Opinion
No. 745 C.D. 2014
07-14-2015
E.G. and L.G., Petitioners v. Department of Public Welfare, Respondent
SEALED CASE BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
E.G. and L.G. (together, Petitioners) petition for review of the April 2, 2014 final administrative action order of the Regional Manager of the Department of Public Welfare's (DPW) Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA). The Regional Manager's order adopted in its entirety the recommendation of an administrative law judge (ALJ) that the appeals filed by Petitioners under the provisions of the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) be granted, in part, and that the indicated reports of child abuse naming them as perpetrators against R.W. should be expunged from the ChildLine Registry. However, the ALJ recommended that Petitioners' appeals be denied and that the indicated reports of child abuse naming them as perpetrators against C.W. should remain.
23 Pa.C.S. §§6301 - 6385.
Petitioners were the foster parents of C.W., a male born on February 23, 2005. Petitioners had been approved as foster parents for Lackawanna County in 2010. Petitioners' daughter, B.G., lived next door to Petitioners and was a foster parent to R.W., a male born on January 24, 2008. T.G. is the adult son of Petitioners. He had previously been one of Petitioners' foster children and was adopted by Petitioners on April 11, 2012, through the Lackawanna Children and Youth Services (Lackawanna CYS). Several years prior, Lackawanna CYS had referred T.G. to Families United Network, Inc., for preparation of a child profile. This profile was completed on March 2, 2009, which revealed that T.G. had been both the victim and a perpetrator of sexual abuse. At the time of T.G.'s adoption, Petitioners signed a pre-adoption disclosure form acknowledging that they had received a copy of this child profile. (Findings of Fact Nos. 1-2, 5-7, 9-11.)
Petitioners had previously applied to become foster parents in Luzerne County, but their application was denied based upon their failure to disclose prior involvement with Luzerne County Children and Youth Services (Luzerne CYS) regarding their daughter. (Finding of Fact No. 6.)
Prior to his adoption, T.G. was known as E.H. (Finding of Fact No. 7.)
Prior to August 2012, Petitioners reported to Lackawanna CYS that T.G. had made sexually inappropriate comments to one of their female foster children. Lackawanna CYS removed the female foster child from the home and advised Petitioners that T.G. should have his own bedroom separate from the younger children. On August 21, 2012, C.W. told his foster mother, L.G., that T.G. had been engaging in sexual acts with him. That same day, Luzerne CYS received a report of this sexual abuse. Less than one month later, on September 10, 2012, Luzerne CYS received a report of T.G.'s sexual abuse of R.W. T.G. admitted to sexually abusing C.W. and is currently incarcerated for the same. (Findings of Fact Nos. 12-17.)
At the time, T.G. had shared a bedroom with C.W. and two other foster children, ages 9 and 13. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 59a.)
Both C.W. and R.W. were interviewed at the Children's Advocacy Center and stated that the abuse occurred on a regular basis. On August 22, 2012, a caseworker with Luzerne CYS met with Petitioners at their home. The caseworker asked L.G. if she had a copy of T.G.'s child profile and she responded in the affirmative. L.G. was asked to retrieve the same and she did. L.G. informed the caseworker that she had read the child profile. L.G. stated that T.G. had been sharing a room with C.W. despite the same and despite being previously advised that T.G. should have his own room. E.G., T.G.'s foster/adoptive father, informed the caseworker that it was not possible for T.G. to have his own room. On October 16, 2012, Luzerne CYS filed an indicated report of child abuse against Petitioners regarding C.W. for child sexual abuse by omission. On October 22, 2012, Luzerne CYS filed an indicated report of child abuse against Petitioners regarding R.W. for child sexual abuse by omission. (Findings of Fact Nos. 18-25.)
Section 6303(a) of the CPSL defines "indicated report" as follows:
[A] child abuse report made pursuant to this chapter if an investigation by the county agency or [DPW] determines that substantial evidence of the alleged abuse exists based on any of the following:
23 Pa.C.S. §6303(a). See also Section 3490.4 of DPW's regulations, 55 Pa. Code §3490.4. A "perpetrator" is defined as "[a] person who has committed child abuse and is a parent of a child, a person responsible for the welfare of a child, an individual residing in the same home as a child or a paramour of a child's parent." Id.(1) Available medical evidence.
