Taylor-Coleman v. N.C. Dept. Health and Hum. Servs. Div. of Child Dev. & Early Educ., ___ N.C. App. ___ (November 19, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts and procedural history: Petitioner appeals from the superior court order affirming the final decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Petitioner owned and operated two licensed child care centers. DHHS, Division of Child Development and Early Education (Division) received a report of an incident at one of Petitioner’s centers where a twelve-year old sexually assaulted another child. The other child was Petitioner’s four-year old grandson. The Division’s investigation found the volunteer supervising the children observed the incident, took the twelve-year old to Petitioner to report the incident, and Petitioner hit the child on the back of the head, yelled at him, and threatened him. The Division determined Petitioner’s actions constituted child maltreatment warranting placement on the Child Maltreatment Registry and disqualification from working in child care. Petitioner filed petitions for contested hearings at OAH for her placement on the Registry. The OAH affirmed the Division’s determination that Petitioner’s actions rose to the level of child maltreatment and that her actions warranted placement on the Registry. Petitioner appealed to the superior court for judicial review where the court affirmed the OAH’s final decision. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the grounds for her placement on the Registry were unsupported by the evidence presented at the OAH hearing.
- Appellate review of an order of the superior court affirming an administrative agency decision “is limited to determining (1) whether the superior court applied the appropriate standard of review, and if so, (2) whether the superior court properly applied this standard.” Sl. Op. at 6 (citation omitted).
- Fact-intensive issues are reviewed under the whole-record test. Petitioner in this case challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion that her placement on the Registry was warranted. The superior court did not err in reviewing Petitioner’s appeal under the whole-record test standard of review.
- The whole-record test requires the appellate court to review all the record evidence to determine whether there is substantial evidence to justify the agency’s decision. “Substantial evidence is relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Sl. Op. at 7 (citation omitted). It is “more than a scintilla or a permissible inference.” Sl. Op. at 10 (citation omitted). The reviewing court cannot replace the agency’s judgment between two reasonably conflicting views under the whole-record test. The petitioner has the burden of proof at the OAH hearing where the administrative law judge (ALJ) must determine whether the Petitioner has met its burden of showing that the Division erred. The reviewing court “must defer to the ALJ’s determination about the weight and credibility assigned to the evidence and witnesses.” Sl. Op. at 11 (citation omitted).
- G.S. 110-105.3(b)(3) defines child maltreatment as the commission of an act by a caregiver “that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child.” Sl. Op. at 8. The Division considers five factors in determining whether an act of maltreatment occurred: “(1) the severity of the incident; (2) the age and development ability of the child; (3) evident disregard of consequences; (4) maltreatment history and previous similar incidents; and (5) future risk of harm.” Sl. Op. at 8-9. If the Division determines child maltreatment occurred the caregiver is placed on the Registry and prohibited from being a caregiver at any licensed child care facility. G.S. 110-105.5. North Carolina appellate courts have not reviewed a caregiver’s challenge to placement on the Registry, making this a case of first impression.
- There was substantial evidence to support the OAH decision. Evidence presented to support Petitioner’s placement on the Registry included testimony of the Division’s investigator and the investigation documentation, including interviews with the individuals involved. The judge permitted the investigator to testify about the statements made by the two children who were not called to testify, and the two facility witnesses who failed to appear at the hearing. The facility volunteer reported in her interview with the investigator that Petitioner struck and threatened the older child. The other employee witness interviewed by the investigator corroborated the volunteer’s statements. The investigator testified that the older child stated in his interview that “Aunt Net” hit him, and the investigation later revealed that was the name the child called the Petitioner. The Petitioner questioned the investigator at the hearing regarding the non-testifying witness statements and the identity of who hit the older child. The ALJ determined the credibility of the witnesses and found Petitioner had not met its burden.
- The court echoed the superior court’s recognition of the disparity of the laws governing the Registry, which does not allow for removal or expunction, and laws governing the Sex Offender Registry and criminal expunction, which provide the right to petition for removal and expunction. The court urges the General Assembly to address the issues raised and concerns expressed by the courts.
Category:
Civil Cases with Application to Child WelfareStage:
AppealTopic: