Montgomery County Department of Social Services v. L.D.

CATHELL, Judge. The instant case arises from the consolidation of three appeals involving individuals accused of child abuse or neglect: Montgomery County Department of Social Services v. L.D., T.E.P. v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services, and D.N. v. Frederick County Department of Social Services. 1 In each of these cases, the individuals have been the object of child abuse or child neglect investigations by the respective local departments, and in each of the cases, the investigation resulted in local department findings of either “indicated” or “unsubstantiated.” These appeals follow from each individual’s petition in the circuit court for judicial review of the local department’s actions with respect to the inclusion of the petitioners’ names on databases that they contend are “central registries.” Before our discussion of the law and resolution of the issues of this appeal, we shall describe briefly the procedural history and questions presented in each case. L Facts and Procedural History Montgomery County Department of Social Services v. L.D. 1. Procedural History Pursuant to sections 5-706.1 and 5-706.2 of the Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol., 1997 Supp.) of the Family Law Article, 2 the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) affirmed ²⁴² MCDSS’s 3 finding that L.D., a day care provider, was responsible for “indicated” neglect.

L.D. filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. L.D.’s appeal was stayed pending this Court’s decision in C.S. v. Prince George’s County Department of Social Services, 343 Md. 14, 33 , 680 A.2d 470, 480 (1996), where we held that section “5-715 provides a right to a contested case hearing” before entering the name of an alleged child abuser or neglector in a central registry. In reaction to our opinion in C.S., 'the Department of Human Resources (Department or DHR), deactivated the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry (Central Registry). 4 MCDSS then notified L.D. that L.D.’s name would not be entered into the Central Registry because it had been deactivated. L.D.’s name, however, would be listed along with the local department’s findings on a computerized central database known as the Automated Master File (AMF).

MCDSS then moved to dismiss L.D.’s petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds that because L.D.’s name would no longer be entered on the Central Registry, C.S.’s requirement that a local department hold a contested case hearing was no longer applicable and because sections 5-706.1 and 5-706.2, the statutory provisions authorizing a limited hearing at which an accused individual can contest local department findings, do not authorize judicial review. The Circuit Court for Montgomery County denied MCDSS’s motion. The court found that MCDSS’s entry of the names of ²⁴³ individuals found by MCDSS to have committed child abuse or neglect into the AMF or the Client Information System (CIS), 5 which could be accessed by agencies and other entities throughout the state, constituted an entry into “a central registry.” The court further found that, under C.S., the inclusion of L.D.’s name on this registry invoked a right to a “contested case” hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act, Maryland Code (1984, 1995 Repl.Vol., 1997 Supp.), sections 10-201 through 10-227, State Government Article (SG). MCDSS noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, and this Court granted the local department’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari before that court heard arguments in the matter. 2.

Questions Presented MCDSS presents the following questions for our review: 1. May local departments maintain files relating to child abuse and neglect investigations and reference those files in a computerized data base without triggering a right to a contested case hearing and judicial review? 2. Absent a showing that a Chapter 318 hearing affects any right, entitlement, benefit, or license due under law, does the judiciary have an inherent right to review a local department’s investigation of a report of suspected child abuse or neglect? Because of our ultimate resolution in this case, it is unnecessary for us to address directly MCDSS’s second question.

D.N. v. Frederick County Department of Social Services 1. Procedural History D.N. is a tenured public school teacher originally found by FCDSS as responsible for the indicated abuse of a student. The accusation arose out of an incident in which D.N., an ²⁴⁴ industrial arts teacher for the hearing impaired, burned a student in a shop class by a hot tool D.N. was bringing to the student for the student’s use in the class. According to D.N., the contact was accidental.

Complicating the issue was what D.N. perceived as a misunderstanding regarding a distinction in American Sign Language (ASL) vocabulary and the student’s misinterpretation of an ASL sign as demonstrating D.N.’s intent to burn the student. A FCDSS caseworker determined that the contact was intentional and made a finding of “indicated” child abuse. FCDSS notified D.N. of its finding. D.N. filed an appeal with the OAH, requesting a contested case hearing.

