HARVEY v. MARSHALL

HARRELL, Judge.

This case arises from attempts by Derek T. Harvey, a father who reunited with four of his children, to have a Maryland court extinguish, or, in the alternative, direct the Child Support Enforcement Administration ("CSEA") to forgive, child support arrearages he owes that accumulated before he obtained custody of the children. In resolving this case, we are called upon to examine whether a court may eliminate completely child support arrearages in light of the statutory prohibition on the retrospective modification of child support orders. We also must determine whether the CSEA is bound to apply the familiar "best interests of the child" standard in deciding, pursuant to its statutory discretion, whether to forgive child support arrearages, and whether the agency's refusal to exercise that discretion in the father's favor, because of financial and administrative considerations affecting the State's child welfare program, was "arbitrary or capricious."

I.

Derek T. Harvey obtained physical custody of his three youngest children, Dereka, Robin, and Derek, Jr., when they came to live with him in Baltimore City in the fall of 1996 after their mother became unable to care properly for them. Later that year, Harvey's eldest daughter, Keawoni, came to live with him due to the death of her mother and the subsequent inability of her grandparents to care for her. At the same time, Harvey also opened his household to Keawoni's half-sister, Kelly Williams.

Harvey's child support obligations arose from consent paternity decrees issued by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in 1986 and 1989 establishing Harvey as the biological father of the pertinent children.1 Prior to Harvey gaining custody of the children, Robin Laverne Marshall, the mother of Dereka, Robin, and Derek, Jr., applied for welfare assistance because she was not receiving the child support Harvey was ordered to pay. As a condition of receiving welfare assistance, Ms. Marshall was required to initiate child support proceedings and assign the children's support rights to the State.2 Rita Williams, the mother of Keawoni, also assigned her child support rights to the State as a condition of receiving welfare assistance. During the period the children were in the custody of their mothers, Harvey accumulated significant child support arrearages as the result of his nonpayment of the court-ordered child support.

Soon after the children joined his household, Harvey, on several occasions, informed officials at the Baltimore City Office of Child Support Enforcement ("BCOCSE") that the children were now in his physical custody. At all times relevant to these proceedings, BCOCSE was operated by MAXIMUS, Inc. ("MAXIMUS"), a private corporation under contract with the CSEA.3 Harvey hoped that by notifying BCOCSE of this change in custody, he might persuade BCOCSE to close his child support cases and forgive his accumulated arrearages. Harvey's informal attempts, however, met with no success. After one meeting with a case manager in July 2000 at the offices of BCOCSE, in which Harvey once again explained the changed circumstances with regard to his children, he allegedly was informed by the case manager "that the situation would be taken care of." Despite this assurance, BCOCSE continued to enforce Harvey's child support obligations, charging him for his current support, reporting his alleged arrearages to credit reporting agencies, and intercepting several of his tax refund checks.

Also in July 2000, Harvey approached the Baltimore City office of the Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. ("Legal Aid") seeking assistance with regard to his attempts to reduce or eliminate his child support obligations and arrearages. In the spring of 2001, with the assistance of Legal Aid, Harvey was successful in diverting his then-ongoing child support obligation toward his arrearages. Harvey, however, continued to encounter difficulties from BCOCSE in achieving forgiveness of his arrearages.

Frustrated with BCOCSE, Harvey switched his focus to the CSEA, BCOCSE's parent agency. In a 4 June 2001 letter, Legal Aid made a formal request to the CSEA for "forgiveness or abatement" of Harvey's arrearages and current support obligations. The letter advised the CSEA that, as of May 2001, Harvey owed approximately $32,000 in two cases, of which all but $1600 was owed to the State. Legal Aid argued that, although the funds sought by BCOCSE would be used to reimburse the State for past welfare support of the affected children, the current and future best interests of Harvey's children would be served by allowing Harvey to apply current and future income, including $57 subtracted from his paycheck each week, to the future support and upbringing of his children now in his custody.

In a 6 July 2001 letter, Teresa L. Kaiser, executive director of the CSEA, informed Legal Aid that the CSEA would consider exercising its statutory discretion to eliminate or reduce Harvey's child support arrearages owed to the State. The letter, however, stated that, in order to do so, Harvey would need to provide BCOCSE with evidence confirming the length of his physical custody of the children. In response, Harvey provided documentation, including school records and documents relating to an investigation of Ms. Marshall for fraudulent receipt of welfare benefits, establishing that the children had lived with him since 1996. Harvey also procured and delivered to BCOCSE a court order, issued 20 November 2001 by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, granting him legal custody of the four children, and made retrospectively effective as of 1 October 1996. The order also terminated Harvey's ongoing child support obligations and eliminated any arrearages accruing after 1 October 1996.

In a memorandum, dated 6 March 2002, to Dwayne Brown, project director of BCOCSE, Ms. Kaiser acknowledged receipt of the 20 November 2001 court order and proposed that BCOCSE take the following actions with regards to the enforcement of the arrearages owed by Harvey:

Ms. Kaiser also instructed Mr. Brown in this memorandum that he would "need to write a letter to the Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. with a summary of the actions outlined above [and that he should] contact [Kaiser] to confirm these arrangements or to discuss other satisfactory arrangements." BCOCSE, however, objected to Ms. Kaiser's proposal, and neither the CSEA nor BCOCSE took any further action on Harvey's requests.5

Meeting no success in his initiatives with BCOCSE or the CSEA, Harvey filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on 17 May 2002 a Motion to Set-Aside Child Support.6 By this time, Harvey had remarried, adding his new wife and her son to his household. In his motion, Harvey asked the court to set aside his child support arrearages under the authority of Md. Code (1974, 2004 Repl. Vol.),7 § 5-1038(b) of the Family Law Article,8 which he argued permits a court to modify or set aside a child support order if the court finds that such an action is "just and proper in light of the circumstances and in the best interests of the child." Harvey also asked the court, in the alternative, to find that the CSEA declined improperly to forgive his arrearages under § 10-112, which grants discretion to the CSEA to settle past child support arrearages for less than the full amount.

At a merits hearing on the motion held on 25 October 2002, Rachelle Langdon, a manager for BCOCSE, testified that, in regard to the proposal by Ms. Kaiser,

Ms. Langdon also testified that BCOCSE did not want to take the action proposed by Ms. Kaiser because to do so "would potentially harm the numbers that show the local enforcement office's collection rate."

At the hearing, Harvey testified that he supported his children and extended household on wages of $10.96 an hour as a landscaper for the City of Baltimore. Harvey claimed that the existence of unpaid child support obligations affected adversely his credit rating, prevented him from purchasing or financing a home, and undermined his ability to pay and save for his children's education. All of these consequences of continued enforcement, Harvey argued, acted as a detriment to the best interests of his children and thus provided a justification for the complete elimination of his arrearages.

After hearing arguments from counsel, the Circuit Court, in an order dated 8 May 2003, denied Harvey's motion to set aside child support arrearages. Harvey appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of his motion. In its reported opinion, the intermediate appellate court held that, although § 5-1038(b) appeared to grant a court authority to set aside a child support order, it conflicted with and was superceded by § 12-104, which prohibited the retrospective modification of a child support order prior to the filing of a motion for modification. Harvey v. Marshall, 158 Md.App. 355, 363, 857 A.2d 529, 534 (2004). The court also held that the CSEA did not abuse its discretion under § 10-112 by failing to act on Harvey's request to forgive his arrearages. Id. at 382, 857 A.2d at 545. Harvey petitioned for a writ of certiorari in this Court, which we granted, 384 Md. 448, 863 A.2d 997, in order to consider the following questions:

II.

Harvey argues that the Circuit Court erred when it found that it did not possess discretion under § 5-1038(b) to eliminate Harvey's child support arrearages accruing prior to the filing of his motion. Sec. 5-1038, in context, states:

The CSEA and BCOCSE counter that the discretion conferred upon a court by § 5-1038(b) conflicts with and is limited by the more specific pronouncements in § 12-104, which state, in context:

Harvey continues by maintaining that the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that, as applied to his case, the specific prohibition in § 12-104 on retrospective modification conflicts with the wide discretion contained in § 5-1038(b). He argues that, because he seeks to eliminate completely his past arrearages, he is not requesting a "modification" of his obligations, but rather a "set aside." Harvey's theory relies heavily on the fact that, although § 5-1038(b) permits a court to "modify or set aside any order," the language in § 12-104 only limits a court's discretion to "modify" a child support award retrospectively. He posits that the absence in § 12-104 of a limitation on a court's discretional authority to "set aside" an order is a clear and conspicuous indication that § 12-104 does not limit a court's authority, under § 5-1038(b), to eliminate completely his arrearages accruing before the filing of his motion. We do not agree with his interpretation.

A.

1.

Harvey's question is one of statutory interpretation and, as such, is purely a legal one. Mohan v. Norris, 386 Md. 63, 66-67, 871 A.2d 575, 577 (2005). We therefore review the matter de novo. Id.; see also Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604, 861 A.2d 78, 80-81 (2004) (stating that "[b]ecause our interpretation of . . . provisions of the Maryland Code . . . are appropriately classified as questions of law, we review the issues de novo to determine if the trial court was legally correct in its rulings on these matters").

