Does CANRA's post-deprivation hearing scheme violate due process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In 2010, Petitioner Abhijit Prasad was investigated by Defendants’ California child welfare agency, who told Prasad he was reported to the Child Abuse Central Index (“CACI”), a database established pursuant to California’s Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (““(CANRA”), for alleged sexual abuse of his daughters, as reported by the mother. Further, that he would remain listed until age 100, although Prasad was never charged or convicted of a crime. California’s Sixth District Court of Appeals ruled the “sub-standard investigation”, as determined by the trial court, is sufficient for a parent’s lifetime inclusion in CACI. (Prasad v. Lightbourne, Mar 14, 2018 decision, H043780, unpublished, App. infra, 30a.) On June 13, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied review of that ruling in case number 8247924, App. infra, 52a. CANRA and associated regulations compel California child welfare agencies to investigate child abuse allegations and place individuals in CACI, which is maintained by California’s Department of Justice (“DOJ”). Inclusion occurs prior to affording any due process rights. Inclusion in CACI immediately deprives an individual of their reputation and the fundamental rights to family privacy and autonomy, employment and freedom from police surveillance. CANRA allows for a post-deprivation hearing by way of an administrative hearing, which is conducted by a hearing officer, selected by Defendants, who has no legal knowledge, skills, or training, to determine whether it is “more likely than not that abuse occurred”, with the caveat that a hearing is only required in certain circumstances. 1) Does CANRA’s post-deprivation hearing scheme violate due process? iu 2) Is CANRA’s “substantiated” requirement for CACTI listing unconstitutional? 3) Does CANRA violate equal protection? 4) Does CANRA violate separation of powers?