Drc v. Jaz
31 A.3d 677
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Father filed for visitation with his minor son while incarcerated in SCI Huntingdon and faced opposition from Mother.
- Trial court denied visitation; on appeal Superior Court remanded for a hearing addressing risk of harm and required counseling.
- The trial court sought to apply 5303(b) and (c) to require counseling; it concluded DOC should provide counseling if needed.
- DOC sought intervention and appealed, arguing 5303 applies only to non-incarcerated parents and that counseling costs should not be borne by DOC.
- Superior Court remanded directing DOC to arrange counseling through prison authorities; trial court later scheduled a hearing.
- This Court granted allowance to resolve whether 5303(b)/(c) apply to prison visitation and who pays for counseling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 5303 create absurd results for prison visitation? | Father argues applying 5303(b)/(c) to incarcerated parents is sensible to protect children. | DOC contends 5303(b)/(c) do not govern prison visitation and would impose improper costs on DOC. | Not applicable to prison visits; statute not meant to govern incarceration context. |
| Can custody courts order DOC to provide and pay for counseling for an incarcerated parent when DOC is not a party to custody proceedings? | Father contends counseling is required to assess risk and is part of best-interests analysis. | DOC contends statutory scheme does not authorize court-ordered counseling by DOC or shifting costs to DOC. | Court cannot impose DOC-provided counseling or costs on DOC for prison visitation cases. |
| What is the proper scope of 5303(b) and (c) in the context of incarcerated parents seeking visitation? | Father relies on applicability of risk assessment and counseling to safeguard child welfare. | DOC argues these subsections apply only to non-incarcerated contexts or differently framed custody scenarios. | 5303(b)/(c) do not apply to prison visitation; proceed with expedited hearing without them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Etter v. Rose, 454 Pa. Super. 138 (Pa. Super. 1996) (factors for incarcerated visitation)
- D.R.C., Sr. v. J.A.Z., 969 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2009) (application of counseling requirement to custody context)
- In re Erie Golf Course, 605 Pa. 484 (Pa. 2010) (statutory construction framework for ambiguous provisions)
- Dechert LLP v. Commonwealth, 606 Pa. 334 (Pa. 2010) (statutory interpretation considerations)