2.

The CSEA and BCOCSE argue, as a preliminary matter, that Harvey's claim is foreclosed by claim preclusion principles because he "previously sought relief from his responsibility to pay past due child support based on exactly the same factual circumstances that form the basis of his claims in the present proceeding; that he has had actual physical custody of his children since 1996."9 Respondent's Brief at 6. The CSEA, however, ignores the fundamental purpose and nature of § 5-1038(b), which relaxes with regard to certain orders in paternity cases the ordinary rules of finality of judgments.

We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the present case because Harvey's motion seeking to establish custody of his children did not present the same claim or cause of action as the present case. See Lizzi v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 384 Md. 199, 206-07, 862 A.2d 1017, 1022 (2004) (stating that res judicata "bar[s] the same parties from litigating a second lawsuit on the same claim, or any other claim arising from the same transaction or series of transactions and that could have been — but was not — raised in the first suit" (citations omitted)). On 29 March 2001, Harvey filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in the underlying paternity cases, setting forth the basic facts of his reunification with his children and asking for the following relief:

Although Harvey experienced some resistance from the Baltimore City Department of Social Services in obtaining documents relating to his claims, Ms. Marshall, the mother of three of the children and the putative plaintiff, did not oppose the relief requested.10 As indicated supra, the Circuit Court granted Harvey custody of all four of his biological children, effective 1 October 1996. The court also ordered that Ms. Marshall be "charged generally for the support and maintenance of [the children she had with Harvey]." Finally, the court directed that Harvey's child support obligations for his children be terminated, also effective 1 October 1996 (meaning for child support attributable to and accruing from that date forward).

The record reveals that Harvey's purpose in asking the court to award him custody of his children was to establish a foundation to pursue forgiveness of his arrearages from the CSEA under the statutory scheme in § 10-112. There is no indication that Harvey asked the court, at that time, to exercise its discretion under § 5-1038(b) to eliminate or modify his arrearages that accrued prior to 1 October 1996. Had Harvey sought retrospective modification (i.e., elimination) of his past child support obligations for the period before he gained custody, he theoretically would have encountered the same obstacle as he has in the present case — the limitations on retrospective modification contained in § 12-104. Confronted with only a request for a retrospective child custody determination, the Circuit Court awarded Harvey only that relief that was a direct consequence of a finding of retrospective custody, including a "credit" or "offset" of child support payments that he was to have paid during that period. See Child Support Enforcement Admin. v. Shehan, 148 Md.App. 550, 562, 813 A.2d 334, 342 (2002) (finding that, because, under § 12-204(l)(2), "[t]he custodial parent shall be presumed to spend that parent's total child support obligation directly on the child. . .," a parent that had reunited with his family and became the custodial parent was entitled to a credit of the payments made during the period since he became a custodial parent). A motion, pursuant to § 5-1038(b), seeking elimination of arrearages accruing during a non-custodial period of time is not, for res judicata purposes, the same claim as a motion to establish custody retrospectively, and simply was not litigated in the 2001 proceeding.

3.

Next, we consider whether the prohibition on retrospective modification of child support orders (for non-custodial periods of time) in § 12-104 was intended as a limitation on the broad authority conferred upon a court by § 5-1038(b), and, if so, the extent of that limitation. Our starting point is the plain language of the two statutes. See Johnson v. Mayor of Baltimore, 387 Md. 1, 11, 874 A.2d 439, 445 (2005).

Harvey observes correctly that, although § 5-1038(b) provides authority for a court to both "modify or set aside" any order in paternity actions (other than a declaration of paternity), § 12-104 merely limits a court's discretion to "modify," retrospectively, a child support order. Harvey continues, however, that, although the statutes use similar language, there is a substantive difference between a court's authority to "set aside" a child support order and a court's authority to "modify" retrospectively such an order. In order to grant Harvey the relief he requests, therefore, a court must be convinced that an action to eliminate retrospectively and completely child support arrearages should be classified properly as a "set aside," governed by § 5-1038(b), rather than a "modification," governed by § 12-104. The CSEA responds that the Legislature's use of the term "modify" in § 12-104 was intended, as a matter of both legislative intent and common sense, to include those actions covered by any definition of "set aside," and thus the distinction sought by Harvey is irrelevant. Thus, proper analysis, as we perceive it, hinges on interpretation of the term "modify" in § 12-104, and specifically whether the use of that term encapsulates the complete elimination of a child support arrearage — the relief that Harvey requests.

Although the terms "modify" and "set aside" are not defined in either of the respective subtitles that contain the relevant statutes, these terms (or similar terms) are addressed in Black's Law Dictionary. The fifth edition of Black's Law Dictionary,11 published contemporaneously with the enactment of § 12-104 in 1988, defines "modify" as: "To alter; to change in incidental or subordinate features; enlarge, extend; amend; limit, reduce. Such alteration or change may be characterized, in quantitative sense, as either an increase or decrease." Black's Law Dictionary 905 (5th ed. 1979). Applying the appropriate senses of the word, one might conclude that the prohibition on retrospective modification of child support awards in § 12-104 would preclude the retrospective elimination of arrearages. Even if the relief Harvey requests also was defined as a "set aside," such an action arguably would involve "modifying" a child support order because, not only would a complete elimination of arrearages be, in relatively broad terms, an "alteration" or "change" to a child support award, but, in more specific terms, it would certainly be a "limitation" or "reduction" of such an order.

Harvey, however, in arguing that there is a substantive distinction between "modify" and "set aside," points us toward the definition of "modification." The fifth edition of Black's12 defines "modification" as "[a] change; an alteration or amendment which introduces new elements into the details, or cancels some of them, but leaves the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter intact." (Emphasis added).13 Black's Law Dictionary 905 (5th ed. 1979). Harvey asks us to compare this definition with that of "set aside," which is defined by the fifth edition14 of Black's as "[t]o reverse, vacate, cancel, annul, or revoke a judgment, order, etc." Id. at 1230. Harvey proclaims that, under these definitions, the complete elimination of child support arrearages would not be a "modification," because it would not "leave[ ] the general purpose and effect of the subject-matter [of the child support order] intact," but would instead "cancel, annul, or revoke" an obligation to pay child support. Harvey's interpretation, if accepted, would have the result of the relief he requests skirting the limitation on retrospective modifications in § 12-104 and placing it within the broad remedial authority of § 5-1038(b).

We agree with Harvey that there is a substantive distinction, at least with regard to child support and paternity matters, between a "modification" and a "set aside." Despite this, we conclude that the relief Harvey seeks, in fact, is defined more properly as an effort to "modify" his child support arrearages, rather than as an action to "set aside." Cf. Morton County Soc. Serv. Bd. v. Hakanson, 660 N.W.2d 599, 601 (N.D.2003) (finding that, when a child support judgment is filed in a court solely for the purposes of enforcement of that order, that court may not forgive child support arrearages because, "[i]f a court forgives past due child support obligations, it has modified a child support order"); Gilbertson v. Graff, 477 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn.Ct.App.1991) (finding that "[f]orgiveness of unpaid child support is a retroactive modification of child support governed by [the Minnesota statute prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support orders]"); cf. Schulz v. Ystad, 155 Wis.2d 574, 456 N.W.2d 312, 320 (1990) (finding that a Wisconsin statute prohibiting the retrospective "revision" of child support orders "eliminated the long-standing power of the Wisconsin courts to modify, reduce, or forgive accumulated support arrearages"). Harvey's child support obligations and arrearages arose from paternity decrees, issued by a court, that included awards for child support. In asking the court to eliminate completely his arrearages, Harvey does not do so by challenging the underlying validity of the child support awards. Harvey's motion therefore does not seek to "set aside" or invalidate his child support obligations, but relates rather to a modification with respect to the enforcement of those remaining, valid portions of his child support obligations as they affect his current and future ability to support his family. Had the underlying child support award been invalid, there would be clear authority for a court to "set aside" the award retrospectively, even in light of the statutory language in § 12-104. See Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 395, 788 A.2d 609, 614 (2002) (finding that a court has no discretion, under either § 12-104 or § 5-1038(b), "to `modify' a child support order which is based on a vacated paternity judgment because the order itself is inextricably linked to the paternity declaration, its viability ... absolutely dependent on the viability of the paternity declaration"). Because Harvey's "motion to set aside" instead asks for an alteration to or limitation on only that portion of the award that is affected by his current circumstances, it should be deemed therefore a "motion for modification." Thus, although § 5-1038(b) seemingly would permit the retrospective modification, i.e. complete elimination, of Harvey's arrearages, its broad language, as applied in the present case, conflicts clearly with the limitation on retrospective modification in § 12-104.

4.

