JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Michael Montalbano, appeals the circuitcourt's order upholding a final administrative decision ofdefendant, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services(Department), denying his request to expunge an indicated findingof sexual penetration, molestation, and substantial risk of harm. We reverse.

On January 10, 2000, the Department received a reportthat an unknown person, soon thereafter identified as MichaelMontalbano, had sexually abused an 11-year-old girl. The following week, a Department investigator and two Illinois State Policeofficers began conducting interviews of the girl, her mother,Montalbano, and others. Following an investigation, on March 22,2000, the Department issued a finding, based on a "credibleevidence" standard, indicating Montalbano for sexual penetration,sexual molestation, and substantial risk of harm.

On April 30, 2000, Montalbano wrote to the StateCentral Register's administrator requesting that the Departmentreview its decision and provide him with the reports related tothe investigation. After receiving these materials, Montalbanosent a November 2, 2000, letter to the Department stating thatthe information in its records was inaccurate and should beamended or destroyed. This internal review was denied. According to the Department's brief, this occurred on February 14,2001. The date is not disputed, although no documentationappears in the record. On February 16, 2001, Montalbano wrote tothe Department's administrative hearings unit, stating that hewished to appeal the indicated finding and asking that theindicated report be expunged.

On June 25, 2001, an administrative law judge (ALJ)held a hearing to consider Montalbano's request to expunge theindicated finding against him from the State Central Register. At the hearing, Montalbano made three motions. The first requested a directed finding on the grounds that there was noopportunity to cross-examine the minor and no corroboration ofthe minor's statements. This motion was denied. The secondsought to dismiss the case because the Department failed to calla mandated reporter to testify at the hearing. This motion wasalso denied. The third motion requested an alteration of the"safety plan" under which Montalbano was prohibited from livingin his home. The ALJ ordered the Department to review the safetyplan in response.

On July 2, 2001, the ALJ issued an opinion denyingMontalbano's request for expungement from the State CentralRegister. The ALJ found the Department's witnesses to havetestified credibly, and determined that the Department had metits burden to prove the accuracy and consistency of the reportindicating Montalbano. The Director of the Department adoptedthe ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law on September19, 2001.

On October 9, 2001, Montalbano filed a three-countcomplaint with the circuit court of McLean County, naming theDepartment and its Director, Jess McDonald, as defendants. CountI sought administrative review of the Department's decision ofSeptember 19, 2001, contending that the decision was against themanifest weight of the evidence. Count II requested a declaratory judgment that the Department had deprived Montalbano of dueprocess by delaying the proceedings. Count III sought that thecourt declare the "safety plan" void.

In its final order of January 6, 2003, the circuitcourt (1) denied count I because the Department's decision wasnot against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) denied countII because Montalbano failed to object during the administrativeprocess to the untimeliness of the hearing and decision; and (3)granted count III, finding that the safety plan should be reviewed. This appeal followed. The safety plan of count III isnot at issue on appeal.

Plaintiff argues that delays between his request foradministrative appeal and the Department's final decision deprived him of due process. We agree.

Generally, a court conducting an administrative reviewwill not consider an issue or defense not raised at the administrative level. Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182Ill. 2d 262, 278, 695 N.E.2d 481, 489 (1998). This rule has beenapplied to constitutional due process challenges. S.W. v.Department of Children & Family Services, 276 Ill. App. 3d 672,679, 658 N.E.2d 1301, 1307 (1995). Defendants assert that by notraising the issue at the administrative level, plaintiff haswaived his due process argument. However, waiver is "an admonition to the parties rather than a limitation on [the] court'sjurisdiction" (Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co., 182 Ill. 2d at279, 695 N.E.2d at 489) and does not prevent us from consideringthe merits of plaintiff's argument in the interests of justice. We therefore address plaintiff's due process argument.

Under section 7.16 of the Abused and Neglected ChildReporting Act (Reporting Act), once a person has been "indicated"on the State Central Register for suspected abuse, the subject ofthe report "may request the Department to amend the record orremove the record of the report from the register." 325 ILCS5/7.16 (West 2000). If the Department rejects this request, thesubject may appeal.

First, the subject may request in writing that theDepartment review its decision. 89 Ill. Adm. Code