§ 6338. Disposition of founded and indicated reports.
(a) General rule.--When a report of suspected child abuse is determined by the appropriate county agency
to be a founded report or an indicated report, the status of the report shall be changed
from pending to founded or indicated in the Statewide database. Notice of the determination
that a report is a founded, indicated or unfounded report shall be made as provided
in section 6368(f) (relating to investigation of reports).
(b) Expunction of information when child attains 23 years of age.--Except as provided in subsection (c), all information which identifies the subjects
of founded and indicated child abuse reports shall be expunged when the subject child
reaches the age of 23. The expunction shall be mandated and guaranteed by the department.
(c) Retention of information.--The Statewide database shall indefinitely retain the names of perpetrators of child
abuse and school employees who are subjects of founded or indicated reports only if
the individual's Social Security number or date of birth is known to the department.
The entry in the Statewide database shall not include identifying information regarding
other subjects of the report.
(Dec. 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, eff. July 1, 1995; Dec. 18, 2013, P.L.1170, No.108,
eff. Dec. 31, 2014; Apr. 7, 2014, P.L.388, No.29, eff. Dec. 31, 2014; May 14, 2014,
P.L.653, No.45, eff. Dec. 31, 2014)
2014 Amendments. Act 29 amended subsecs. (a) and (c) and Act 45 amended subsec. (a).
Cross References. Section 6338 is referred to in section 6349 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Randy Mulholland v. Gov't Cnty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (3rd Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Given that each notice was required by statute to inform the subject of his right to appeal his listing, see 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6338(a) (providing that notice “shall also inform the recipient of his right, within 45 days after being notified of the status of the report, to…”
D.C. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 150 A.3d 558 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 6× “See 23 Pa. C.S. § 6338(a). Because the indicated report goes into the registry without a hearing, the perpetrator does not know the evidence on which the determination was made.”
G.V. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 91 A.3d 667 (Pa. 2014).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 6338. A person accused in an indicated report has forty-five days after receiving notice of the report to petition the Secretary of Public Welfare for amendment or expunction on the grounds that the report is inaccurate or being maintained in a manner inconsistent…”
C.S. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 879 A.2d 1274 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 3× “23 Pa.C.S. § 6338. 6 .Pa. R.A.P. 1701 provides, in pertinent part, (b) Authority.”
Burns v. Alexander, 776 F. Supp. 2d 57 (W.D. Pa. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6338 (a). An administrator of a “child-care service” must require each prospective employee to submit a “certification” from the DPW revealing whether he or she has been “named in the central register as the perpetrator of a founded report of child abuse,”…”
G.H. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 96 A.3d 448 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 6338(a). 5 The indicated report is based solely on the county’s investigation.”
F.V.C. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 987 A.2d 223 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 6338. The Law further sets forth the procedure by which any person named as perpetrator in an indicated report of child abuse may request the Department to expunge the report on the grounds it is inaccurate or maintained in a manner inconsistent with the Law.”
Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 604 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 2214(h), now 23 Pa.C.S. § 6338(a) and (b) as "additional support" for the proposition that the person *122 responsible for causing the abuse is a "subject of the report.”
Beaver Cnty. Child. & Youth Servs. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 68 A.3d 44 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2005), this Court held that notice letters stating that a perpetrator “may have a right to a hearing,” on whether to amend or destroy an indicated report the perpetrator believes to be inaccurate, “do not satisfy the exacting requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. § 6338(a) and, thus, this…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6338(a) — 36 cases
D.C. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 150 A.3d 558 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
“See 23 Pa. C.S. § 6338(a). Because the indicated report goes into the registry without a hearing, the perpetrator does not know the evidence on which the determination was made.”
Randy Mulholland v. Gov't Cnty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“Given that each notice was required by statute to inform the subject of his right to appeal his listing, see 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6338(a) (providing that notice “shall also inform the recipient of his right, within 45 days after being notified of the status of the report, to…”
G.H. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 96 A.3d 448 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
“23 Pa.C.S. § 6338(a). 5 The indicated report is based solely on the county’s investigation.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6338(b) — 8 cases
Randy Mulholland v. Gov't Cnty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“Given that each notice was required by statute to inform the subject of his right to appeal his listing, see 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6338(a) (providing that notice “shall also inform the recipient of his right, within 45 days after being notified of the status of the report, to…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6338(c) — 5 cases
Randy Mulholland v. Gov't Cnty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (3rd Cir. 2013).
“Given that each notice was required by statute to inform the subject of his right to appeal his listing, see 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6338(a) (providing that notice “shall also inform the recipient of his right, within 45 days after being notified of the status of the report, to…”
D.C. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 150 A.3d 558 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
“See 23 Pa. C.S. § 6338(a). Because the indicated report goes into the registry without a hearing, the perpetrator does not know the evidence on which the determination was made.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.