This conclusion finds support in the legislative history of § 12-104. The limitations on retrospective modification of child support awards found in § 12-104 were enacted by the General Assembly in 1988 in response to a federal stimulus to the States regarding their enforcement of child support awards. 1988 Md. Laws, Chap. 338. In her statement before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on 10 March 1988, Senator Ida G. Ruben (D — Montgomery County), the sponsor of the bill that ultimately became the enacted legislation, explained the underlying issues and policy concerns regarding Maryland's child support enforcement situation:

Ann C. Helton, then-executive director of the CSEA, appeared before the Senate Committee to emphasize that the legislation was necessary to prevent courts from forgiving accumulated arrearages:

Beyond these financial implications for any State, the federal government identified the retrospective reduction and elimination of child support awards as a significant problem warranting national attention. In 1986, Congress amended Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (2005), to require States to conform to national standards with regard to child support payments and enforcement. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-509, § 9103, 100 Stat. 1874, 1973 (1986). This legislation, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9) (2005), provided in part:

(emphasis added).

Legislation containing the language found in 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9) originally was introduced by Senator William W. "Bill" Bradley of New Jersey on 5 May 1986 as S. 2404, and by Representative Barbara B. Kennelly of Connecticut on 7 May 1986 as H.R. 4769. These two bills, however, died in committee. Nonetheless, the amendments codified ultimately as 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9) were placed into H.R. 5300, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, which was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President on 21 October 1986. Pub.L. No. 99-509, § 9103, 100 Stat. 1874, 1973 (1986). The legislative history of the two predecessor bills indicates that the main concerns addressed were deficiencies and loopholes affecting the interstate enforcement of child support awards, including the effect of retrospective modification of child support orders. See 132 Cong. Rec. 9416-17 (1986) (statement of Sen. Bradley); 132 Cong. Rec. 9958 (1986) (statement of Rep. Kennelly). In her statement in the House of Representatives on 7 May 1986, Rep. Kennelly stated that H.R. 4769 was aimed at States that allowed "[child support] debt to be reduced, even to the point of wiping out the entire prior obligation. . . ." 132 Cong. Rec. 9958 (emphasis added). This concern with the ability of States to eliminate completely an obligor's arrearages was also reflected in the published "legislative history" of Public Law 99-509. See Pub. L. No. 99-509, 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News (100 Stat. 1874), 3607, 3917-18 (stating that Pub.L. No. 99-509 was intended to amend the current law in regard to those States and their courts that have "the authority to reduce or nullify arrearages"); HHS Rules Proposed on Proscription Against Retroactive Modification of Support Arrears, 13 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1600, 1601 (Oct. 13, 1987) (same).

The Maryland Legislature understood clearly that significant federal funds were in jeopardy if it did not enact legislation intended to effectuate the child support mechanisms located in, and defined by, 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9). Regarding the federal legislation and its accompanying fiscal incentives, Sen. Ruben stated at the Committee hearings:

CSEA Executive Director Helton also recognized that S.B. 691 was designed to conform Maryland law to federal mandates:

This history indicates clearly that, in enacting § 12-104, the Maryland Legislature sought to fulfill the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9) as outlined by Congress. See Department of Fiscal Services, Fiscal Note Revised 1988, S.B. 691 (stating that the "Department of Human Resources advises that this bill conforms State practice to federal requirements"); see also Langston v. Langston, 366 Md. 490, 514 n. 11, 784 A.2d 1086, 1099 n. 11 (2001), abrogated on other grounds, Bienkowski v. Brooks, 386 Md. 516, 873 A.2d 1122 (2005) (concluding that "[i]t appears that the General Assembly imposed limitations on the modification of child support awards in order to comply with the requirement of the [AFDC]"). We therefore conclude that, in using the term "modify" in § 12-104, the General Assembly intended to reflect and appropriate the language used in 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9). Because of the adoption of this identical language in § 12-104, we conclude that the Legislature also intended to adopt the connotation and meaning of the term "modification" as intended by Congress in 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9), which included not only a reduction or alteration, but the complete elimination, of child support arrearages. 132 Cong. Rec. 9958 (1986) (statement of Rep. Kennelly); see also Rutledge v. Barrett, 802 S.W.2d 604, 605-06 (Tenn.1991) (finding that the "legislative history of [the Tennessee statute prohibiting the retroactive modification of child support orders] reflects the [Tennessee] General Assembly's clear understanding that as a result of legislative action to bring Tennessee law in line with the federal requirement [outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)], the courts of this state would lose their ability to forgive past arrearages in child support cases . . .").

5.

Despite this legislative history and purpose, Harvey argues that, by defining "modify" to include the retrospective elimination of arrearages, we would be ignoring our responsibility, under principles of statutory interpretation, to search for and find a harmonious interpretation between two related statutes. See Pete v. State, 384 Md. 47, 65-66, 862 A.2d 419, 429-30 (2004) (stating that "various consistent and related enactments, although made at different times and without reference to one another, nevertheless should be harmonized as much as possible" (citations omitted)). When two statutes conflict, by their plain language, however, no harmonious interpretation is possible. In this case, there is a conflict between the statutes in that § 5-1038(b) seemingly allows a court to eliminate child support arrearages retrospectively, while, as we have concluded, § 12-104 specifically precludes that result.

This conflict becomes even more apparent when we examine the logical consequences of Harvey's interpretation of § 12-104. State v. Glass, 386 Md. 401, 410, 872 A.2d 729, 734 (2005) (stating that a court's analysis "must be undertaken from a commonsensical rather than a technical[] perspective, always seeking to avoid giving the statute a strained interpretation or one that reaches an absurd result" (citations omitted)); Price v. State, 378 Md. 378, 388, 835 A.2d 1221, 1227 (2003) (stating that courts must "avoid constructions that are illogical, unreasonable, or inconsistent with common sense" (citations omitted)). Under Harvey's "harmonious interpretation," § 12-104 would not limit a court's discretion to extinguish retrospectively 100% of a parent's arrearages, because that action would be a "set aside," but that same court would have no discretion to reduce that parent's arrearages by up to 99.99%, because that would be a "modification." Common sense and the legislative history of § 12-104 restrain us from agreeing with such a conclusion. Cf. In re Trust of Lane, 323 Md. 188, 192-93, 592 A.2d 492, 494-95 (1991) (finding that "if a court has the power to terminate a trust it necessarily has the power to take less drastic measures and modify that same trust").

Although we conclude that the two statutes conflict with respect to the retrospective modification of child support arrearages, we note that our interpretation of § 12-104 and § 5-1038(b) in this case harmonizes those statutes with the Court's holding in Walter v. Gunter. In Walter, we held that, when a child support order is premised on an invalid paternity declaration, § 12-104 does not limit a court's discretion to "set aside" that child support order. 367 Md. at 393-96, 788 A.2d at 613-15. Our holding today is consistent with Walter in that, by including the complete elimination of child support arrearages within the sphere of § 12-104's prohibition on retrospective modification of child support awards, § 12-104 does not interfere with a court's ability to "set aside" an invalid child support order, while still remaining true to the legislative purposes espoused by both state and federal lawmakers. Pub.L. No. 99-509, 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News (100 Stat. 1874) 3917-18.

B.

When a court concludes that the provisions of two statutes conflict, it then must determine which statute controls the facts before it. We turn now to the principles of statutory interpretation concerning conflicting statutes.

We often have stated that "[w]here there is a specific enactment and a general enactment which, in its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment." Dep't of Natural Res. v. France, 277 Md. 432, 461-62, 357 A.2d 78, 94-95 (1976) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Smack v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, 378 Md. 298, 306, 835 A.2d 1175, 1179 (2003) (stating that when, in the context of statutes within the same statutory scheme, "two statutes conflict and one is general and the other specific, `the statutes may be harmonized by viewing the more specific statute as an exception to the more general one'" (citations omitted)). In the present case, we conclude that the prohibition on retrospective modification in § 12-104 limits a court's broad discretion, under § 5-1038(b), to "modify or set aside" any order that is in the best interests of the child.

Sec. 5-1038(b) allows a court in a paternity action to "modify or set aside any order or part of an order under this subtitle as the court considers just and proper in light of the circumstances and in the best interests of the child." This broad authority, viewed in isolation, would appear to allow the retrospective modification of a child support order in a paternity action. That action, however, expressly is prohibited by the more specific and particular provisions of § 12-104. We therefore give effect to the specific limitations of § 12-104 as a curb on the broad discretion conferred on the courts by § 5-1038(b). Smack, 378 Md. at 306, 835 A.2d at 1179.

We are convinced of the controlling applicability of § 12-104 also as a result of the relative dates of enactment of the two statutes. At the time that § 12-104 was enacted in 1988, § 5-1038(b) long had been part of the Maryland legal landscape. See 1963 Md. Laws, Chap. 722 (enacting the standard found in § 5-1038(b)). "In attempting to harmonize [two statutes that address the same subject], we presume that, when the Legislature enacted the later of the two statutes, it was aware of the one earlier enacted." Ridge Heating, Air Conditioning and Plumbing, Inc. v. Brennen, 366 Md. 336, 352, 783 A.2d 691, 700 (2001) (citations omitted).