As a result of the first stage of that appeal, FCDSS notified D.N. that it had conducted a review of its records in the case and that its finding would remain as “indicated.” After an in camera review by the OAH, the OAH likewise notified D.N. that FCDSS’s finding would not be modified. Finally, after D.N. submitted supporting memoranda and made a fifteen minute oral argument before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the ALJ determined that there were serious flaws in FCDSS’s investigative process, but because she did not have the authority to order such a contested case hearing, only reduced MCDSS’s finding to “unsubstantiated.” D.N. filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Frederick County. A hearing on that petition was stayed pending our decision in C.S., 343 Md. 14 , 680 A.2d 470 . After we filed our opinion in that case, FCDSS notified D.N. that D.N.’s name would not be entered on the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry.

FCDSS retained D.N.’s name and investigation records, however, on the AMF/CIS registries. FCDSS then filed a motion to dismiss D.N.’s petition for judicial review. In an opposing motion for summary judgment, D.N. requested that the trial judge remand the case to the OAH for a “contested case” hearing pursuant to the APA. The trial judge granted FCDSS’s motion to dismiss, but in his oral ruling from the bench, acknowledged the need for “further direction from the [ajppellate [cjourt.... [W]hat you ²⁴⁵ really need is for the Court of Special Appeals, or hopefully, Court of Appeals, to take this up and clarify what C.S. means.” D.N. timely appealed the circuit court’s denial of its petition for judicial review to the Court of Special Appeals.

As with the other two cases at hand, we granted Writ of Certiorari and consolidated all three cases before that court heard arguments in the matter. 2. Questions Presented D.N. presents the following questions for our review: May the local departments of social services elude the Court’s holding in C.S. v. Prince George’s County Department of Social Services, 343 Md. 14 , 680 A.2d 470 (1996), that, “[Family Law] 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[,]” and that “the hearing under [section] 5-715 qualifies as a ‘contested case’ hearing under the APA[,]” by disbanding one child abuse registry while continuing to register the child abuse finding in other State-wide central databases? Does a public school teacher have a right, under State law and the State and federal constitutions, to a contested case hearing prior to a local department of social services registering] a child abuse finding against that teacher when the public school employer has free access to that child abuse finding and when there is a resultant threat to employment and de facto loss of employment opportunity for that public school teacher? Is there a right to petition for judicial review from a ... quasi-judicial decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings regarding the finding that a person is a child abuser, where that decision is a final one as delegated to OAH by a State agency, and where interpretation of State law and rights guaranteed under State and federal constitutions are at issue? ²⁴⁶ Because of our resolution of D.N.’s first question, we shall not address the third question or resolve directly the second question.

T.E.P. v. Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services 1. Procedural History T.E.P., a private school teacher, was classified by AACDSS as an “indicated” abuser after an in-school paddling of a student by T.E.P. Although criminal charges were filed against T.E.P., a District Court judge dismissed those charges at a preliminary hearing. T.E.P. appealed AACDSS’s findings pursuant to sections 5-706.1 and 5-706.2. The ALJ upheld the findings, and T.E.P. sought judicial review of that decision in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County.

AACDS advised T.E.P., after this Court’s decision in C.S., that T.E.P.’s name would not be entered into the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry because that registry had been deactivated. AACDSS then moved to dismiss T.E.P.’s petition for judicial review, arguing that T.E.P. “is not entitled under C.S. to a contested case hearing before OAH or to judicial review of decision rendered in the Chapter 318 hearing.” AACDS informed T.E.P., however, that T.E.P.’s name would be entered in its “current registry.” The circuit court granted AACDSS’s motion. T.E.P. noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. This Court granted the local department’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and consolidated review with the L.D. and D.N. cases before the Court of Special Appeals heard argument. 2.

