S.F. v. Pa. Dep't of Human Servs.

298 A.3d 495

S.F., Petitioner

v.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; Teresa D. Miller, in her official capacity as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Pennsylvania Professional Standards and Practices Commission, Respondents

No. 574 M.D. 2020

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued December 15, 2021

Decided July 11, 2023

Scott Stedjan and Thomas W. Scott, Harrisburg, for petitioner.

Stephen Moniak, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Harrisburg, for respondent.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge,¹ HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge (P.),² HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

CASE SEALED

OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH

S.F. (Petitioner), a former teacher certified by Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and employed by a public school district (School District), has filed a six-count petition for review (PFR) in the nature of a complaint in equity, mandamus, and for declaratory relief against the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS), Teresa D. Miller,³ in her official capacity as Secretary (Secretary), and the Pennsylvania Professional Standards and Practices Commission (PSPC) (collectively, Respondents). Petitioner has filed an application for partial summary relief on Counts I , III , and V . The application for partial summary relief calls upon this Court to address the question of whether the process available to an alleged perpetrator under the current version of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), 23 Pa. C.S. §§ 6301 - 6386, satisfies constitutional procedural due process standards in the context of teachers.⁴ Specifically, Petitioner asks this Court to hold that she, and teachers like herself, are entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing prior to being listed as a perpetrator in either (1) an indicated report of child abuse; or (2) a founded report of child abuse when the basis of the founded designation is entrance into an accelerated rehabilitative disposition (ARD) program. Respondents have filed a cross-application for partial summary relief on those same counts on grounds of lack of standing and ripeness.

Although in recent years, this Court and our Supreme Court have expressed concerns that the CPSL may permit the deprivation of protected interests without required constitutional protections, no court has, until now, addressed whether due process requires pre-deprivation procedures in the CPSL with regard to teachers. After careful consideration, we conclude that the CPSL, when implemented together with the Educator Discipline Act⁵ (Educator Discipline Act), contained within the School Code, does not provide for our Constitution's guarantee of due process. It is without question that the government has a paramount interest in keeping child abuse out of our schools and doing so in an expeditious manner. As this has necessarily involved the preliminary deprivation of constitutionally protected interests in property and reputation, the government also has an equal interest in not stigmatizing those who are innocent or wrongfully accused or foreclosing them from employment and other opportunities prior to being named on an indicated report of child abuse. The pre-deprivation procedures provided for below do not hinder the expeditious removal of an abuser from the school premises; they merely ensure that those teachers who are alleged to be an abuser are not deprived of their constitutional right to due process before being listed as a perpetrator of abuse in an indicated report of child abuse. This case does not involve the determination of whether child abuse occurred in this matter, but only whether the CPSL protects constitutional guarantees to due process before a teacher is listed in the ChildLine and Abuse Registry (ChildLine Registry). Our determination also does not prevent a school from implementing any lawful procedures to initially remove a teacher whom it believes has engaged in child abuse. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's application for partial summary relief as to Counts I and III is granted. With respect to Count V , we agree with the arguments advanced by Respondents and deny Petitioner's application for partial summary relief. The cross-application for partial summary relief filed by Respondents is granted as to Count V only and denied in all other respects.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the fall of 2018, Petitioner was a special education teacher in the School District. On September 14, 2018, Petitioner was alleged to have forced a 6-year-old special needs student to walk up and down a flight of stairs over 100 times. A report of suspected child abuse was referred to the local County Children and Youth Services (CYS), which investigated and interviewed Petitioner and the child and reviewed video surveillance footage of the incident. Petitioner acknowledged making the child walk up and down the stairs as a form of getting the child to calm down. CYS's investigation concluded that the allegations of abuse were substantiated and that an indicated report of child abuse would be issued. Petitioner was notified that as of November 30, 2018, she was listed on the statewide ChildLine Registry as a perpetrator in an indicated report of child abuse. The notice from DHS informed Petitioner,

An indicated report means that a county children and youth agency or the Pennsylvania [DHS] has made a determination that you committed abuse. Your name will remain on file in the statewide database indefinitely if your social security number or date of birth is known.

As a perpetrator in an indicated report, you will probably be prevented from working in an organization serving children or a public or private school or from becoming a foster care or adoptive parent. As a perpetrator, you could also be prevented from volunteering in an organization serving children or public or private school or from obtaining certain educational degrees or certificates. Other volunteer and employment opportunities may also be negatively affected.

If you disagree with the determination that you have committed abuse, and you want your name removed from the Statewide Database, you have two options .

(1) You must appeal to [DHS] within 90 days of the mailing date listed at the top of this notice .

To appeal you can use the enclosed form and check off the first box on the form. You may also write a letter requesting the appeal.

OR

(2) You have a right to a hearing now. You can skip the appeal described above and ask the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals [(BHA)] for that hearing. This request must be made within 90 days of the mailing date listed at the top of this notice .

(Exhibit B to Petitioner's Brief in Support of Application for Summary Relief) (emphasis in original).

Petitioner was interviewed but received no hearing before a neutral adjudicator prior to being listed as a perpetrator of child abuse on the ChildLine Registry . Petitioner sought administrative review of the indicated report pursuant to Section 6341(a)(2) of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6341(a)(2).⁶

On December 26, 2018, an educator misconduct complaint was filed with the PDE pursuant to section 9 of the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. § 2070.9,⁷ which alleged that Petitioner was the subject of an indicated report of child abuse. By letter dated March 12, 2019, DHS denied Petitioner's request for administrative review, concluding that the report was accurate and was maintained in a manner consistent with the CPSL. Petitioner appealed to BHA, and a hearing was scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for July 21, 2019.

Before the hearing, CYS requested a stay because Petitioner was charged with a misdemeanor count of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4303, Endangering the Welfare of Children (EWOC), and criminal proceedings had commenced. The BHA then stayed Petitioner's administrative appeal. Also due to the criminal charge, the PSPC directed the PDE to suspend Petitioner's teaching certificate and employment eligibility pursuant to section 9.2(a)(1) of the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. § 2070.9b(a)(1),⁸ which requires such suspensions.

On June 26, 2020, Petitioner entered into ARD in connection with her EWOC charge. As a condition of entering ARD, the District Attorney required Petitioner to surrender her teaching certificate in lieu of further disciplinary proceedings. By order dated September 29, 2020, the PSPC accepted Petitioner's surrender of her certificate of employment eligibility.

On October 15, 2020, Petitioner filed her PFR. In Count I , Petitioner seeks a declaration that section 6368 of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6368, is constitutionally deficient under article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution⁹ and the United States Constitution (as applied to Petitioner and other teachers and on its face) as it provides no pre-deprivation due process to such individuals listed as perpetrators in an "indicated" report of child abuse. In Count III , Petitioner seeks a declaration that section 6303 of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6303, is unconstitutional as applied to Petitioner and other teachers and on its face because it provides no due process to individuals listed as perpetrators of a "founded" report of child abuse when the basis of the founded report is acceptance into ARD. Count V seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Respondents to remove Petitioner's existing report from the ChildLine Registry. Respondents timely filed an answer with new matter on February 8, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, Petitioner filed her application for partial summary relief, seeking judgment in her favor as to Counts I , III , and V .¹⁰ Respondents filed a cross-application for partial summary relief on Count I , Count III (lack of standing because Petitioner has never been the subject of a "founded" report of child abuse), and Count V (because DHS has no duty to remove an indicated report of...