The legislative history reveals that § 12-104 was enacted as a result of financial incentives, contained in federal law, to ensure that child support orders were "not subject to retroactive modification" by any State. See supra Section II. A. 4. This purpose of § 12-104 corroborates the presumption that the Legislature was aware of the broad discretion in § 5-1038(b) because, had such discretion not existed, a statute limiting discretion would have been wholly unnecessary.

In light of the legislative history of § 12-104, we not only presume, but find conclusive, the Legislature's awareness of the previously enacted § 5-1038(b) when it enacted § 12-104. The legislative history reveals that, during the formal legislative process, the Legislature was informed that the proposed S.B. 691 was designed to limit the discretion delegated to courts to reduce or eliminate child support arrearages, to the detriment of obligee custodial parents, this State, and other states whose child support orders were not given full faith and credit. See Testimony of Senator Ida G. Ruben before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, S.B. 691, 10 March 1988 (stating that "S.B. 691 would end that practice by not allowing the court to retroactively modify a standing decree for child support"). The discretion alluded to, of course, is none other than the discretion conferred upon the courts by § 5-1038(b).16

By examining this legislative history, we arrive at the conclusion that § 12-104 was designed to circumscribe the broad authority delegated to the courts by § 5-1038(b). Thus, the limitation on retrospective modification contained in § 12-104 precluded the Circuit Court from granting Harvey's request to eliminate completely the child support arrearages he owed.

III.

Harvey also contends that the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals erred in finding that the CSEA's decision not to exercise its discretion under § 10-112 in his favor was not subject to judicial review and that alternatively, if it were, the CSEA's refusal to exercise that discretion to grant his request was not "arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable." We begin by determining whether a decision not to exercise statutory discretion under these circumstances may be subject to judicial review, and, if so, what standard of review should apply.

A.

Our analysis begins with the basic premise that, in order for an administrative agency's action properly to be before this Court (or any court) for judicial review, there generally must be a legislative grant of the right to seek judicial review. See South Easton Neighborhood Ass'n v. Easton, 387 Md. 468, 476 n. 3, 876 A.2d 58, 62 n. 3 (2005) (observing that the Circuit Court did not possess jurisdiction to exercise appellate review of the Easton Town Council's decision to enact an ordinance closing a street so that public property could be conveyed to a local, non-profit hospital); Criminal Injuries Comp. Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 500, 331 A.2d 55, 64 (1975) (stating that the "right to an appeal is not a right required by due process of law, nor is it an inherent or inalienable right" and that "[a]n appellate right is entirely statutory in origin and no person or agency may prosecute such an appeal unless the right is conferred by statute"). As Harvey concedes, there was no statutory right of judicial review for CSEA actions under § 10-112 at the time the relevant legal proceedings were initiated in the present case. At the time of the CSEA's consideration of Harvey's request, § 10-222 of the State Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), Md. Code (1984, 2004 Repl. Vol.), §§ 10-201 et seq. of the State Government Article, did not apply to this situation. Sec. 10-222 of the APA provides, with certain exceptions, that "a party who is aggrieved by the final decision [of an administrative agency] in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision as provided in this section." This section does not apply to a decision by the CSEA not to exercise its discretion to forgive Harvey's arrearages, however, because such a decision is not a "contested case" under the APA. The APA defines a "contested case" as

Md. Code (1984, 2004 Repl. Vol.), § 10-202(d)(1) of the State Government Article. Because § 10-112 did not provide the opportunity or procedure for a hearing before the CSEA, an individual affected by a decision (whether affirmatively made or presumed a denial through non-action) under § 10-112 was not entitled to judicial review under the APA.17 See State Dep't of Assessments & Taxation v. Clark, 281 Md. 385, 395-96, 380 A.2d 28, 35 (1977) (finding that the definition of "contested case" in the APA contemplates only those proceedings in which a party is entitled to a hearing in front of the administrative agency); Maryland Pharmacists Ass'n v. Attorney General, 115 Md.App. 650, 658, 694 A.2d 492, 496 (1997) (same). Furthermore, as a result of the "entirely discretionary" nature of § 10-112 as it exists here, a decision under that statute does not fall under the "contested case" provision because it does not implicate "a right, duty, statutory entitlement, or privilege of a person that is required by statute or constitution." Clark, 281 Md. at 395-96, 380 A.2d at 35; see infra note 18 (noting Harvey's lack of a clear right to have his arrearages reduced or forgiven and the lack of a clear statutory duty or obligation on the part of the CSEA to render a decision in Harvey's favor).

B.

In those circumstances where there is no statutory provision for judicial review, however, this Court "has consistently held that the Legislature cannot divest the courts of the inherent power they possess to review and correct actions by an administrative agency which are arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable." Gould, 273 Md. at 500-01, 331 A.2d at 65 (citations omitted); see also Heaps v. Cobb, 185 Md. 372, 379, 45 A.2d 73, 76 (1945) (finding that "[c]ourts have the inherent power, through the writ of mandamus, by injunction, or otherwise, to correct abuses of discretion and arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable acts; but in exercising that power care must be taken not to interfere with the legislative prerogative or with the exercise of sound administrative discretion, where discretion is clearly conferred" (citations omitted)); Hurl v. Bd. of Educ., 107 Md.App. 286, 304-05, 667 A.2d 970, 979 (1995) (finding a determination of whether the APA conferred judicial review on a particular administrative decision irrelevant in light of the courts' inherent power to review "illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious administrative action. . .").

Despite this inherent power of limited judicial review, the Court of Special Appeals concluded that Harvey's "complaint [did] not qualify for [such] relief because it is about a failure or refusal to take administrative action."18 Harvey, 158 Md.App. at 380, 857 A.2d at 544 (emphasis in original). We disagree, and conclude that a court's inherent power of judicial review, under appropriate circumstances, may reach an administrative agency's inaction as well as its action. See, e.g., Spencer v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 380 Md. 515, 527, 846 A.2d 341, 348 (2004) (reviewing, under an "arbitrary or capricious" standard, an administrative agency's decision not to exercise its discretionary power to delegate a case to the Office of Administrative Hearings); cf. Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations v. Downey Communications, Inc., 110 Md.App. 493, 536-37, 678 A.2d 55, 76-77 (1996) (finding that, "if [an] agency fails to act within an appropriate time, the party adversely affected may be entitled to pursue an action for mandamus" (citations omitted)). We refuse to draw a substantive distinction, for the purpose of our examination of whether the present case meets the threshold for the exercise of a court's inherent power of judicial review, between agency action and agency inaction. When an agency, in the face of a formal invocation of its discretion by an affected person coming within the class of persons contemplated by the statute, fails to act on a matter committed to its discretion by that statute, there is as much aggrievement and potential for abuse or prejudice as when an agency affirmatively announces an adverse decision.

The inherent power of judicial review of administrative decisions, however, is extremely limited.19 Numerous cases expressly caution about the danger of exercising our inherent power of judicial review in the absence of statutory authority. See Dep't of Natural Res. v. Linchester Sand & Gravel Corp., 274 Md. 211, 222-28, 334 A.2d 514, 522-26 (1975) (emphasizing that judicial review of administrative agency decisions under this inherent power "requires restrained and disciplined judicial judgment so as to not interfere with the agency's factual conclusions . . ." (citations and emphasis omitted)); Heaps, 185 Md. at 379, 45 A.2d at 76 (stating that "the courts are ... without authority to interfere with any exercise of the legislative prerogative within constitutional limits, or with the lawful exercise of administrative authority or discretion"); Hecht v. Crook, 184 Md. 271, 280-81, 40 A.2d 673, 677 (1945) (same). Consistent with these limitations, our inherent power essentially traces its origins to our duty to ensure that neither the Legislature nor the Executive branch of State government deprives the Judiciary of the ability to correct decisions premised on unreasonable findings of fact or flawed conclusions of law. See, e.g., Dickinson-Tidewater, Inc. v. Supervisor of Assessments, 273 Md. 245, 256, 329 A.2d 18, 25 (1974) (applying the "substantial evidence" test to administrative decisions, which "essentially is limited `to whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached'" (citations omitted)); Heaps, 185 Md. at 382-83, 45 A.2d at 77-78 (finding that judicial review of an administrative agency decision was proper where the agency relied on an erroneous interpretation of relevant law). In this case, Harvey invokes the inherent power of this Court by asking us to review, as a matter of law and statutory interpretation, the standards that the CSEA is obligated to apply in exercising its discretion under § 10-112.

IV.

Harvey characterizes the CSEA's refusal to exercise its discretion to eliminate his child support arrearages as "arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable" because the agency failed, as a matter of law, to consider the "best interests of the child" in determining whether forgiveness of Harvey's child support arrearages was within the "best interest of this State." For reasons to be explained, we conclude that the CSEA is not bound to consider with the same primacy, if at all, the "best interests of the child," as that standard applies to most decisions relating to children, when exercising its discretion under § 10-112.

A.