Questions Presented T.E.P. presents the following questions for our review: 1. Are the statewide computer databases classifying individuals as child abusers, “central registries” under Family Law Article Sections 5-714 and 5-715 requiring a contested ²⁴⁷ case hearing prior to placement of an individual in the database? 2. Does inevitable governmental dissemination of an “indicated” finding of child abuse to a prospective employer impinge upon an individual’s liberty right to follow a chosen profession thereby mandating contested case procedures, judicial review or other due process under the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution? 3. Does the inherent right of judicial review of arbitrary and capricious administrative decisions involving personal rights attach to a “Chapter 318 hearing” in which an “indicated” finding of abuse is sustained?

Because of our resolution of T.E.P.’s first question we will not address directly questions two or three. The Consolidated Question We shall consolidate the first questions of each petitioner into a single question, the answer to which resolves all of the cases: Does the inclusion of the names of individuals in databases accessible on a statewide basis to all local departments and other entities constitute “a central registry” as contemplated by sections 5-714 and 5-715, therefore requiring that “contested case” hearings under the APA be afforded prior to the inclusion of names in the databases?

II

Discussion Statutory Framework 6 Maryland’s Child Abuse and Neglect statute is set forth in sections 5-701 to 5-715 of the Maryland Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol., 1997 Supp.), Family Law Article. Pursuant to section 5-706, a local department, after receiving a report and ²⁴⁸ conducting an investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect, makes a finding as to whether neglect or abuse was “indicated” or “unsubstantiated” or “ruled out.” A finding of indicated means that the local department found “credible evidence, which has not been satisfactorily refuted, that abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse did occur.” § 5-701(k). A finding of unsubstantiated means the there was insufficient “evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out.” § 5-701(v). A finding of ruled out is “a finding that abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse did not occur.” § 5-701(t).

If the local department makes a finding of indicated or unsubstantiated abuse or neglect, it must notify, within thirty days after the investigation is complete, the person who allegedly committed the abuse or neglect of that finding and his right to appeal the finding in an administrative hearing. § 5-706.1(a). These hearings to contest local department findings of indicated or unsubstantiated neglect or abuse commonly are called “Chapter 318 hearings,” referring to the legislative act creating them. See generally 1993 Md. Laws, Chap. 318. 7 1. Chapter 318 Hearings Upon notification by a local department that an accused has been found responsible for the indicated or unsubstantiated abuse or neglect of a child, he or she can request an administrative hearing by responding to the local department’s notice in writing within sixty days. § 5-706.1(b).

Within ten days of receipt of a request for a hearing, the department must “review all records and reports concerning the alleged abuse or neglect” and then “determine whether the finding shall be amended, modified, or expunged.” § 5-706.1(d). Also within ten days of receiving the request for an administrative hearing, the local department is required to forward to OAH the request for the administrative hearing. § 5-706.1(c). See also § 5-706.2(b) (requiring the Department to forward to OAH all reports and records regarding the case upon the ²⁴⁹ accused’s request for a hearing). If the local department has not changed its findings to “ruled out,” the records must be transferred to the OAH and the accused can then request an in camera review of the full report or record by an ALJ “to determine the accuracy and sufficiency of the report or record.” § 5-706.2(a).

After the ALJ determines that the information “in the report or record is sufficient and accurate for purposes of determining an issue in a proceeding,” the information in that record or report may be forwarded to the accused. § 5-706.2(c). If the accused contests the findings, he or she may submit additional written information to the ALJ. § 5-706.2(d)(1). The ALJ then determines the correctness of the findings and, if incorrect, must “order the Department to amend, modify, or expunge the finding, as appropriate.” Id. It is important to note that the informal nature of Chapter 318 hearings allows for no presentation of evidence or testimony of witnesses by the accused. 2.

Maintenance of Records Information relating to child abuse or neglect is stored by the local departments and the Social Services Administration (SSA), which is a branch of the DHR. Local departments are required, in cases of child abuse or neglect, to “maintain records relating to the report and investigation which identify individuals involved in the investigation or assessment by name and address, including the identification of any needed services and an assessment of risk, in accordance with Regulation .18 of this chapter.” COMAR 07.02.07.14B(1). In addition, records relating to any case-related investigations, assessments, or services offered must be maintained by the local department. COMAR 07.02.07.14B(1) and (2).

