I. Background At all times relevant to this appeal, the respondents, Angela Hayward, an instructional aide, and William Dixon, a teacher, were employed by the Baltimore City Public School System (“BCPSS”). In December, 2005, in separate cases, the petitioner, the Department of Human Resources for the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (the “Department”) received reports accusing the respondents of committing child abuse.

In each case, a Department caseworker was assigned the task of conducting an investigation, and, in each case, at the conclusion of the investigation, the Department issued a finding of “Child Physical Abuse — Unsubstantiated.” The respondents, along with their employer, BCPSS, were notified of the “unsubstantiated” finding, which, as it was explained to the respondents, meant “that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out.” As a result, neither respondent was “named as the alleged abuser.” Nevertheless, the respondents’ names were entered into the central registry 2 of child abuse investigations. Both respondents, in separate cases, requested, pursuant to Maryland Code (1984, 2006 Repl.Vol., 2011 Supp.) § 5-706.1(c) 3 of the Family Law Article (“FL”), that the Depart ⁶⁴⁴ ment provide them with a conference “to review the Department’s redacted investigation records and potentially request corrections and/or supplements Hayward v. Dep’t of Human Res., 177 Md.App. 402, 405 , 935 A.2d 493, 495 (2007). The Department denied the requests and, in identical letters to each respondent, explained: “We are in receipt of your letter which requests an appeal regarding the decision of ‘unsubstantiated’ child physical abuse against your client, [respondent]. As a result of your request, I have reviewed the case record, and found that your client, [respondent], was not identified as the alleged abuser.

Only an individual who is ‘identified’ has the right to appeal the department’s decision. “COMAR 07.02.26.05 provides that “An individual found responsible for indicated child abuse or neglect may appeal the finding.... ” Since your client, [respondent], was not identified as the responsible party [he/she] is not eligible for an appeal.” (Emphasis in original). Faced with an interpretation of FL § 5-706.1 and the regulations promulgated pursuant to, and in clarification of, it that precluded appeal when the finding of ⁶⁴⁵ the investigation was “unsubstantiated,” the respondents sought review of that interpretation by filing mandamus actions in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The petitioner subsequently filed motions to dismiss in both cases, and the respondents moved for summary judgment. The Circuit Court, after consolidating the actions, granted the petitioner’s motion, thus disposing of the cases.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, concluding that it would be unjust if the respondents, “whose identifying information was placed in the central registry despite a finding of insufficient evidence, were denied their right to appeal and thus their opportunity to clear their names.” Hayward, 177 Md.App. at 416-17 , 935 A.2d at 501 . The intermediate appellate court, thus, held that “[t]he Circuit Court for Baltimore City erred when it refused to issue mandamus and dismissed the cases of ... Hayward and Dixon on the ground that it left them with no alternative means to legally resolve their dispute.” Id., 177 Md.App. at 417 , 935 A.2d at 502 . The Department petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted, Social Services v. Hayward, 403 Md. 304 , 941 A.2d 1104 (2008).

The issue we are asked to consider is whether “the Department of Human Resources properly interpreted the law as providing standing to appeal solely to individuals found responsible for ‘unsubstantiated’ or ‘indicated’ child abuse or neglect and, if not, what is the scope of the appeal right?” We shall hold, like the Court of Special Appeals, that the Department failed to interpret FL § 5-706.1(c) properly, and that individuals who are investigated by a local department, with a resultant finding of “unsubstantiated,” have a right to appeal, regardless of any additional findings of actual responsibility.

II

Writ of Mandamus Although, at bottom, the issue to be resolved is the correctness of the Department’s interpretation of FL § 5-706.1, it is presented in the context of the common law writ of mandamus; under review is the Circuit Court’s dismissal of the respondents’ consolidated Complaints for Writ of Manda ⁶⁴⁶ mus. We begin, therefore, with a review of the nature and office of that writ. Ordinarily, mandamus does not lie where the action to be reviewed is discretionary or depends on personal judgment. Goodwich v. Nolan, 343 Md. 130, 145 , 680 A.2d 1040, 1047 (1996); Board of Education of Prince George’s County v. Secretary of Personnel, 317 Md. 34, 46 , 562 A.2d 700, 706 (1989); In re Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 312 Md. 280, 305-06 , 539 A.2d 664, 676 (1988); see also Tabler v. Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society, 301 Md. 189, 202 , 482 A.2d 873 , 880 n. 7 (1984); Bovey v. Executive Director, HCAO, 292 Md. 640, 646 , 441 A.2d 333, 337 (1982); Maryland Action for Foster Children v. State, 279 Md. 133, 138-39 , 367 A.2d 491, 494 (1977).

