In K K.R. v. Department of Public Welfare, 950 A.2d 1069, 1073 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), the Court specifically held that "if the findings made in the dependency proceeding in this case establish that K.R. abused the minors, it is unnecessary to provide K.R. with a separate administrative hearing to establish that K.R. abused the minors." Id. at 1078. The Court now recognizes that this statement was not fully explained in K.R. Thus, we wish to clarify that a separate administrative hearing before BHA is not necessary if there is substantial evidence to support the findings made in the dependency proceeding that the appellant was the perpetrator of the abuse of the minor. In K.R., there was substantial evidence presented at the dependency hearing to support the finding that K.R. was the perpetrator of abuse. The one and only perpetrator named was K.R. herself. Additionally, "19 witnesses testified at the dependency adjudication, including K.R., the minors, several doctors, and caseworkers." Id. at 1079. The findings of fact made in the dependency adjudication were quite extensive, and the trial court determined, without question, that K.R. was the perpetrator of abuse. The trial court found, among other things, that K.R. did everything in her power to keep the minors from having a relationship with their father. For example, she made false reports alleging that the minors were abused by the father; caused the minors to fear their father based on fabricated and unsubstantiated claims; and subjected them to unnecessary examinations by doctors and counselors. Id. at 1073, 1079. The trial court found that "the non-ending behavior by K.R. caused M.F. to suffer a spastic colon and withholding behaviors, and A.F. was diagnosed with depression and anxiety." Id. at 1073. Because of the overwhelming evidence identifying K.R. as the perpetrator of abuse, there was no legal reason to justify granting K.R. another hearing before the BHA. To do so would have caused the minors to relive the abuse they endured at the hands of K.R. and clearly violated the principles of collateral estoppel.