Sec. 10-106 established the CSEA in 1976 as the agency within the Department of Human Resources charged with coordinating a statewide program covering all aspects of child support enforcement. § 10-108(a); 1976 Md. Laws, Chap. 778. The duties of the CSEA include locating absent parents, determining their ability to pay child support, and enforcing those obligations (including child support judgments from other states).20 § 10-108(a). The CSEA accomplishes enforcement through traditional mechanisms, such as legal enforcement proceedings, as well as such unconventional methods as the interception of lottery prizes and tax refunds, and inaugurating the suspension of driving privileges by the Motor Vehicle Administration. § 10-113; § 10-113.1; § 10-119.

The CSEA also is charged with the duty to "accept assignment of right, title, or interest in child support made under Article 88A, § 50(b)(2) of the Code [and to] prosecute and maintain any legal or equitable action available to establish each absent parent's obligation to pay child support." §§ 10-108(5)-(6). Under Md. Code (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.), Art. 88A, § 50(b)(2), an otherwise eligible individual becomes available for temporary cash assistance benefits only if he or she "assigns to the State all right, title, and interest in support from any other person that the applicant or recipient has on behalf of any intended or potential recipient for whom the applicant or recipient is applying for or receiving assistance, including any right accrued when the assignment is executed." When individuals owing child support to the State under such an assignment accumulate unpaid arrearages, the CSEA is granted statutory authority to settle with a child support obligor for an amount less than the full arrearages.21 Sec. 10-112, which was enacted in 1976 as part of a comprehensive statutory scheme regarding child support enforcement, 1976 Md. Laws, Chap. 778,22 states:

Harvey argues that, notwithstanding the use of a "best interest of this State" standard in § 10-112 for settlement of arrearages, the CSEA nonetheless is bound by the traditional "best interests of the child" standard when exercising its discretion in deciding whether to forgive arrearages. Harvey guides us toward the language of § 10-118:

He claims that § 10-118 represents a clear statement of legislative purpose to which the CSEA must conform when "carrying out ... child support responsibilities," which he interprets to include the settlement of arrearages pursuant to § 10-112.

B.

Preliminarily, we must address whether the act of settling or forgiving arrearages, in the context of § 10-112, is a "child support responsibilit[y]." With regard to this point, the Court of Special Appeals held:

Harvey, 158 Md.App. at 376-77, 857 A.2d at 542 (emphasis omitted).

We disagree with the intermediate appellate court on this point. Although this novel conclusion superficially appears to be supported by sound reasoning, the implications of that court's holding are inconsistent with the statutory scheme for child support enforcement. The Court of Special Appeals apparently overlooked the effect of its holding on the enforcement authority of the CSEA. If Harvey's arrearages are classified as merely a debt owed to the State, that debt would be subject only to the traditional means of enforcing judgments, rather than the more persuasive and creative enforcement mechanisms created specially for child support arrearages.23 For example, while the ability to garnish wages as the result of an ordinary judgment is limited to 25 percent of disposable wages, a garnishment or earnings withholding order as the result of a child support award may be up to 65 percent of disposable wages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1673 (2005) (setting restrictions on ordinary garnishment of wages and garnishment as the result of a child or spousal support order); § 10-120 et seq.; Md. Code (1975, 2000 Repl. Vol.), § 15-601.1 of the Commercial Law Article.24

Removing State-owed child support collection from the scope of a "child support responsibilit[y]" would also raise serious questions about the applicability of § 12-104 to child support orders. If State-owed child support is not entitled to its special status, but is mere debt, a court no longer would be limited by § 12-104 and would be able to modify (and eliminate) retrospectively that debt, because § 12-104, by its language, only applies to child support orders and not mere debt. State-owed child support instead would be subject to the broad discretion set forth in § 5-1038(b). This, of course, is contrary to our interpretation of § 12-104 and, as Harvey argues, is unsupported by relevant case law. See Petitioner's Brief at 19 (stating that the "Court of Special Appeals' conclusion provides no explanation of how Maryland law provides for the mutation from child support to mere state debt, and the case-law... supports the opposite conclusion").

C.

Harvey argues that, because the CSEA is performing a "child support responsibilit[y]" under § 10-112, it thus is bound by the "best interests of the child" standard found in § 10-118 in making decisions on the forgiveness of arrearages. We disagree. Our starting point in the analysis of this contention is the plain language of the statutes. Johnson v. Mayor of Baltimore, 387 Md. at 11, 874 A.2d at 445.

Sec. 10-112 clearly states that the CSEA may settle a child support arrearage if "the Administration considers it to be in the best interest of this State." There is no mention of the familiar "best interests of the child" standard. We must assume this omission was not by accident. Had the Legislature wished to mandate consideration of the "best interests of the child" as part of the CSEA's calculus in exercising its discretion to forgive arrearages, it could have done so easily. See Mohan, 386 Md. at 80-81, 871 A.2d at 585 (finding the absence of a limitation on the definition of "probationary status" in the Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights indicative of the Legislature's desire not to limit that term in the manner suggested). When the Legislature intends that other factors be considered in addition to the best interests of the State, it explicitly and expressly has included those factors in the statutory language. See, e.g., Md. Code (1982, 1996 Repl. Vol.), § 16-202(c) of the Environment Article (stating that the Board of Public Works, in determining whether to issue a license to dredge or fill State wetlands, "shall decide if issuance of the license is in the best interest of the State, taking into account the varying ecological, economic, developmental, recreational, and aesthetic values each application presents"); Md. Code (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol.), Art. 83B, § 5-611.1 (stating that when the Board of Public Works approves a division of recovered archaeological historic property that has been conveyed to a permittee, the arbiter of such a division must act "in the best interest of the State ... giving due consideration to the fair treatment of the permittee").25 We believe that, by failing to include a consideration of the "best interests of the child" standard in § 10-112, the Legislature intended that the CSEA not be focused solely on such a standard in exercising its discretion to forgive State-owed child support arrearages.26

Harvey, in a purported effort to "harmonize" the two statutes, argues that the Legislature intended to supplement the "best interest of this State" standard when it enacted § 10-118. Harvey argues that the "best interests of the child" standard in § 10-118 was intended to shape and define the "best interest of this State" standard in § 10-112. We do not agree.

He reminds us that, in interpreting two provisions of a statutory scheme, we should be mindful that, when a statute "is a part of a statutory scheme, the legislative intention is not determined from that statute alone, rather it is to be discerned by considering it in light of the statutory scheme," and when "in that scheme, two statutes, enacted at different times and not referring to each other ... address the same subject, they must be read together ... i.e., interpreted with reference to one another, . . . and harmonized. . . ." Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Ins. Comm'r, 332 Md. 124, 132, 630 A.2d 713, 717 (1993). Harvey suggests that a harmonious reading here results in the standard in § 10-112 being eclipsed, and, in essence, replaced, by § 10-118's application of the paramount standard of the "best interests of the child." We reject such an interpretation.

We conclude instead that the language of § 10-112 indicates that the Legislature intended a different standard, other than the "best interests of the child" standard, to govern the settlement of arrearages. Even though it may be a "child support responsibilit[y]," the Legislature made a conscious election that the forgiveness of arrearages was an action, separate and distinct from other "child support responsibilities," that, because of its unique purpose, warranted a different standard. Although the "best interests of the child" standard is generally the standard that applies in paternity or other family law matters relating to child support, there are some situations in which the Legislature has mandated, and the courts apply, a different standard or have limited, or in some way precluded, the application of the "best interests of the child" standard.27 See Langston v. Riffe, 359 Md. 396, 425, 754 A.2d 389, 404 (2000) (finding that an "examination of section 5-1038 and its legislative history makes clear that the `best interests of the child' standard generally has no place in a proceeding to reconsider a paternity declaration ... [nor does it have any] place in the fact-driven original paternity action"); Reese v. Huebschman, 50 Md.App. 709, 710-11, 440 A.2d 1109, 1111-12 (1982) (finding that, in modifying an order for child support, a court must find a "change in the parties' circumstances" before it may consider the "best interests of the child").

In this case, the Legislature's use of the "best interest of this State" standard, rather than the "best interests of the child" standard, is consistent with the notion that, because the obligation to pay child support was scrutinized at the time of imposition under the "best interests of the child" standard, any subsequent attempt to eliminate those arrearages through the exercise of an agency's discretion may be subject to a different standard that may at times be incongruent with the "best interests of the child," particularly when the State, in lieu of the delinquent, responsible parent's payment of support, has advanced public funds to support the child. Indeed, there is a remarkable distinction between the judicial determination of child support, which certainly implicates the best interests of a child, and the forgiveness of arrearages that accrued through no fault of the child and are often due to a noncustodial parent's financial problems or irresponsibility.28 Although child support owed to the State is still child support (rather than mere debt owed to the State), we conclude that the "best interest of this State" standard also is consistent with the fact that § 10-112 covers only child support owed to the State and thus situations in which the child, through welfare assistance, has received all of the child support to which he or she was due. Furthermore, had Harvey wished to object to or contest the amount of child support he was to pay to Ms. Marshall or Ms. Williams, he could have raised that issue at the time the order was originally established or at any point along the continuum until he did act.