The Child Abuse and Neglect statute defines a record as the original or any copy of any documentary material, in any form, including a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, that is made by, received by, or received from the State, a county, or a municipal corporation in the State, or any ²⁵⁰ subdivision or agency concerning a case of alleged child abuse or neglect. § 5-701(r). See also COMAR 07.02.07.02(26); COMAR 07.02.26.02(11). A report is defined as “an allegation of abuse or neglect, made or received under” the Child Abuse and Neglect statute. § 5.701(s). See also COMAR 07.02.07.02(28); COMAR 07.02.26.02(12).

If abuse or neglect is ruled out and no further reports of abuse or neglect received, the report and investigative findings are expunged from the local department’s records within 120 days of the conclusion of the investigation. § 5-707(b)(2); COMAR 07.02.07.18B. If the department concludes that the abuse or neglect is unsubstantiated, reports and findings are expunged within five years of the conclusion of the investigation if no further reports of abuse or neglect are received during that time. § 5-707(b)(l); COMAR 07.02.07.18(A). Findings of indicated abuse can remain on record indefinitely. 8 3. Central Registry The Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry originally was created by the Legislature in 1966, and its existence was mandatory.

See 1966 Md. Laws, Chap. 221. In 1987, the Legislature amended the statute and provided that the maintenance of the Central Registry was discretionary. 1987 Md. Laws, Chap. 635. Thus, as part of its records and pursuant to the present provisions of § 5-714, the SSA “and each local department may maintain a central registry of cases reported under this subtitle,” containing the information gathered by the local departments from around the state. § 5-714(a) and (b). The statute does not define “central registry.” DHR regulations, however, define it as ²⁵¹ a centralized listing of individuals identified in the local department of social services written findings of an investigation of suspected abuse or neglect, pursuant to Family-Law Article, § 5-701 et seq., Annotated Code of Maryland, as responsible or allegedly responsible for causing the injury, harm, or substantial risk of harm to a child.

COMAR 07.02.07.02B(4); COMAR 07.02.26.02B(4). The information contained in these records may be accessed and used by the SSA and by any local departments and law enforcement personnel investigating reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. § 5-714(c). Article 88A § 6 provides, in pertinent part, that it is unlawful to disclose these records, with several exceptions: (a) In general—Except in accordance with a court order or to an authorized officer or employee of the State, another state or local government, or the United States, or a fiduciary institution having a right thereto in an official capacity, and as necessary to discharge responsibilities to administer public assistance, medical assistance, or social services programs, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to divulge or make known in any manner any information concerning any applicant for or recipient of social services, child welfare services ... directly or indirectly derived from the records, papers, files, investigations or communications of the State, county or city, or subdivisions or agencies thereof, or acquired in the course of the performance of official duties. (b) Child abuse or neglect.—Except as otherwise provided in Title 5, Subtitle 7 of the Family Law Article, all records and reports concerning child abuse or neglect are confidential, and their unauthorized disclosure is a criminal offense subject to the penalty set out in subsection (e) of this section.