Indeed, the writ generally is used “to compel inferior tribunals, public officials or administrative agencies to perform their function, or perform some particular duty imposed upon them which in its nature is imperative and to the performance of which duty the party applying for the writ has a clear legal right.” Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 514 , 331 A.2d 55, 72 (1975); see also Nolan, 343 Md. at 145 , 680 A.2d at 1047 ; George’s Creek Coal & Iron Co. v. County Commissioners, 59 Md. 255, 259 (1883). It also “is a summary remedy, for the want of a specific one, where there would otherwise be a failure of justice.” State ex rel. McClellan v. Graves, 19 Md. 351, 374 (1863). That is true even where discretionary actions are the subject of the review.

Nolan, 343 Md. at 146 , 680 A.2d at 1048 . That office is also well settled. State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Clark, 281 Md. 385, 401 , 380 A.2d 28, 37 (1977); Gould, 273 Md. at 503 , 331 A.2d at 66 ; State Insurance Commissioner v. National Bureau of Casualty Underwriters, 248 Md. 292, 302 , 236 A.2d 282, 287 (1967); Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. 372, 379 , 45 A.2d 73, 76 (1945). In this State, mandamus is considered to be “in the nature of a prerogative writ,” as well as “an extraordinary remedy.” Ipes v. Board of Fire Com’rs of Baltimore, 224 Md. 180, 183 , 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961). “Circuit Courts of this State have been statutorily conferred with the power and discretion ... to issue writs of mandamus,” however, “that discretion must be ⁶⁴⁷ exercised under the rules long recognized and established at common law,” which provide that mandamus is proper where a party would otherwise have no avenue for legal recourse.

Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689, 708 , 752 A.2d 200, 210 (2000) (quoting Hardcastle v. Md. & Del. R.R. Co., 32 Md. 32, 35 (1870)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, this Court has recognized that, “prior to granting a writ of mandamus to review discretionary acts, there must be both a lack of an available procedure for obtaining review and an allegation that the action complained of is illegal, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” Nolan, 343 Md. at 146 , 680 A.2d at 1048 . An agency’s actions will be classified as arbitrary and capricious if they are “unreasonable] or without a rational basis.... ” Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243, 297 , 884 A.2d 1171, 1204 (2005) (quoting Arnold Rochvarg, Maryland Administrative Law, § 4.38 at 128 (2001, 2004 Supp.)).

This case reaches this Court in a somewhat unusual circumstance. As indicated, dispositive of the resolution of this case is the determination of which of the interpretations of FL § 5-706.1(c) offered by the parties and it is this difference in interpretation that precipitated the mandamus action. Although the respondents have, at all times, interpreted FL § 5-706.1 (c) as affording them the right to a conference and subsequently an appeal, 4 the Department, relying also on ⁶⁴⁸ COMAR regulations promulgated pursuant to and in clarification of the statute, reached a contrary interpretation, one that restricted conference and appeal to those “found responsible” for “unsubstantiated” child abuse or neglect. Acknowledging the Department’s interpretation, but not accepting it, indeed, believing it to be erroneous, the respondents used it as the basis for its mandamus action, 5 arguing that the Department’s interpretation of § 5-706.1(c) establishes that there is “a lack of an available procedure for obtaining review,” and offering their contrary interpretation of that statute as the basis for the court to conclude that the denial of their right to appeal is “illegal, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” Nolan, 343 Md. at 146 , 680 A.2d at 1048 .

Thus, rather than being called upon to make a mandamus determination based, primarily, on the facts of the case before it, in the case sub judice, the Circuit Court was required to engage in statutory interpretation in order to resolve the controversy. The petitioner — the Department — does not dispute that the effect of its interpretation of § 5-706.1(c) is to restrict the respondents’ entitlement to a conference and, thus an appeal, and that this results in the occurrence of one of the circumstances that our cases indicate entitle a party to mandamus relief. Indeed, the respondents, with ample justification, ⁶⁴⁹ could have argued that they were entitled to administrative mandamus pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-401. 6 As we will demonstrate below, the plain language of § 5-706.1 expressly provides a right to conference, and, subsequently, to appeal, whenever the investigation of an individual for child abuse or neglect results in an “unsubstantiated” finding. The Department, however, did not apply the statute as required by its plain language and, consequently, foreclosed to respondents the right to appeal and ultimately judicial review.

Had the Department adhered to the express directives of § 5-706.1, the respondents would have had access to appeal procedures and, thus, would not have been required to — nor been able to — request a writ of mandamus. The Circuit Court drew two erroneous conclusions: the first was to adopt the Department’s interpretation of § 5-706.1, that the respondents were not entitled to a conference or an appeal; the second, only erroneous as a result of the first, was to dismiss the respondents’ Complaints on those grounds. This misinterpretation of the statute, as we see it, was unreasonable and, in effect, was “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Nolan, 343 Md. at 146 , 680 A.2d at 1048 ; Marshall, 389 Md. at 297 , 884 A.2d at 1204 .

III

Statutory Interpretation We now review, in greater detail, the Department’s interpretation of § 5-706.1. It is a well-settled principle that the primary objective of statutory interpretation is “to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Oaks v. ⁶⁵⁰ Connors, 339 Md. 24, 35 , 660 A.2d 423, 429 (1995). The first step in this inquiry is to examine the plain language of the statute, and “[i]f the words of the statute, construed according to their common and everyday meaning, are clear and unambiguous and express a plain meaning, we will give effect to the statute as it is written.” Jones v. State, 336 Md. 255, 261 , 647 A.2d 1204, 1206-07 (1994). Thus, “where the statutory language is plain and free from ambiguity, and expresses a definite and simple meaning, courts do not normally look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent.” Montgomery County Dept. of Social Services v. L.D., 349 Md. 239, 264 , 707 A.2d 1331, 1343 (1998).

Furthermore, “[w]ords may not be added to, or removed from, an unambiguous statute in order to give it a meaning not reflected by the words the Legislature chose to use.... ” Smack v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, 378 Md. 298, 305 , 835 A.2d 1175, 1179 (2003) (citation omitted). We also are mindful that this Court’s review of an agency’s decision is narrow. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore County, 336 Md. 569, 576 , 650 A.2d 226, 230 (1994). When we interpret a statute that governs an administrative body, “a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency,” and the “agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which [it] administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts.” Marzullo v. Kahl, 366 Md. 158, 172 , 783 A.2d 169, 177 (2001) (citations omitted).

While we are certainly not to “substitute [our] judgment for the expertise of those persons who constitute the administrative agency,” it remains our role to determine “if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions, and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law.” United Parcel, 336 Md. at 576-77 , 650 A.2d at 230 . The petitioner’s construction of FL § 5-706.1 is colored by its conclusion that subsection (a) is ambiguous and, thus, must be interpreted as clarified by COMAR 07.02.07.16B and, espe ⁶⁵¹ dally, COMAR 07.02.26.05B. With regard to the ambiguity, it reasons that, while § 5-706.1(a) requires the Department to provide notice, in cases of “indicated” or “unsubstantiated” abuse or neglect, to individuals “alleged to have abused or neglected a child,” and in subsections (b) and (c), as to each, prescribes a right to an appeal, the statute does not indicate who must make the abuse or neglect allegation. COMAR 07.02.07.16B resolves this ambiguity, the petitioner submits, by requiring a local department, prior to closing its record of investigation, to “send notice to the individual found responsible for alleged abuse or neglect of the finding and, if applicable, of the right to appeal under COMAR 07.02.26,” 7 (empha ⁶⁵² sis added).

Reading the statute and the regulation together, the petitioner concludes that the “alleged” abuser, referenced in § 5 — 706.1(a), both must have been identified as such by a local department and been “found responsible” for the abuse or neglect before any notice is required to be provided or the rights set forth in subsection (c) are triggered. The petitioner, thus, distinguishes between “individuals alleged by a local department to have abused or neglected a child [and who] are entitled to appeal an agency’s finding,” and individuals who are “only ‘suspected’ of having abused or neglected a child,” who are not entitled to such an appeal. Stated differently, individuals who are the subject of abuse or neglect allegations by parties other than the Department are, according to the petitioner, simply “suspected” of such conduct, which, for the purposes of § 5-706.1(a), is distinct from Department “alleged” abuse or neglect. The petitioner places the respondents in the “suspected” category, and reasons, therefore, that since the necessary triggering notice is unavailable to individuals like them, who are simply investigated, but not “found responsible” for alleged abuse, the respondents’ requests rightfully were denied.