(2) The child protective service investigation.
(3) An admission of the acts of abuse by the perpetrator.
Section 6303(b)(1)(ii) of the Law defines "child abuse," in pertinent part, as "[a]n act or failure to act by a perpetrator which causes nonaccidental serious mental injury to or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age." 23 Pa.C.S. §6303(b)(1)(ii). In turn, section 6303(a) defines "nonaccidental" as an injury that is the result of an intentional act that is committed with disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk." 23 Pa.C.S. §6303(a). Finally, section 6303(a) of the Law defines "sexual abuse or exploitation" to include any of the following offenses committed against a child:
(i) Rape.
(ii) Sexual assault.
(iii) Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.
(iv) Aggravated indecent assault.
(v) Molestation.
(vi) Incest.
(vii) Indecent exposure.
(viii) Prostitution.
(ix) Sexual abuse.
(x) Sexual exploitation. See also 55 Pa. Code §3490.4.
By separate notices dated November 7, 2012, Petitioners were notified of their placement on the ChildLine Registry. (R.R. at 12a-13a.) Petitioners thereafter requested that DPW review these indicated reports by letter dated November 30, 2012. (R.R. at 15a.) In seeking a review, Petitioners alleged that they received a packet of documents, which included T.G.'s child profile, only five minutes before the scheduled adoption hearing, that this packet was never reviewed with them prior to the hearing, and that T.G., who was 20 years old at the time, took and remained in possession of the packet. Hence, Petitioners alleged that they never knew that T.G. was molested as a child or was a child molester himself. Petitioners noted that because of their foster parent status, they, along with T.G. since he resided in the home, were subject to evaluations and background checks by Lackawanna CYS and were always approved. (R.R. at 10a-11a.)
Section 6331 of the CPSL states, in pertinent part:
There shall be established in the department:
. . .
23 Pa.C.S. §6331(2), (3).(2) A Statewide central register of child abuse which shall consist of founded and indicated reports.
(3) A file of unfounded reports awaiting expunction.
By letters dated December 25, 2012, DPW advised Petitioners that the indicated reports were accurate and would remain on file. (R.R. at 19a, 22a.) Petitioners subsequently requested hearings by letters dated January 7, 2013. (R.R. at 20a, 23a.) A hearing was scheduled and held before the ALJ on August 26, 2013. (R.R. at 134a.) At this hearing, the parties stipulated that Lackawanna CYS did not review T.G.'s child profile with Petitioners at any time prior to T.G.'s adoption. (R.R. at 137a, 292a; Finding of Fact No. 26.) The parties also stipulated that T.G. sexually abused C.W. and later pled guilty to this offense. (R.R. at 181a-82a.)
Allison Cave, an intake supervisor for Luzerne CYS, testified that she initiated an investigation following allegations that T.G. had sexually abused C.W. and R.W. Cave described the specific nature of the alleged abuse. She stated that she immediately requested T.G.'s records from Lackawanna CYS and scheduled interviews with Petitioners and their foster children. She also scheduled medical exams for C.W. and R.W. and notified law enforcement of the allegations. Cave noted that T.G.'s child profile prepared in 2009 for Lackawanna CYS revealed that T.G. had been both a victim and a perpetrator of sexual abuse. (R.R. at 173a-76a.)
Cave stated that she first met with L.G. at her home. She testified that she asked if L.G. had the child profile for T.G. and if she could retrieve it, which she did. Cave said she then reviewed the child profile with L.G., at which point L.G. acknowledged that she had read it previously. According to Cave, L.G. admitted that T.G. was sharing a bedroom with younger foster children, including C.W., and L.G. also acknowledged that two other female foster children had been removed from the home because of T.G.'s inappropriate sexual comments. Cave testified that she also met with E.G., who confirmed the sleeping arrangements and stated that it was not possible for T.G. to have his own room because there was not enough room in the home. (R.R. at 177a-79a.)
