In R.F. v. Department of Public Welfare, 801 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), Berks County Children and Youth Services (CYS) received a report that R.F was suspected of sexually abusing his daughter, D.F., and subsequently conducted an investigation. Id. at 647. CYS then referred the matter to law enforcement, and criminal charges were filed. CYS then requested DPW to file an indicated report of child sexual abuse of D.F. by R.F. Id. Under a plea bargain agreement, R.F. pled nolo contendere to count 4 of the complaint, Endangering the Welfare of a Child, 18 Pa. C.S. 4304, and was given probation. 1. A plea of nolo contendere is treated as if R.F. pled guilty to the crimes charged. Id. Subsequently, CYS filed an amended report with DPW changing the status of the report from "indicated" to "founded" in accordance with 23 Pa. C.S. 6303. Id. at 647-48. R.F. appealed the change from indicated to founded contending that he did not plead guilty to sexually abusing his daughter in his nolo contendere plea. Id. at 648. The BHA dismissed the appeal because the Law does not provide for appeals from founded reports, only indicated reports. Id. On appeal to this Court, we noted our decision in J.G., stating: While we held that there was a right to appeal, we specifically noted that in a criminal proceeding, where there is an entry of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or a finding of guilt to a criminal charge involving the same factual circumstances involved in the allegation of child abuse, an appeal would "in most instances, constitute a collateral attack of the adjudication itself, which is not allowed." Id. at 649. The Court determined that a founded report of child abuse was an adjudication and as such granted the perpetrator the right to appeal and an opportunity to be heard. However, in R.F., this Court emphasized that where "there is an entry of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or a finding of guilt to a criminal charge involving the same factual circumstance involved in the allegation of child abuse, an appeal would 'in most instances, constitute a collateral attack of the adjudication itself, which is not allowed.'. Id. at 649, quoting J.G. v. Department of Public Welfare, 795 A.2d 1089, 1093 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).