We also keep in mind that "a statute should be read so that no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered superfluous or nugatory." Glass, 386 Md. at 410, 872 A.2d at 734. Accepting Harvey's interpretation would do just that, render meaningless the inclusion of "best interest of this State" in § 10-112. We decline to do that. Instead, we find that § 10-118 and § 10-112 are better harmonized by giving full effect to § 10-112 as introducing a different, specific standard other than the broad direction of § 10-118.

Harvey remonstrates, however, that, by enacting § 10-118, the Legislature intended the same standard to govern "all agency child support responsibilities conducted pursuant to the entire statutory and regulatory framework governing child support, including those that were already specified in FL § 10-112." Petitioner's Brief at 27-28.29 Because § 10-118 was enacted after § 10-112, Harvey argues, "the mandate in FL § 10-118 that CSEA and local child support offices must `promote and serve the best interests of the child in carrying out their child support responsibilities under this subtitle' clearly applies to the earlier enacted provision under the same subtitle, FL § 10-112." Id. at 27; 1992 Md. Laws, Chap. 561 (enactment of § 10-118). A later enacted statute, however, does not always trump an earlier-enacted statute that covers the same topic. When § 10-112 was originally enacted, it was well established that the "best interests of the child" standard governed most issues relating to children. See, e.g., Orndoff v. Orndoff, 252 Md. 519, 522, 250 A.2d 627, 628 (1969) (stating that the "best interest of a child is the determinative factor in custody cases"); but see McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320, 374-75, 869 A.2d 751, 783 (2005) (holding that, "in private actions in which private third parties are attempting to gain custody of children of natural parents over the objection of the natural parents, it is necessary first to prove that the parent is unfit or that there are extraordinary circumstances posing serious detriment to the child, before the court may apply a "best interest" standard"). We therefore may infer that the insertion of the "best interest of this State" standard into § 10-112 indicated that the Legislature intended the discretionary forgiveness of child support arrearages owed to the State not to be subject to the usual primacy of the "best interests of the child" standard.30 The legislative history of § 10-118 reveals that § 10-118 was intended to "merely codif[y] what should be the current practice of the Child Support Enforcement Administration and local support enforcement offices." See Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Bill Analysis 1992, H.B. 769 (codified ultimately as § 10-118) (emphasis added). When a statute "merely codifies" an already applicable standard, we afford it less weight in determining whether that statute trumps a previously enacted statute that diverges from the existing standard.31

V.

A.

Harvey continues that, even if the CSEA was not required to apply the "best interests of the child" standard, Maryland courts have the inherent power to review the discretionary decision of the CSEA not to forgive Harvey's arrearages. See Gould, 273 Md. at 510-11, 331 A.2d at 70 (affirming the inherent power of Maryland courts to review the discretionary actions of administrative agencies); see also Gonzales v. Ghingher, 218 Md. 132, 136-37, 145 A.2d 769, 772 (1958) (finding the reasoning of the Mayor and Treasurer of Baltimore City regarding the exercise of purely discretionary power to grant or deny an amusement license "arbitrary and unreasonable in a legal sense"). When an agency engages in proper fact-finding and applies the appropriate law, our inquiry is limited solely to whether, given the relevant standard and facts, the administrative agency's decision was "arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable." Gould, 273 Md. at 500-01, 331 A.2d at 65. In order to determine properly whether the CSEA's refusal to exercise its discretion under § 10-112 was "arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable," we must first determine the boundaries of such a standard.

When an administrative action is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the APA grants a reviewing court the power to "reverse or modify the decision [of an administrative agency] if any substantial right of the petitioner may have been prejudiced because a finding, conclusion, or decision... is arbitrary or capricious." Md. Code (1984, 2004 Repl. Vol.), § 10-222(h)(3)(vi) of the State Government Article. Although we are cognizant that the particular situation presented in this case under § 10-112 was not a "contested case" at the time it was considered by the agency and therefore the APA does not apply, Maryland cases suggest that "an administrative proceeding, even if not subject to judicial review under the APA, would be subject to judicial review, of essentially the same scope, in an action for mandamus, certiorari, injunction or declaratory judgment [under the framework of Heaps, Gould, and their progeny]." Med. Waste Assocs. v. Maryland Waste Coalition, 327 Md. 596, 610, 612 A.2d 241, 248 (1992); see also Dickinson-Tidewater, 273 Md. at 255-56, 329 A.2d at 25 (finding that the substantial evidence test, which the courts use when acting pursuant to the inherent ability to review administrative decisions, "is similar to the tests laid down by [the APA]"); Hurl, 107 Md.App. at 305, 667 A.2d at 979 (finding that "the standards of judicial review of agency decisions are essentially the same whether proceeding under the APA or pursuant to our inherent power to review administrative actions"). Because the standard of review under our inherent power of judicial review of discretionary administrative action is similar, if not identical, to the "arbitrary or capricious" standard enunciated in the APA, we therefore conclude that "it is appropriate for this Court to examine and rely upon cases decided under the APA for guidance regarding the appropriate standard of review of [an agency's] decision." Hurl, 107 Md.App. at 305, 667 A.2d at 979.

In Spencer v. Board of Pharmacy, 380 Md. 515, 529-30, 846 A.2d 341, 349 (2004), we examined the analogous standard to be applied in the context of review under the APA,

(citations omitted).

A review of Maryland case law demonstrates that this "arbitrary or capricious" standard is, perhaps intentionally, less than well-defined with respect to judicial review of discretionary actions.32 In his Maryland Administrative Law treatise, Professor Arnold Rochvarg examines, in the context of the APA, the "arbitrary or capricious" standard, concluding that it

Arnold Rochvarg, Maryland Administrative Law, § 4.38 at 128 (2001, 2004 Supp.).

We also find, as Professor Rochvarg observes, id., some guidance in the definitions found in Black's Law Dictionary. Black's defines "arbitrary" as including those judicial decisions "founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason or fact." Black's Law Dictionary 112 (8th ed. 2004). Black's defines "capricious" as including those decisions "characterized by or guided by unpredictable or impulsive behavior, . . . contrary to the evidence or established rules of law."33 Id. at 224. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, as another example, defines "arbitrary" as

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 59 (10th ed. 1999).

Webster's defines "capricious" as "governed or characterized by caprice," which in turn is defined as "1 a: a sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action b: a sudden usu[ally] unpredictable condition, change, or series of changes . . . 2: a disposition to do things impulsively. . . ." Id. at 169.

These definitions echo Professor Rochvarg's explication that, so long as the actions of administrative agencies are reasonable or rationally motivated, those decisions should not be struck down as "arbitrary or capricious." "Arbitrary or capricious" decision-making, rather, occurs when decisions are made impulsively, at random, or according to individual preference rather than motivated by a relevant or applicable set of norms. Indeed, this conclusion is confirmed by the Maryland courts' application of the "arbitrary or capricious" standard to several differing circumstances involving allegations that an administrative agency's decision was "arbitrary or capricious."

Few Maryland cases have developed a detailed general definition of "arbitrary or capricious," relying instead on a case-by-case development or an application of the standard solely to the case at hand. See Rochvarg, supra, at § 4.38 at 128 (finding that, because of the relative ambiguity of the "arbitrary or capricious" standard, "[e]ach case must be evaluated on an individual basis"); Maryland State Bd. of Social Work Exam'rs v. Chertkov, 121 Md.App. 574, 585-86, 710 A.2d 391, 396 (1998).

Most cases, however, recognize as a threshold matter the extremely deferential nature of the "arbitrary or capricious" standard. In reviewing a claim that an administrative sanction was so disproportionate to the misconduct involved as to be "arbitrary or capricious," the Court in Maryland Transportation Authority v. King stated:

369 Md. 274, 291, 799 A.2d 1246, 1255-56 (2002) (emphasis added). Other cases have adopted this "extreme and egregious" synonym for "arbitrary or capricious." See, e.g., Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v. Mullan, 381 Md. 157, 170-71, 848 A.2d 642, 650 (2004) (referencing the "extreme and egregious" standard in finding that, as a matter of law, "a delay in the issuance of [an administrative agency's order] is a relevant factor in determining whether the agency properly exercised its statutory discretion, judicially reviewed under the extremely deferential arbitrary or capricious standard"); but see Rochvarg, supra, at 24 (2004 Supp.) (commenting that an "extreme and egregious" definition of "arbitrary or capricious" is "much too deferential" and that "[c]ourts would be abdicating their responsibility if they were only willing to reverse an agency under the arbitrary or capricious standard for extreme and egregious conduct"). In Maryland Aviation Admin. v. Noland, 386 Md. 556, 581, 873 A.2d 1145, 1160 (2005), we expanded upon the standard announced in King:

(citations omitted).