Cave testified that, following her investigation, Luzerne CYS filed indicated reports of child abuse identifying Petitioners as perpetrators by omission. Cave explained that the reports were premised upon Petitioners' knowledge of T.G.'s actions and allowing him unsupervised access to younger children. On cross-examination, Cave stated that she did not know what room L.G. retrieved T.G.'s child profile from, other than she went upstairs to get it. Cave noted that records from Lackawanna CYS indicate that the child profile was provided to Petitioners prior to T.G.'s adoption, but did not indicate exactly when it was provided or if it was reviewed with them. She also stated that she visited Petitioners' home on August 22, 2012, and the home of their daughter B.G., which is next door, on September 11, 2012. Cave acknowledged that T.G. was an adult at the time of his adoption and that T.G. informed her in a later interview that he was never left home alone with the other foster children. (R.R. at 182a-97a.)
Cave stated that law enforcement, including the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office, was notified of the allegations, but to her knowledge, no charges had been filed against Petitioners. Cave did not know if a criminal or juvenile record check had been conducted with respect to T.G. from the time he was first placed as a foster child with Petitioners until she began her investigation. Cave testified that Petitioners had applied to be foster parents in Luzerne County, but their application was denied due to their failure to disclose prior involvement with Luzerne CYS concerning their then teenage daughter. (R.R. at 199a-202a.)
Stephanie Hunt, the former permanency supervisor for Families United Network, Inc., testified that she reviewed T.G.'s child profile and identified it for purposes of submission as an exhibit. Hunt explained that the child profile includes a review of a county CYS file, birth records, educational records, and medical records, as well as interviews with any available family members, foster families, and the subject child. Hunt noted that T.G.'s child profile was completed by another staff member, Joan King, for whom she was a supervisor. (R.R. at 207a-10a.)
On cross-examination, Hunt described the child profile as a thorough document and an attempt to document the child's journey thorough life. Hunt stated that T.G.'s child profile revealed he was both a victim and a perpetrator of sexual abuse and that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and impulse control disorder. Hunt testified that the child profile is forwarded to, and becomes the property of, the requesting county CYS. She described the child profile as a very significant part of a child's placement into foster care or adoption, which is intended to be shared, especially if the child is being permanently placed. (R.R. at 213a-21a.)
Sara McDonald, Petitioners' foster care caseworker for Lackawanna CYS, testified that Petitioners' home was first approved as a foster residence in 2010. McDonald recalled an early incident involving T.G. where he made inappropriate sexual comments to another female foster child, which resulted in the removal of that child from the home. McDonald suggested that Petitioners perform routine bed/safety checks on T.G. After allegations surfaced that T.G. was bullying other foster children, McDonald also suggested that T.G. have his own room. McDonald identified a form entitled "Pre-Adoption Disclosure," which is provided to prospective adoptive parents to ensure that they have received a child's medical, psychological, and psychiatric history, all available and pertinent social information, and a completed child profile. McDonald noted that this form and the child profile are normally provided on the day of the adoption. (R.R. at 223a-30a.)
On cross-examination, McDonald testified that she was Petitioners' caseworker for nearly two years, but was not T.G.'s caseworker. McDonald stated that the caseworker is responsible for reviewing a child's profile and sharing the information with prospective foster or adoptive parents. McDonald noted that once a child turns 18, he is considered an adult, but she was unaware who is entitled to a copy of the child profile if the child has reached this age. McDonald testified that the child profile should be reviewed with prospective adoptive parents. McDonald stated that there was nothing in Petitioners' file indicating that T.G.'s child profile was reviewed with them prior to his foster placement or adoption. (R.R. at 232a-36a.)
E.G. testified that he and his wife reside in Luzerne County and that they were rejected as foster parents by Luzerne CYS in 2007 or 2008, but were never told why. He said that he and his wife later applied to be foster parents in Lackawanna County and were approved in either 2009 or 2010. E.G. stated that T.G. had been a foster child for about a year before Petitioners decided to adopt him. E.G. noted that there were four or five other foster children living with them during that time. E.G. testified that McDonald never reviewed T.G.'s child profile with him or provided Petitioners with a copy of it. E.G. acknowledged that he signed the "Pre-Adoption Disclosure" form, but he stated that all documentation was given to T.G. and remained in his possession. E.G. noted that T.G. did tell him that he once got into a fight with his sister and this was referenced in the documentation, but T.G. never offered the documentation for review by Petitioners. (R.R. at 240a-48a.)
