A.Y. v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Allegheny County Children & Youth Services
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
537 Pa. 116, 641 A.2d 1148 (1994)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
A.Y. (defendant) babysat L.K., a three-year-old child. The next day, L.K. allegedly told her mother that A.Y. had licked L.K.’s genitals and buttocks. In an interview with two social workers, L.K. allegedly repeated her statement and demonstrated the action on a doll. A social worker who worked for the Alleghany County Children and Youth Services Office (the agency) (plaintiff) interviewed A.Y., who denied the allegations. The social worker surmised that A.Y. had abused L.K. and placed A.Y.’s name on the state child-abuse registry. A.Y. attempted to have her name expunged from the registry, and the agency refused. A.Y. appealed to the Commonwealth Department of Public Welfare Office of Hearings and Appeals. At the hearing, the agency’s evidence included L.K.’s hearsay statements to her mother and two social workers. The hearing officer disregarded A.Y.’s testimony, witness testimony, and other evidence. Relying solely on L.K.’s hearsay statements, the hearing officer found that there was substantial evidence in support of placing A.Y.’s name on the registry and denied her appeal. After exhausting her administrative remedies, A.Y. appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Montemuro, J.)
Concurrence (Castille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.