Reports or records concerning child abuse or neglect may be disclosed only: (l)(i) Under a court order; or (ii) Under an order of an administrative law judge, if the request for disclosure concerns a case pending before the ²⁵² office of administrative hearings and provisions are made to comply with other State or federal confidentiality laws and to protect the identity of the reporter or other person whose life or safety is likely to be endangered by disclosure; (2) To personnel of local or State departments of social services, law enforcement personnel, and members of multidisciplinary case consultation teams, who are investigating a report of known or suspected child abuse or neglect or who are providing services to a child or family that is the subject of the report; (3) To local or State officials responsible for the administration of the child protective service or child care licensing and regulations as necessary to carry out their official functions; (4) To a person who is the alleged child abuser or the person who is suspected of child neglect if that person is responsible for the child’s welfare and provisions are made for the protection of the identity of the reporter or any other person whose life or safety is likely to be endangered by disclosing the information; (5) To a licensed practitioner who, or an agency, institution, or program which is providing treatment or care to a child who is the subject of a report of child abuse or neglect for a purpose relevant to the provision of the treatment or care; (6) To a parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care and custody of a child, if provisions are made for the protection of the identity of the reporter or any other person whose life or safety is likely to be endangered by disclosing the information; (7) To the appropriate public school superintendent for the purpose of carrying out appropriate personnel actions following a report of suspected child abuse involving a student committed by a public school employee in that school system; or (8) To the director of a licensed child care facility or licensed child placement agency for the purpose of carrying ²⁵³ out appropriate personnel actions following a report of suspected child neglect or abuse alleged to have been committed by an employee of the facility or agency and involving a child who is currently or who was previously under that facility or agency’s care. See also COMAR 07.02.07.23A. In addition, an individual applying to work or volunteer with children may request, in “a timely, notarized request,” that a local department notify a third party “of whether the applicant is identified in the local department’s records as an indicated child abuser or negleetor.” COMAR 07.02.07.23G. In 1987 and, as we have noted, prior to the enactment of the provisions providing for the limited Chapter 318 hearings, the Legislature created certain protections for persons suspected of abuse or neglect prior to the entry of their names into a central registry.

These procedural safeguards are now codified at section 5-715: (b) Notice of entry of name in central registry.—Before the name of a person who is suspected of abuse or neglect is entered in a central registry, the person shall be given notice. (c) Hearing to appeal entry of name in central registry required; exception.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, on request by a person suspected of abuse or neglect, the Department shall hold an administrative hearing for the purpose of allowing the person to appeal the entry of the person’s name in a central registry. * (2) The hearing shall be held in the county in which the person suspected of abuse or neglect resides. (3) The name of a person adjudicated a child abuser may be entered in a central registry without an opportunity for a hearing under this subsection. (d) Requirements for entry of name in central registry.— The Department may not enter the name of a person in a central registry unless the person has: (1) been adjudicated a child abuser; ²⁵⁴ (2) unsuccessfully appealed the entry of the person’s name in the central registry under procedures established by the Department and this section; or (3) failed to respond within 15 days to notice by the Department of the Department’s intent to enter the person’s name in a central registry.

See also 1987 Md. Laws, Chap. 635. We addressed the procedural safeguards provided by section 5-715 to persons suspected of child abuse or neglect prior to the entering of their names on a “central registry” in C.S., 343 Md. at 33 , 680 A.2d at 480 , and there held that section 5-715 provides those individuals a right to a contested case hearing before DHR or a local department can enter their names into a central registry. According to the affidavit of Stephen Berry, Acting Director of the Office of Family and Children’s Services of the Social Services Administration, in reaction to our opinion in C.S. and “[r]ather than offering all individuals on the Central Registry full administrative hearings,” the Department deactivated the formal Central Registry. Accordingly, the Department, on its own accord, ceased entering names on the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry in 1996 and effectively disbanded that particular system. 4.

The AMF and CIS Registries As recognized by the local departments in their brief, “[a]lso considered part of the agency’s record are the coded entries in the AMF and CIS.” 9 The departments go on to describe the evolution of the AMF: Since the 1940s, prior to local departments having responsibility for CPS [Child Protective Services], DHR and local departments have maintained “lists” of their clients. Prior ²⁵⁵ to automation, this was done by use of a centralized index card filing system known as the “Master File.” When the Master File was automated in 1986, it was renamed the “Automated Master File” or AMF. [Citations omitted.] In his affidavit for the L.D. case, Acting Director Berry further described the AMF and CIS database systems: The AMF, which still operates in many jurisdictions, is accessible to all local departments. The AMF contains coded information about any individual who has applied for or received benefits or services through a DHR program anywhere in the state. As with the Master File, local departments use the AMF to locate active and closed case records; determine what DHR benefits or services individuals have applied for or received; monitor case activity; and extract limited demographic information about individual applicants and recipients.