E.G. further testified that Cave was never in his home, even on August 22, 2012, the date of her purported home visit, and that he first met her at the ALJ hearing. E.G. stated that, during Cave's visit to his daughter's home on September 11, 2012, his daughter's husband came over to his home and asked about T.G.'s paperwork, which E.G. retrieved from storage in the attic. E.G. also stated that his daughter's husband took the paperwork back to his daughter's home. E.G. noted that Petitioners had intended to adopt their other foster children, but they were removed from the home following the incidents involving T.G., C.W., and R.W. He later reiterated that he never knew that T.G. was a victim and perpetrator of child abuse or was suffering from the various conditions identified in T.G.'s child profile. (R.R. at 249a-54a.)
On cross-examination, E.G. testified that he and his wife received months of training prior to becoming foster parents, but he denied that such training ever referenced a child's profile. After being presented with a copy of a May 6, 2008 letter from Luzerne CYS, E.G. acknowledged that his application to become a foster parent in Luzerne County was denied because of Petitioners' misrepresentation of information regarding an active case with his daughter as well as Petitioners' failure to disclose his prescription for morphine and his wife's prescription for OxyContin. E.G. stated that T.G. shared a bedroom with younger foster children, that Lackawanna CYS had approved this arrangement, and that there was no separate room in the home available for T.G. when Lackawanna CYS later suggested that he be moved. (R.R. at 255a-62a.)
E.G. recalled an earlier incident involving inappropriate sexual comments T.G. made to a female foster child which resulted in her removal from the home, but he noted that T.G. remained in the home with the same sleeping arrangements. E.G. insisted that he never met Cave. While he admitted receiving the "Pre-Adoption Disclosure" form and executing it, he stated that the form was provided immediately before the start of T.G.'s adoption proceedings and that he never actually received or reviewed a copy of T.G.'s child profile. (R.R. at 262a-67a.)
Finally, L.G. testified that Luzerne CYS' denial of Petitioners' application to become foster parents was premised on misinformation, i.e., Luzerne CYS mistakenly believed that Petitioners' daughter had been removed from the home. L.G. explained that her daughter ran away from home and moved in with her boyfriend's family, that she was pregnant and being physically abused at the time by her boyfriend, and that L.G. called Luzerne CYS to get protection for her daughter. L.G. noted that she and her husband had been foster parents to fifteen children over the years. L.G. denied that she was ever told that T.G. should have his own room. Regarding T.G.'s incident with a female foster child, L.G. noted that Lackawanna CYS advised her that the female foster child had made similar accusations in the past and that such actions were not in T.G.'s background. (R.R. at 268a-72a.)
L.G. further testified that the child profile was handed to T.G. five minutes before the adoption hearing and remained in his possession at all times. (R.R. at 273a.) L.G. noted that one day he was reading through his file and when she asked what he was reading, T.G. responded that it was his "health history and stuff, and there was some lies in it that they accused him of beating his brother and sisters up." (R.R. at 274a.) L.G. strongly denied ever receiving or reviewing T.G.'s child profile. L.G. stated that, when C.W. informed her of the sexual abuse by T.G., she immediately called the police and Lackawanna CYS.
L.G. only recalled meeting Cave at her daughter's home on one occasion. L.G. stated that T.G. sends letters and cards on Mother's Day and Father's Day apologizing for his actions. L.G. also noted that she and her husband were in the process of adopting three other foster children but they were removed from the home following T.G.'s arrest. L.G. later reiterated that she did not have the opportunity to look at T.G.'s child profile on the day of the adoption hearing and that Lackawanna CYS never reviewed it with Petitioners prior to the hearing. (R.R. at 274a-81a.)
On cross-examination, L.G. testified that she and her husband received six weeks training prior to becoming foster parents, and despite it being customary for such training to discuss child profiles, she insisted that she was unaware of child profiles until the day of T.G.'s adoption hearing. L.G. acknowledged, despite her earlier testimony to the contrary, that Lackawanna CYS had suggested that T.G. have his own room. While L.G. stated that her attorney was not present at the adoption hearing, L.G. agreed that the attorney's signature was on the "Pre-Adoption Disclosure" form. L.G. admitted that Petitioners' application to Luzerne CYS to become foster parents reflected "none" where asked to list her and her husband's medications. Regarding the failure to acknowledge previous contact with Luzerne CYS on the application, L.G. insisted that the contact was between her daughter and Luzerne CYS, not Petitioners and the agency. On redirect examination, L.G. stated that her daughter filled out the application to Luzerne CYS because she cannot read or write. (R.R. at 282a-89a.)