Some cases suggest that the meaning of "arbitrary or capricious" varies according to the level of discretion afforded to a particular agency. See Spencer, 380 Md. at 531, 846 A.2d. at 350 (finding that "[w]hether an action is in fact deemed arbitrary or capricious will vary depending upon the amount of discretion granted an agency, a matter of substantive law"). In Spencer, the Court considered whether the refusal of the Maryland State Board of Pharmacy to refer for hearing a pharmacist's disciplinary matter to the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was "arbitrary or capricious." 380 Md. at 527-30, 846 A.2d at 348-50. The Board had issued charges against Spencer for practicing pharmacy without a license after the Board failed to receive a timely license renewal application from Spencer (although Spencer claimed that she in fact mailed the application). Id. at 518-20, 846 A.2d at 343-44. Based on her belief that members of a Board panel that was scheduled to hear the charges against her were biased against her, Spencer sought to have the matter referred to the OAH, a decision committed exclusively to the Board's discretion. Id. at 521-22, 846 A.2d at 344-45. The Board refused to refer the matter, and Spencer sought judicial review. Id., 846 A.2d at 345.

The Court of Special Appeals agreed with Spencer that the presence of certain Board members on the panel prejudiced her rights, and remanded the case with directions that the matter be referred to the OAH. Id. at 522, 846 A.2d at 345. We reversed, however, concluding that, even though Spencer's rights in fact were prejudiced by the presence of those members, the Court of Special Appeals exceeded its authority in directing the matter be referred to the OAH. Id. at 531-32, 846 A.2d at 350-51. We directed remand of the matter to the Board with instructions to it to cure, through any manner available to the Board, the prejudice caused by the presence of the biased Board members on the panel. Id. at 534, 846 A.2d at 352. In finding it "clear that the Board's decision to forgo the OAH was not arbitrary or capricious," the Court stated:

Id. at 533, 846 A.2d at 351-52 (some citations omitted).

Although some cases, such as Spencer, perceive that agency discretion, by its nature, may be well-insulated from judicial review, other cases have applied more particularized scrutiny to determine whether an agency action was "arbitrary or capricious." An agency decision, for example, may be deemed "arbitrary or capricious" if it is contrary to or inconsistent with an enabling statute's language or policy goals. See, e.g., Hurl, 107 Md.App. at 306, 667 A.2d at 980 (finding an elementary school teacher's transfer not "arbitrary or capricious" in light of standards found in the enabling statute and relevant regulations); Rochvarg, supra, at § 4.38 at 129 (stating that "[a]n agency decision that is contrary to the enabling statute's language or policy goals is a decision that is arbitrary or capricious").

Even if an administrative agency does not articulate policy goals within its pertinent regulations or such are not expressed in the agency's enabling statute, an agency action nonetheless may be "arbitrary or capricious" if it is irrationally inconsistent with previous agency decisions. See Christopher v. Montgomery County Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 381 Md. 188, 215, 849 A.2d 46, 61-62 (2004) (rejecting a food stamp recipient's claim that an agency's denial of a benefit was "arbitrary or capricious" based on her contention that she was being singled out because there was "no evidence in the record that the [administrative law judge] treated [the recipient] any differently from any other applicant claiming to be disabled, acted inconsistently, or deviated from prior policies relating to disability determinations under the Food Stamp Program"). In Montgomery County v. Anastasi, 77 Md.App. 126, 549 A.2d 753 (1988), the Court of Special Appeals affirmed a circuit court's reversal of decisions of the Montgomery County Merit System Protection Board with respect to promotion of police officers. The court found that, although an administrative agency certainly has some leeway to abandon prior decisions and "adapt [its] rules and policies to the demands of changing circumstances," an agency's decisions must also "not be so fluid as to become arbitrary or capricious." Id. at 137, 549 A.2d at 758 (citations omitted). In Anastasi, the court found the Board's actions to be "arbitrary or capricious" because the Board acted in a manner inconsistent with policies adopted in prior cases regarding the consultation of persons not on the Board, without providing an adequate explanation for the divergence. Id. at 137-39, 549 A.2d at 758-59. Just as actions that are inconsistent with prior administrative precedents may be deemed "arbitrary or capricious," an agency action also may be deemed "arbitrary or capricious" if similarly situated individuals are treated differently without a rational basis for such a deviation. See Chertkov, 121 Md.App. at 589, 710 A.2d at 398 (finding that, even if an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence, it may nonetheless be "arbitrary or capricious" if individuals are given substantially different sanctions for identical conduct).

B.

The substance of Harvey's concluding argument is that the CSEA's refusal to exercise its discretion to forgive his arrearages was "arbitrary or capricious" because it was the result of the illegal delegation of authority and discretion to a private corporation (BCOCSE/MAXIMUS) whose conduct was tainted with private self-interest. For reasons to be explained, we conclude that the CSEA's decision not to exercise its discretion to grant relief to Harvey under § 10-112 was not the result of an illegal or unreasonable (and thus "arbitrary or capricious") delegation of authority, nor was it the product of "arbitrary or capricious" reasoning or rationales.

1.

At the threshold of this argument, Harvey betrays a misunderstanding of the fundamental relationship between the CSEA and BCOCSE. As stated supra Section IV.A., the CSEA was created in 1976 as an agency within the Department of Human Resources ("Department") for the purpose of coordinating a statewide program covering all aspects of child support enforcement. § 10-106; § 10-108; 1976 Md. Laws, Chap. 778. In 1995, the Legislature established the Child Support Enforcement Privatization Pilot Program, which operates in Baltimore City and Queen Anne's County. 1995 Md. Laws, Chap. 491. Sec. 10-119.1(c) lays out the purpose and scope of this privatization program:

At all times relevant to these proceedings, BCOCSE/MAXIMUS was a private agency that had contracted with the CSEA to carry out, in selected jurisdictions, its child support enforcement functions, including those outlined in § 10-119.1(c). Harvey argues that it was "arbitrary or capricious" for the CSEA to "abdicate[] its authority entirely to the private delegate [BCOCSE] without exercising any meaningful review of the decision." Petitioner's Brief at 33-34.34 The record, however, reveals no such complete handover to BCOCSE on the part of the CSEA.

The memorandum from Ms. Kaiser to the project director of BCOCSE proposing certain actions with respect to Harvey's arrearages was simply that — a proposal. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Ms. Kaiser or anyone else at the CSEA demanded, ordered, or mandated that the specified actions be taken with regard to Harvey's account. Accepting the memorandum as a proposal inviting feedback, rather than as an order from a superior, BCOCSE thereafter provided the CSEA with its recommendations and objections, including its concerns over the "collection rate" and the ability to accommodate administratively the proposed actions. It is not "arbitrary or capricious" for an agency to solicit feedback, recommendations, or objections from its private delegate (especially with respect to decisions that may affect directly the private delegate), so long as the agency retains the ultimate control over the exercise of its statutorily granted discretion. Although the CSEA certainly appears to have acquiesced in the recommendations and objections of BCOCSE, the ultimate discretion was exercised (or, in this case, not exercised in Harvey's favor) by the CSEA. Despite Harvey's arguments to the contrary, a total and complete abdication of discretion did not occur in this case.35

2.

Harvey argues that, even if the CSEA's acquiescence was not per se "arbitrary or capricious," it was unreasonable, and therefore "arbitrary or capricious," for the CSEA to acquiesce in the particular reasons that BCOCSE gave for objecting to the proposed forgiveness plan. In her testimony at the Circuit Court, an official from BCOCSE acknowledged that "one of the reasons" BCOCSE objected to the proposed forgiveness plan was "that it would potentially harm the numbers that show the local enforcement office's collection rate." Harvey argues that it was "arbitrary or capricious" for the CSEA to ratify BCOCSE's pecuniary self-interest by acquiescing in its objection to the proposed forgiveness plan based on financial considerations.

In order to determine whether it was "arbitrary or capricious" for the CSEA to consider the financial implications or impact on BCOCSE's "collection rate" in its decision not to exercise its discretion to grant relief to Harvey under § 10-112, we must examine such a decision in light of the standard announced by the Legislature in enacting § 10-112. The question becomes whether the CSEA's consideration of the fiscal impact of the requested action was a reasonable action taken for the "best interest of this State."

We begin by examining the State's purpose, divined through the legislative history, in enacting a privatization scheme for the enforcement of child support obligations in certain jurisdictions. The privatization program in § 10-119.1 was enacted in 1995 as part of Senate Bill 754, which included larger welfare reform legislation creating a Welfare Reform Pilot Program in selected geographic portions of the State, including Baltimore City.36 1995 Md. Laws, Chap. 491. In addition to providing incentives for individuals to reduce welfare dependency and increase self-sufficiency, such as time limits on the receipt of AFDC benefits and mandatory work requirements, the legislation also created penalties, such as the suspension of driving privileges (codified at § 10-119), for individuals who fall behind in their child support obligations. 1995 Md. Laws, Chap. 491; see also Maryland Classified Employees Ass'n v. State, 346 Md. 1, 5-7, 694 A.2d 937, 938-40 (1997) (describing the features and welfare reform provisions of S.B. 754). These new incentives and enforcement techniques were expected to result in significant financial savings with respect to AFDC expenditures.37 See 1995 Md. Laws, Chap. 491, preamble of S.B. 754 (stating that the "General Assembly has established welfare reform . . . with the intended goal of achieving a significant reduction in the number of citizens who are enrolled in the [AFDC] program").

