## Facts

- Allegheny County Children & Youth Services filed an indicated report of child abuse against A.Y. and listed her on the statewide child-abuse registry.
- The allegation arose after L.K., age three, told her mother and father that A.Y. licked L.K.’s vaginal area and buttocks while babysitting.
- L.K. was later interviewed by an agency caseworker and a Family Intervention Center representative; they reported L.K. repeated the allegation and demonstrated it with an anatomically correct doll.
- After notifying and interviewing A.Y., the agency concluded abuse was “indicated” under the Child Protective Services Law; A.Y. denied any inappropriate conduct.
- A.Y. sought expungement; the agency denied the request, and A.Y. appealed to the Department of Public Welfare’s Office of Hearings and Appeals.
- At the administrative hearing, the agency relied mainly on adult witnesses recounting L.K.’s out-of-court statements and demonstration; L.K. did not testify.
- A.Y. testified, denied the allegations, and offered character witnesses and therapist reports; a polygraph report was excluded.
- The hearing officer upheld the indicated report as supported by substantial evidence; the agency’s final decision and the Commonwealth Court both affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether an indicated child-abuse report may be sustained under the “substantial evidence” standard when the agency’s proof is essentially uncorroborated hearsay recounting a very young child’s out-of-court statements.
2. Whether properly objected-to hearsay evidence, without competent corroboration, can supply the evidentiary foundation for maintaining a person’s listing on the child-abuse registry.
3. Whether reliability concerns tied to a three-year-old child’s statements and the manner of elicitation prevent those statements, as presented through adult witnesses, from meeting the substantial-evidence requirement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court.
- The Court held the record did not contain substantial evidence sufficient to support the indicated report and continued registry listing.
- The Court concluded the agency’s case rested on uncorroborated hearsay and lacked competent, non-hearsay corroboration (e.g., physical/medical evidence or other independent proof).
- The Court directed that the indicated report could not stand on this record, requiring removal of A.Y.’s listing.

## Legal Principles

- “Substantial evidence” in administrative proceedings means relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
- Administrative tribunals may admit hearsay, but properly objected-to, uncorroborated hearsay is not competent to support findings and cannot, by itself, satisfy the substantial-evidence standard.
- Where the alleged abuse is proven only through repeated adult retellings of a very young child’s out-of-court statements, reliability concerns may prevent those statements from constituting substantial evidence absent competent corroboration.
- The protective purposes of child-abuse reporting laws do not permit maintaining a registry listing on the basis of uncorroborated hearsay alone, given the serious consequences of a substantiated registry entry.

## Conclusion

The court held that an indicated child-abuse report and registry listing cannot be sustained where the agency’s proof consists essentially of uncorroborated, properly objected-to hearsay recounting a three-year-old child’s out-of-court accusations, and it reversed the administrative and intermediate appellate decisions for lack of substantial evidence.


A.Y. v. Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 537 Pa. 116, 641 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 1994)