On April 2, 2014, the ALJ issued an adjudication and recommendation to sustain the appeals of Petitioners with respect to R.W. and expunge the indicated reports of abuse from the ChildLine registry related to that child, but deny the appeals with respect to C.W. The ALJ accepted the testimony of Cave, Hunt, and McDonald as credible and rejected the testimony of Petitioners as not credible. The ALJ concluded that Petitioners did not meet the definition of perpetrators with respect to R.W. because they were not his foster parents, they were not responsible for his welfare, he did not reside in their home, and there was no indication that they were babysitting him at the time of the alleged abuse.
Regarding C.W., the ALJ concluded that Petitioners qualify as perpetrators because they were his foster parents and he was under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged abuse. The ALJ noted that T.G. admitted to abusing C.W. and was currently incarcerated for that reason. The ALJ stated that the question was whether a reasonable person in Petitioners' position would have known, or should have known, that acts of abuse were occurring and failed to take steps to remove the child from harm's way. The ALJ relied on the credible testimony of Cave, Hunt, and McDonald in answering this question in the affirmative. The ALJ referenced the "Pre-Adoption Disclosure" form signed by Petitioners which acknowledged their receipt of T.G.'s child profile. The ALJ also noted Petitioners' conflicting statements regarding whether they were told to remove T.G. from the room with younger children, whether Cave was ever in their home, and whether they received and/or read T.G.'s child profile.
The ALJ stated that, even if Petitioners had not received T.G.'s child profile until the day of the adoption, this did not excuse them from reviewing the profile subsequent to the adoption, especially when T.G., an adult, was sharing a room with minor foster children. The ALJ noted that T.G. made reference to the child profile containing lies regarding some violent interactions with his siblings in his past, which the ALJ described as more reason for Petitioners to review the profile. The ALJ also noted T.G.'s earlier incident with the female foster child. Based upon these facts, the ALJ concluded that a reasonable person should have known of T.G.'s propensity for sexual abuse, reviewed T.G.'s child profile, and taken additional precautions to protect the minor children in the home. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Luzerne CYS had presented clear and convincing evidence that Petitioners committed sexual abuse of C.W. by omission. By final administrative action order of the same date, the Regional Manager of BHA adopted the ALJ's recommendation in its entirety.
Petitioners filed an application for reconsideration with DPW on April 16, 2014. Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for review with this Court on May 2, 2014, the last day to file the same. Four days later, on May 6, 2014, DPW issued an order granting reconsideration, and on June 5, 2014, the Secretary of DPW issued a final order upholding the BHA's order. However, upon the expiration of Petitioners' 30-day appeal period on May 2, 2014, which coincided with their filing of a petition for review, DPW lacked jurisdiction to take any further action. See 1 Pa. Code §35.241(e) (when a petition for review is filed, the agency must act on an application for rehearing/reconsideration within the time prescribed for the filing of a petition for review, i.e., 30 days, otherwise the application is deemed denied).
On appeal to this Court, Petitioners argue that the record lacks substantial evidence to establish that they committed child abuse by omission. Petitioners also argue that DPW erred by failing to consider that the ultimate responsibility for this entire situation rests with Lackawanna CYS for failing to properly and adequately notify them of T.G.'s child profile prior to his placement in their home as a foster child and prior to his adoption. We disagree.