The petitioner finds additional support for its position in COMAR 07.02.26.05B, which provides: “Unsubstantiated Child Abuse or Neglect. An individual found responsible for unsubstantiated child abuse or neglect may appeal the finding by forwarding to the local department, not later than 60 days after receipt of the local department’s notice of action, a written request for a conference.” ⁶⁵³ (Emphasis added). The petitioner argues that this regulation also clarifies what it perceives to be the ambiguous language of FL § 5-706.1(a). Specifically, the petitioner, in its brief, asserts that this regulation, like COMAR 07.02.07.16B, decidedly establishes that “[o]nly individuals found responsible for child abuse or neglect may appeal findings of unsubstantiated or indicated child abuse.” The petitioner also argues that the Court of Special Appeals failed to accord the appropriate level of deference to the Department’s construction of FL § 5-706.1.

It accordingly urges this Court to treat the agency’s construction deferentially and, consequently, uphold the Department’s decision. The respondents do not agree that § 5-706.1(a) is, in any way, ambiguous. Indeed, they believe it to be clear and unambiguous. They argue, conversely, therefore, that CO-MAR 07.02.26.05B, on which the Department heavily relies, rather than clarifying § 5-706.1(c), as the petitioner argues, actually conflicts with its unambiguous language.

The respondent notes, in that regard, that the phrase, “found responsible,” is nowhere found in subsection (a) or (c), nor does § 5-706.1, at any time, use the word “responsible” in setting forth the departmental findings that entitle an individual to appeal the results of a conference. Accordingly, they submit, CO-MAR 07.02.26.05B, by including this additional limiting language, conflicts with § 5-706.1(c) and, most important, it does so in a manner that deprives the respondents of their rights. In addition, the respondents note that “the Department’s definition of an ‘alleged abuser’ as an individual ‘found responsible’ for abuse, is an oxymoron” since “[o]nce an individual has been ‘found responsible,’ it makes no sense to continue to refer to that person as an ‘alleged abuser.’ ” Applying the applicable principles of statutory construction to the case sub judice, it is readily apparent that § 5-706.1(c), read together with § 5-706.1(a), establishes clear guidelines regarding the rights of accused individuals following an investigation by the Department which results in a finding of “unsubstantiated.” There is no ambiguity in its ⁶⁵⁴ terms concerning the rights that are implicated in “indicated” and “unsubstantiated” abuse cases; its language sets forth, with a great deal of clarity, that individuals as to whom allegations have been determined to be unsubstantiated are entitled to an appeal process. Thus, it was unnecessary to look beyond the plain language of § 5-706.1 for further guidance, Jones, 336 Md. at 261 , 647 A.2d at 1206 -07 and, consequently, the petitioner’s reliance on COMAR 07.02.26.05B is misplaced.

FL § 5-706.1 prescribes the notice, conference and hearing requirements, as well as the appeal rights, applicable to individuals who have been investigated by the Department with respect to child abuse or neglect when the investigation culminates in either a finding of “indicated,” or “unsubstantiated.” FL § 5-701(y) defines “unsubstantiated,” the finding that resulted from the Department’s investigation of the respondents, as a conclusion “that there is an insufficient amount of evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out.” A finding of “indicated,” on the other hand, is defined by § 5-701(m) as a finding that demonstrates “credible evidence which has not been satisfactorily refuted, that abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse did occur.” 8 A third possible finding ⁶⁵⁵ category, “ruled out”, is not addressed by FL § 5-706.1, as it indicates a conclusion by the Department “that abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse did not occur.” FL § 5-701(w). After an investigation, the Department determined that the allegations of abuse made against the respondents were “unsubstantiated.” FL § 5-706.1(a) governs notice and prescribes when, to whom and of what it is to be given. It provides: “(a) Notice — Within 30 days after the completion of an investigation in which there has been a finding of indicated or unsubstantiated abuse or neglect, the local department shall notify in writing the individual alleged to have abused or neglected a child: “(1) of the finding; “(2) of the opportunity to appeal the finding in accordance with this section; and “(3) if the individual has been found responsible for indicated abuse or neglect, that the individual may be identified in a central registry as responsible for abuse or neglect under the circumstances specified in § 5-714(e)[ 9 ] of this subtitle.” ⁶⁵⁶ According to the plain language of § 5-706.1, the respondents were clearly entitled to notice. Moreover, there is no dispute that, with regard to the “unsubstantiated” finding, the respondents received timely notice. 10 The purpose of the notice that an investigation resulted in an “unsubstantiated” finding is made clear by § 5 — 706.1(c).

