C.S. v. Commonwealth, 440 M.D. 2017

• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
• Parties: C.S., Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, Respondent
• Docket Number: No. 440 M.D. 2017,440 M.D. 2017
• Decision Date: 07 January 2019

C.S., Petitioner
v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Human Services,
Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, Respondent

No. 440 M.D. 2017

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Submitted: December 13, 2018
January 7, 2019

CASE SEALED

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

Before the Court in our original jurisdiction is the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by C.S. (Petitioner), which we treat as an application for summary relief.¹ The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in C.S. v.

Page 2

Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, 184 A.3d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018):

On September 29, 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for review, stylized as a "Petition for Declaratory Judgment" (Petition), averring as follows. Petitioner is certified in Pennsylvania as a professional educator. He was indicated as a perpetrator of child abuse in two separate reports filed by the County Children and Youth Services (CYS) and placed on the ChildLine and Abuse Registry. Petitioner then filed petitions to expunge the indicated reports and, on appeal, the [Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA)] sustained one indicated report and dismissed the other as unfounded . . . .

Meanwhile, the Department of Education, Professional Standards and Practices Commission (Commission), commenced a disciplinary proceeding against Petitioner's professional license. Based upon pre-hearing statements filed with the Commission, Petitioner discovered that "persons who testified in the two separate child abuse expunction proceedings before the [BHA] are expected to testify." (Petition, ¶9.) In filing the Petition, Petitioner desires "to use the transcripts of the prior testimony taken from such persons in the child abuse expunction proceeding in cross-examining them at the upcoming hearing on the action before the . . . Commission." (Petition, ¶10.)

According to Petitioner, the transcripts are designated as confidential information under statutory law and counsel for the Commission objects to their disclosure during the licensing matter. Petitioner seeks a declaration authorizing him to utilize the transcripts for the stated purpose, asserting that the theory of fundamental fairness inherent in the Due Process Clause, [U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1], mandates this result.

On November 1, 2017, the BHA filed preliminary objections, contending that the Petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The BHA further

Page 3

asserts that the Petition does not conform to law or rule of court.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed an answer and, in proper course, both parties submitted briefs in support of their respective positions.

C.S., 184 A.3d at 603 (footnotes omitted).

In an opinion and order dated April 10, 2018, this Court overruled the preliminary objections of the BHA. We concluded that, although the transcripts of the witnesses' testimony in the expungement proceedings are deemed confidential information under the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL),² this fact must be considered in light of the fact that Petitioner possesses a protected property interest in the practice of his profession and a fundamental liberty interest in his reputation. This Court in C.S. then traced and analyzed the confidentiality provisions and exceptions in the CPSL, discussed the basic right to cross-examine adverse witnesses with prior inconsistent statements, and explained that use of the transcripts by Petitioner in the licensing matter would not likely compromise the CPSL's confidential reporting system or the privacy interests of the parties involved. Noting that "[p]lacement on a registry for alleged child abuse causes damage to the alleged abuser, primarily in the form of reputational harm and employment repercussions," C.S., 184 A.3d at 607, we explained that Petitioner has a "fundamental right to defend [his] reputational interests in the face of peril," id. at 611-12, and an analogous right to protect himself against "the loss of [his] professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood." Id. at 612.

In C.S., this Court reiterated, "It is beyond cavil that all legislative acts have to abide by the constitution, and a statutory privilege may have to be narrowed

Page 4

or yielded if it unreasonably interferes with the guarantee of due process and the right to...