This Court's scope of review in expunction proceedings is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. D.T. v. Department of Public Welfare, 873 A.2d 850, 852 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). --------
In expungement proceedings, DPW has the burden to prove that the indicated report is accurate. T.T. v. Department of Public Welfare, 48 A.3d 562, 567 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). If DPW fails to sustain that burden, a request for expungement will be granted. Bucks County Children & Youth Social Services Agency v. Department of Public Welfare, 808 A.2d 990, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). DPW must produce substantial evidence to meet this burden. G.V. v. Department of Public Welfare, 91 A.3d 667, 674 (Pa. 2014). Section 6303 of the CPSL defines "substantial evidence" as "[e]vidence which outweighs inconsistent evidence and which a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 23 Pa.C.S. §6303; K.J. v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 767 A.2d 609, 613 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 788 A.2d 381 (Pa. 2001). In determining whether substantial evidence exists, we must give the party in whose favor the decision was rendered the benefit of all reasonable and logical inferences that may be drawn from the evidence of record. R.A. v. Department of Public Welfare, 41 A.3d 131, 136 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
A perpetrator commits child abuse by omission if a reasonable person in the position of the parent or caretaker "knew or should have known that the acts of abuse were occurring and the parent or caretaker failed to take steps to remove the child from harm's way." Bucks County Children & Youth Social Services Agency v. Department of Public Welfare (Bucks County II), 616 A.2d 170, 174 (emphasis in original). In determining whether a caretaker or parent is a perpetrator of child abuse by omission, the question of whether a parent or caretaker knew or should have known that the abuse was occurring and the question of whether the parent or caretaker acted reasonably under the circumstances are questions of fact. Id.
Further, in an action to expunge an indicated report of child abuse, the BHA as the designee of the Secretary of DPW is the ultimate finder of fact. Section 6341 of the CPSL, 23 Pa.C.S. §6341; R. v. Department of Public Welfare, 636 A.2d 142, 145 (Pa. 1994). As the ultimate finder of fact, the BHA is vested with the discretion to make credibility determinations and weigh and resolve conflicts in the evidence. D.T. v. Department of Public Welfare, 873 A.2d 850, 853 & n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); K.J.
In the present case, while the parties stipulated that Lackawanna CYS did not review T.G.'s child profile with them at any time prior to his adoption, Cave credibly testified regarding her meeting with L.G. wherein L.G. acknowledged that she had previously read the profile. Additionally, Cave noted that L.G. quickly retrieved a copy of the profile from an upstairs room when asked. During this meeting, L.G. also acknowledged that two other female foster children had been removed from the home because of T.G.'s inappropriate sexual comments. Hunt credibly testified that T.G.'s child profile revealed that he was both a victim and a perpetrator of sexual abuse and that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and impulse control disorder.
Further, McDonald credibly testified that in an earlier incident T.G. made inappropriate sexual comments to another female foster child, which resulted in the removal of that child from the home. Following this incident, McDonald suggested that Petitioners perform routine bed/safety checks and that T.G. should have his own room. McDonald noted that the "Pre-Adoption Disclosure" form is provided to prospective adoptive parents to ensure that they have received a child's medical, psychological, and psychiatric history, all available and pertinent social information, and a completed child profile. McDonald stated that this form and the accompanying documents are normally provided on the day of the adoption.
Petitioners did not dispute their respective signatures, or the signature of their adoption attorney, on this form, which acknowledged that they had received a copy of the aforementioned documents, including T.G.'s child profile. At the very least, Petitioners were aware of the profile as of the date of the adoption, and it was incumbent upon them to review it, especially where T.G. was sharing a room with younger foster children and T.G. referenced that the profile contained allegations of prior acts of violent behavior towards his siblings. Likewise, Petitioners did not dispute the occurrence of prior incidents involving T.G. wherein he made inappropriate sexual comments to other female foster children which resulted in their removal from Petitioners' home. Instead, as the ALJ noted, Petitioners' testimony is rife with inconsistencies and conflicting statements regarding whether they were told to remove T.G. from the room with younger children, whether Cave was ever in their home, whether they received and/or read T.G.'s child profile or were capable of doing so, and whether their attorney was present at the adoption hearing.
While we have serious concerns regarding the failure of Lackawanna CYS to review the child profile with Petitioners at any time prior to the adoption, we must conclude that the record in this case contains substantial evidence establishing that Petitioners knew or should have known that the acts of child abuse were occurring and failed to take steps to remove C.W. from harm's way. Bucks County Children & Youth Social Services Agency, 616 A.2d at 174. Thus, the BHA did not err in denying Petitioners' appeal and refusing to expunge Petitioners' indicated reports of child sexual abuse by omission with respect to C.W.
Accordingly, the BHA's final administrative action order is affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2015, the final administrative action order of the Regional Manager of the Department of Public Welfare's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals is hereby affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge