Another Advocate for Due Process in Child Abuse Registries

A county comptroller in Pennsylvania waded into the long-simmering dispute about the lack of due process in child maltreatment determinations and placement on the state's child abuse registry. He proposed a solution that warrants serious consideration: requiring a second medical opinion in cases where a maltreatment diagnosis prompts child protective services to consider removing children from their homes.

The comptroller pointed out that the process of appealing from being placed on the state's child abuse registry is long and stacked against parents. The state DHS hears the appeals against its subordinate DCYF office, and has upheld more than 99% of cases brought before it since 2013. However, the next appeal layer, the state's Bureau of Hearings and Appeals has consistently overturned the vast majority of "indicated" reports, with rates ranging from 91% to 94% in recent years.

This discrepancy between the two reviewing bodies underscores the need for a more robust and impartial system. By the time citizens get to that second level of review, they already have suffered significant costs and loss. The process is its own punishment. By requiring a second opinion in cases where child removal is being considered, the state could avoid potential errors that traumatize both parents and children.