The welfare privatization provisions, however, did not begin as part of S.B. 754. While S.B. 754, without the privatization provisions, was being considered in the Senate, the House of Delegates was considering House Bill 1177. H.B. 1177, introduced on 20 February 1995, would have "establishe[d] a Child Support Enforcement Privatization Pilot Program in the Department of Human Resources . . . to privatize all child support enforcement functions in Baltimore City and [Queen Anne's County] by July 1, 1996." Department of Fiscal Services, Fiscal Note Revised 1995, H.B. 1177. Although H.B. 1177 was not passed by both houses of the Legislature, its provisions regarding child support privatization were incorporated into S.B. 754, which was signed into law on 25 May 1995.38 1995 Md. Laws, Chap. 491. The legislative history of H.B. 1177 reveals that the Legislature harbored deep concerns over the then-current state of child support enforcement, and viewed privatization as a viable solution. For example, the Floor Report of the House Committee on Appropriations, to which H.B. 1177 was referred, describes the Committee's rationale for supporting the privatization measures in H.B. 1177:

These financial considerations are explicitly set forth in § 10-119.1. Section 10-119.1(d) mandates that the Secretary of the Department shall "adopt regulations that . . . (ii) provide for the reimbursement of any private contractor; [and] (iii) prohibit the cost of transferring child support enforcement to private contractors as defined in item (ii) of this paragraph from exceeding the fiscal year 1995 administrative cost per child support dollar collected by the Child Support Enforcement Administration in the Pilot Program areas. . . ." This language indicates clearly the primary concern of privatization: to save the State money by ensuring that funds paid to a private contractor are lower than the administrative cost of enforcing child support obligations through means in place prior to the initiation of the privatization program.

The financial interests of the State are also implicated by the level of performance of its child support enforcement offices, be it private or public. Under 42 U.S.C. § 658a (2005), the federal government pays incentives to States based on their performance with regard to the establishment and enforcement of child support orders and the collection of past-due child support arrearages. These incentives are deposited by the State into the Child Support Reinvestment Fund, which "is a special, nonlapsing fund that shall consist of all of the federal performance incentive payments received by the Department of Human Resources in a fiscal year." §§ 10-106.1(b), (c)(1). Although the regulations promulgated pursuant to § 10-106.1 provide that "the incentive amount that would be paid to a privatized support enforcement agency in a subdivision shall be retained by [the CSEA]," COMAR 07.07.11.03, this does not diminish the consequence that a heightened collection rate affects positively the financial interests of the State by increasing the level of federal incentive payments.

This concern with fiscal efficiency appears to be an integral part of Maryland's child support enforcement scheme, reflected not only in § 10-119.1, but in other statutes and case law. For example, in 1978 the responsibility for child support enforcement was transferred from the Department of Parole and Probation to the Department of Human Resources. 1978 Md. Laws, Chap. 885. The legislative history reveals that this change was made in the interest of fiscal efficiency and a more streamlined collection process. See Report to the House Appropriations Committee of the Maryland General Assembly on Domestic Collections in Maryland, Department of Human Resources, 20 December 1977 (stating the Department's support for the proposed legislation because it "best serves all the citizens of the State by having the potential for increasing the amount of support actually collected, reducing welfare costs, and reducing the costs of administering the system"); Statement of Roger P. Winter, Assistant Secretary of Human Resources, H.B. 607, 19 January 1978 (stating that the Department "has the incentive to manage the Domestic Collections program well. Collection efforts on behalf of welfare clients can substantially cut the payout of welfare funds").39

Even the paternity statutes, codified at § 5-1001 et seq., state as their express purpose not only the promotion of "the general welfare and best interests of children born out of wedlock," but also the "impos[ition] on the mothers and fathers of children born out of wedlock the basic obligations and responsibilities of parenthood." § 5-1002(b); see Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Halsey v. Autry, 293 Md. 53, 61, 441 A.2d 1056, 1060 (1982) (finding that one of the main purposes of the paternity statutes "is to shift the burden of support from the taxpayers to the parents of the illegitimate child"); Mayor of Rockville v. Randolph, 267 Md. 56, 61, 296 A.2d 574, 576 (1972) (finding that the "main purpose [of the paternity statutes] is the shifting of some of the burden of financial support of illegitimates from the taxpayer to the father" (citations omitted)). Because the CSEA is not obligated, under § 10-112, to apply transcendently the "best interests of the child" standard, if at all, we conclude that it is reasonable, in light of the foregoing financial considerations, to premise the refusal to exercise discretion under § 10-112 to grant an obligor's request for relief on concerns over the potential fiscal impact to the State.

Harvey maintains that the CSEA's acquiescence in BCOCSE's objections to the proposed forgiveness plan based on an impact on its "collection rate" represented an illegitimate,40 and thus "arbitrary or capricious," motivation for declining to exercise discretion under § 10-112. Harvey argues that because BCOCSE played a role in objecting, based on its own pecuniary interest, to the forgiveness of his arrearages, it was no different from arrangements, struck down by courts, that create private financial benefits or incentives for the decision-maker. See, e.g., Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972) (finding violative of the Due Process Clause an arrangement in which a municipal mayor, who had responsibilities related to the raising of revenues, sat also as a judge in traffic citation matters). These cases and their legal reasoning, however, are not applicable to the present matter. As indicated above, the General Assembly believed that certain financial incentives were necessary to fulfill the purpose of the privatization legislation, incentives that were incorporated into private contracts between the CSEA and BCOCSE. In performing most child support responsibilities, however, BCOCSE does not exercise meaningful discretion, but merely performs ministerial acts relating to the enforcement of child support obligations. Although BCOCSE apparently was concerned with its "collection rate" in regard to how it would affect its performance under its contract, such concern was congruent with the aims of the CSEA and the General Assembly, which placed such incentives into the private child support scheme. The litigants in Ward were entitled to an impartial judge, expected to make a decision on the merits of the case presented, without regard to the impact on the municipal coffers. In the present case, however, the CSEA was bound, by the Legislature, to exercise its discretion to forgive arrearages only when it was "in the best interest of this State." § 10-112. Although BCOCSE's objections, as well as the CSEA's acquiescence in those objections, were motivated by the pecuniary aims of those entities, those aims were also within "the best interest of this State." Thus, by premising BCOCSE's compensation on its "collection rate," the Legislature apparently believed that such an incentive would result in a private company achieving, through more efficient means, the objective inherent in the privatization of child support enforcement: a positive financial impact on the State. In this respect, we find that the CSEA did not act unreasonably in being persuaded that allowing BCOCSE to improve its collection rate was "in the best interest of this State."

3.

Harvey finally argues that it was "arbitrary or capricious" for the CSEA to premise the rejection of his request for forgiveness of arrearages on the technological shortcomings of BCOCSE being unable to factor such a result into its record-keeping system. In recommending that Harvey's request be denied, BCOCSE stated that its computer system was not capable of monitoring Harvey's child support account without triggering automatically certain enforcement provisions, such as the interception of tax refunds. Harvey claims that this is "arbitrary or capricious" because it sacrifices individualized treatment in favor of administrative efficiency. When administrative agencies are faced with a high volume of transactions and accounts, it is not "arbitrary or capricious," as a matter of law, for such agencies to implement an automated or computerized system that emphasizes administrative efficiency at the expense of some degree of individualized treatment. Requests that come before the CSEA and BCOCSE are given individualized treatment, subject to the administrative limitations that have been put in place. By making the all-too-common and arguably necessary decision to install computerized databases and enforcement mechanisms, the CSEA and BCOCSE have not acted in an "arbitrary or capricious" manner, but instead, like many other government agencies and private corporations, have recognized the net benefits of those systems. Nonetheless, we understand Harvey's frustration in this regard.

Harvey states in his brief: "There is nothing in the record that suggests that the current configuration of the computer system is a necessity or that the automated enforcement activities that it generates cannot be overridden in an individual case by a stroke of the keyboard, where circumstances so warrant." Petitioner's Brief at 35 n. 16. Although we recognize that the CSEA's decision to decline forgiveness of Harvey's arrearages may be "arbitrary or capricious" if BCOCSE's computer system was in fact configured to administer the CSEA's proposal effectively, the burden to demonstrate such failure does not fall on the CSEA or BCOCSE. When an individual alleges that an agency's decision is "arbitrary or capricious" based on a factual issue, the burden lies on the individual to provide factual evidence to the court. In this case, Harvey presented no evidence suggesting that the automated system utilized by BCOCSE actually had the capability to implement Harvey's request effectively or that the CSEA or BCOCSE was aware of any method of overriding the noted deficiencies within the existing system.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.

Chief Judge BELL joins in the judgment only.