That subsection, which expressly addresses “Conference to review redacted record on finding of unsubstantiated abuse or neglect,” sets forth the procedures available, and the rights applicable, to individuals who have received notice of such finding from the Department. It advises: “(1) In the case of a finding of unsubstantiated abuse or neglect, an individual may request a conference with a ⁶⁵⁷ supervisor in the local department by responding to the notice of the local department in writing within 60 days. “(2) In response to a timely request for a conference, a local department supervisor shall schedule a conference, to occur within 30 days after the supervisor receives the request, to allow the individual an opportunity to review the redacted record and request corrections or to supplement the record. “(3) Within 10 days after the conference, the local department shall send to the individual: “(i) a written summary of the conference and of any modifications to be made in the record; and “(ii) notice of the individual’s right to request a contested case hearing in accordance with paragraph (4) of this subsection. “(4) (i) The individual may request a contested case hearing in accordance with subsection (b) of this section to appeal the outcome of the conference by responding to the summary in writing within 60 days. “(ii) If the individual does not receive the written summary and notice specified in paragraph (3) of this subsection within 20 days, the individual may request a contested case hearing. “(iii) An individual may request a contested case hearing in the case of a finding of unsubstantiated abuse or neglect only as provided in this paragraph.” The respondents both properly and timely complied with subsection (c)(1): within 60 days of receiving the notice from the local board, they responded, in writing, with a request for a conference. Notwithstanding that subsection (c)(2) requires the local department supervisor, in response to a timely request, to schedule a conference, the Department denied those requests. In so doing, it also denied the respondents the right to any judicial review.

See supra note 4. This is because, under § 5 — 706.1(c)(4), the right to an appeal, in cases of “unsubstantiated” abuse, is intertwined with and dependent on, there being a conference with respect to that finding. Pursuant to subsection (c)(4)(iii), “An individual may request a ⁶⁵⁸ contested case hearing in the case of a finding of unsubstantiated abuse or neglect only as provided in this paragraph,” and subsection (c)(4)® permits such a request, made in writing and within the time prescribed, “in accordance with subsection (b) of this section” for the purpose of “appealing] the outcome of the conference.” Unless, in other words, a conference concerning the “unsubstantiated” finding has been timely and properly sought, and held, there could not be an outcome to appeal. Consequently, because of the denial of the conference, the respondents were thereby precluded from appealing.

The problem here presented arose when the Department, believing § 5-706.1 to be ambiguous, sought to clarify it by regulation. In so doing, it became subject to two conflicting sets of rules, as the respondents correctly point out. Administrative agencies have broad authority to promulgate regulations, to be sure, but the exercise of that authority, granted by the Legislature, must be consistent, and not in conflict, with the statute the regulations are intended to implement. We have consistently held that the statute must control.

Lussier v. Maryland Racing Com’n, 343 Md. 681, 688 , 684 A.2d 804, 807 (1996) (“[WJhere the Legislature has delegated such broad authority to a state administrative agency to promulgate regulations in an area, the agency’s regulations are valid under the statute if they do not contradict the statutory language or purpose.”); Christ by Christ v. Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, 335 Md. 427, 437-38 , 644 A.2d 34, 39 (1994) (“[T]his Court has upheld [an] agency’s rules or regulations as long as they did not contradict the language or purpose of [a] statute.”). Both COMAR 07.02.07.16B and 07.02.26.05B conflict with the plain language of § 5-706.1, as well as other relevant provisions in Title 5, Subtitle 7. As such, they must yield to the statute. To begin, the petitioner’s argument, urging this Court to recognize a distinction between “alleged” abuse or neglect, and “suspected” abuse or neglect, and to adopt COMAR 07.02.07.16B’s formulation of the former, as meaning “found responsible” for “suspected” abuse or neglect, is not only in ⁶⁵⁹ conflict with statutory authority, it is simply incorrect English.

An “allegation” is defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary 55 (3d ed.1986) as “an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable.” To “allege,” accordingly, is “to assert, affirm, state without proof or before proving” (emphasis added); Id. Similarly, to “suspect” is defined as the act of imagining one “to be guilty or culpable on slight evidence without proof,” while “suspected” is defined as “believed guilty, likely, or doubtful.” Id. at 2303 (emphasis added). In contrast to these definitions, a person “found responsible” for, in this context, neglect or abuse, is one who is “answerable as the primary cause, motive, or agent.” Unlike “suspicion” or “allegation,” which involves conjecture in the absence — and often, contingent on the discovery — of proof, being “found responsible” is a final, unequivocal conclusion. The plain meaning of these words, alone, renders COMAR 07.02.07.16B, and the petitioner’s position in support of it, untenable.

Additionally, the Department’s provision of notice to the respondents is inconsistent with the petitioner’s interpretation of § 5-706.1(a) and its argument. Subsection (a) requires that notice be provided, “[wjithin 30 days after the completion of an investigation in which there has been a finding of indicated or unsubstantiated abuse or neglect” to any individual “alleged to have abused or neglected a child.” Accepting the Department’s interpretation of this provision, as “clarified” by CO-MAR 07.02.07.16B, the respondents, being the subjects of “alleged” abuse in an “unsubstantiated” case, should not only have been foreclosed from a conference and an appeal, but were not even entitled to notice, since they were not “found responsible” for that abuse. As we have seen, the Department timely gave notice to the respondents. Having considered them as “alleged to have abused” a child for the purposes of notice, it is difficult to understand why they do not occupy the same status for purposes of the prescribed conference.

Section 5-706.1(a) and (c) are inextricably linked. The notice right provided by subsection (a) is what triggers the conference right under subsection (c). It simply does not make ⁶⁶⁰ sense for the Department to adhere to the plain language of the statute in providing the required notice under subsection (a), and to depart so starkly from this language for the remainder of the post-investigation process. A review of COMAR 07.02.07.16B, in comparison to § 5-706.1(a), as well as other provisions in Title 5, Subtitle 7, further illuminates the inconsistencies between the regulation and the statute.

When we undertake to interpret a statute, we do not review it in a vacuum, “nor do we confine strictly our interpretation of [the] statute’s plain language to the isolated section alone.” Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257, 275 , 987 A.2d 18, 29 (2010). Instead, “we analyze the statutory scheme as a whole and attempt to harmonize provisions dealing with the same subject so that each may be given effect.” Kushell v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 385 Md. 563, 577 , 870 A.2d 186, 193 (2005). Accordingly, the respondents draw our attention, for instance, to § 5-701(v), which defines a “report” as “an allegation of abuse or neglect....” (Emphasis added). In other portions of the statute, a report is the action that initiates the investigation by the Department, not the final conclusion the Department makes at the close of its investigation.

See §§ 5-704, 5-705. COMAR 07.02.07.16B interprets an “allegation” as a finding of responsibility. That is in clear conflict with multiple statutory provisions which define it otherwise. COMAR 07.02.26.05B, which was the Department’s stated basis for its denial of the respondents’ requests for conference, is also incompatible with the plain language of § 5-706.1(c).

Specifically, while § 5 — 706.1(c)(1) expressly grants the right to a conference, and the right to an appeal, to those individuals who wish to contest findings of “unsubstantiated abuse or neglect,” COMAR 07.02.26.05B states that only “[a]n individual found responsible for unsubstantiated child abuse or neglect may appeal the finding.” (emphasis added). This language conflicts with § 5-706.1(c) because, unlike 07.02.26.05B, the statute does not differentiate between individuals who are found responsible for “unsubstantiated” child abuse, and those ⁶⁶¹ who are not. Indeed, in contrast to the agency regulation, subsection (c) grants the right to a conference in all “unsubstantiated” cases, with no further limiting language. This language plainly and unambiguously demonstrates the legislative intent to make an appeal right available in all such instances.

Had the Legislature intended to limit the right, as COMAR 07.02.26.05B seeks to do, it simply could have inserted qualifying language. This is further buttressed by looking to § 5 — 706.1(a)(3), which specifically requires that individuals who have been “found responsible for indicated abuse or neglect” also be notified, as a separate and additional matter, that they “may be identified in a central registry.” As we stated in Witte v. Azarian, 369 Md. 518, 525 , 801 A.2d 160, 165 (2002), we presume, looking to the plain language of a statute, that