The AMF also generates the data DHR requires for various statistical reports. In the early 1990s, DHR began development of a new computer system, CIS. Local departments in all but the largest jurisdictions now use CIS to track clients and services. While CIS jurisdictions still have access to the AMF, they enter new data and cases directly into CIS.

The same kinds of data are recorded in both systems. In both the AMF and CIS, “child protective services” provided in response to a report of child abuse or neglect are catalogued, as other services, under a “case head,” usually the female head of the household. Under the case head, local departments enter the names of family members, including the child and other relatives by blood, adoption, or marriage, and of household members. In the case of alleged abuse or neglect, household members include all individuals who lived with the child or were a regular presence in the child’s home.

Any other individuals significant to the provision of services are identified as “associates” and coded with a reference to their relationship to the case head. ²⁵⁶ The particular services provided to a family are identified in the AMF or CIS by a code. In the case of reported child abuse or neglect, a service code ’for child protective services is entered into the AMF or CIS for the case head as well as for every household or family member or associate. An additional code identifies the alleged maltreatment (physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect) and disposition of the investigation (“indicated,” “unsubstantiated,” or “ruled out”). Access to the AMF and CIS is limited.

In both systems, access is controlled by the use of passwords provided only to certain local department and DHR employees for whom access is necessary to perform their jobs. Acting Director Berry went on to describe the now defunct Central Registry. He stated that the Central Registry initially was accessible to public and private agencies and that it was not until 1977 that the Legislature “prohibited the Department from entering a person’s name into ‘the Child Abuse Central Registry unless he or she had been ‘adjudicated a child abuser’ or had been offered an administrative hearing.” See generally 1977 Md. Laws, Ch. 504. Berry noted that in 1981, because of the stigmatizing effect on a family or child and the intrusive nature of the appeals process, the Legislature limited access to the Central Registry to individuals specifically involved in child abuse investigations: “protective services staff of the Social Services Administration, protective services staff of 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.” 1981 Md. Laws Ch. 770 (showing additions and deletions).

But see COMAR 07.02.07.28A, supra. In 1987, at the request of the Department, the Legislature again amended provisions regarding the Central Registry and clarified that the maintenance of the Central Registry was discretionary rather than mandatory. See 1987 Md. Laws Ch. 635 (now codified with amendments at § 5-714(a)). Accord ²⁵⁷ ingly, in the late 1980s, the Department deactivated the Central Registry.

It was reactivated briefly after the passage of the Chapter 318 hearings process, “[biased on [DHR’s] understanding that the Chapter 318 appeal procedures would satisfy, as well, the hearing requirements of section 5-715.” That interpretation proved incorrect when this Court held in C.S., 343 Md. at 33 , 680 A.2d at 480 , that section 5-715 required that individuals be offered full contested case hearings, not simply the limited Chapter 318 hearings, prior to the entry of their names on the Central Registry. As we have stated, in reaction to that decision and rather than offering full contested case hearings, the Department again deactivated the Central Registry. At no time has DHR offered individuals full administrative “contested case” hearings to challenge the entry of their names on the AMF or CIS. The AMF is defined by the DHR in its regulations as an “automated electronic system that maintains data related to services provided by a local department.” COMAR 07.02.07.02B(3).

The AMF also has been referred to 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, Floor Report for House Bill 617, at 2 (1993); Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Bill Analysis for House Bill 617, at 1 (1993). The local departments assert that “[t]hese databases serve as computerized indices of all of the agency’s files, only a small percentage of which involves [Child Protective Services]. By ‘running’ a name, a local department can determine whether [it or] any [other] local department has served or assisted an individual or household and the status of such involvement.” The local departments contend that the AMF and CIS systems are not central registries because they are “not ‘designed solely to list the names of adjudicated child abusers.’ ” C.S., 343 Md. at 22 , 680 A.2d at 474 (quoting Bill Analysis for House Bill 617, at 2). In the L.D. case, the circuit court below determined that, as matter of law, “the AMF and CIS databases operated by the Montgomery County Department of Social Services and the ²⁵⁸ State Department of Human Resources constitute a “central registry” as contemplated by Md.Code Ann. Family Law Art., §§; 5-714 and 5-715 (1990 & Supp.1996).” In reaching this determination, Judge Mason, in an excellent opinion, explored the factual background and described the AMF and CIS databases: \ The precursor to the AMF was the Master File index card systems maintained by each individual local department since the 1940s.

These systems were unique to each department and kept track of only those services rendered by that respective local department. Statistical data from these files was tabulated and sent to DHR on a monthly basis. In 1986, DHR created the Automated Master File (“AMF”) to replace the card system. Unlike the manual card system, the AMF was the filing system for all local departments and made information entered by one local department instantly accessible to all others.

In 1990, DHR updated the AMF with a new system called the Client Information System (“CIS”). The same data is recorded in both systems. The CIS database is now used in all but the largest jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions using the CIS still have access to the AMF.

In both systems, data regarding child abuse and neglect is cataloged under a “case head” and is entered by means of alphanumeric codes. Although the affidavit [of Stephen Berry] does not set out how DSS determines who is the “case head,” it does state that the case head is “usually the female head of the household.” Nonetheless, all information regarding the case is stored under that name. Included in this information are the identities of all individuals significant to the provision of services along with codes which reveal their relationship to the case head. In the case of child abuse or neglect, two codes are entered which are of particular importance: • one signifies that a child protective services investigation has been conducted and identifies the maltreat ²⁵⁹ ment alleged in the investigation, ie., whether it is physical abuse, sexual abuse or neglect; and • the second identifies the finding of the investigation, ie., whether it was “ruled out,” “indicated,” or “unsubstantiated.” These codes appear under the name of each individual listed under the case head regardless of whether that individual is the perpetrator, victim or is otherwise associated with the case.

There is no code which explicitly identifies or otherwise singularly applies to the perpetrator. In addition to submitting the affidavit generally describing the codes and procedures used to enter an individual onto the AMF or CIS, DSS also submitted printouts reflecting the information available on [L.D.]. As for the AMF printouts, this information only reflects that [L.D.] ran a day care home. This is because DSS switched from the AMF to the CIS prior to the allegations of neglect against [L.D.].

DSS entered all case information on the CIS, hence, only the CIS contains child neglect information connected with [L.D.]. The CIS printouts regarding [L.D.] largely confirm the general information regarding the databases summarized above. The information appears in three types of printouts. One printout is the “address” display which contains [L.D.]’s address.

The second printout is the “summary” display wherein [D.N.] is listed as the case head with [L.D.’s] spouse, [L.D.’s] children, [the child and the child’s mother] all listed under [L.D.’s] name. Next to each name is the code for a child neglect investigation. The final type of printout is the “client inquiry” display. Each individual, including [L.D.] has a distinct display under their name in which certain information appears.

All of these displays for each individual contain the same codes signifying: (1) a child neglect investigation; (2) a finding of “indicated neglect”; (3) the location of the office handling the investigation; and (4) the dates the investigation was opened and closed. Additionally, the displays contain codes ²⁶⁰ for each individual’s relationship to the case head and their date of birth. [Citations omitted; footnotes omitted.] With the foregoing discussion in mind, we turn now to the case sub judice.

III

Analysis In this consolidated appeal, we must address the issue left unanswered in C.S., 343 Md. at 34 n. 8, 680 A.2d at 480 n. 8: “[W]hether records stored in the AMF [and CIS] are ... ‘central registries]’ within the meaning of [section] 5-714.” We answer this in the affirmative and hold that because the AMF and CIS registries are statewide, comprehensive databases containing information identifying suspected child abusers, available on a statewide basis, these databases constitute central registries and therefore are subject to the contested case hearing procedures mandated by section 5-715 and C.S. C.S. v. Prince George’s County Department of Social Services In C.S., 343 Md. at 22 , 680 A.2d at 474 , the Prince George’s County Department of Social Services (PGCDSS)