In Re: H.K., Appeal of: Greene County CYS
172 A.3d 71
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child (b. Apr 2007) was removed after a report alleged sexual abuse by her brother and parental inaction; CYS obtained emergency protective custody Dec 16, 2016 and Child entered foster care.
- Master Kimberly Simon‑Pratt held a dependency hearing Dec 22, 2016 and recommended Child be adjudicated dependent; recommendation issued Dec 27, 2016.
- Parents filed a one‑line “Request for De Novo Hearing” Dec 27, 2016; Judge Dayich accepted the master’s recommendation and entered an order adjudicating Child dependent Dec 28, 2016.
- The president judge (Toothman) later granted Parents’ request for a rehearing; rehearing began Jan 30, 2017 and continued March 2, 2017. At that March session the court granted Parents’ oral motion (based on procedural defects and timeliness) dismissing CYS’s petition and returning Child home.
- CYS appealed; the Superior Court reversed, reinstated the Dec 28, 2016 dependency adjudication, and remanded for appropriate permanency proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parents’ Dec 27 filing was defective under Pa.R.J.C.P. 1191(C) (no reasons, improper term “de novo”, not served on GAL) | The filing failed Rule 1191(C): it did not aver reasons, used wrong terminology, and was not served on the guardian ad litem; therefore no rehearing right. | The court may accept imperfect pleadings; procedural formality should not bar rehearing when child’s best interests are implicated. | Court of Appeals: Parents’ filing was defective and the trial court erred by accepting it and scheduling a rehearing. |
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction for failing to hold the rehearing within seven days under Pa.R.J.C.P. 1191(D) | A tardy rehearing does not divest the court of jurisdiction; Rule 1126 limits dismissal or release for procedural defects unless raised before the adjudicatory hearing and prejudicial. | The delay violated the seven‑day requirement and expeditiousness goals; failure justified dismissal and return of child. | Superior Court: Trial court erred; procedural delay did not divest jurisdiction and dismissal/return was improper because defect wasn’t timely raised nor prejudicial. |
| Whether CYS was denied the opportunity to present evidence when the trial court curtailed the hearing and relied on child’s in‑camera statements | CYS contends the court improperly cut off CYS’s remaining evidence, denying it the chance to prove dependency. | Trial court relied on medical testimony, GAL, and the child’s in‑camera statements showing the child recanted and wanted to return home. | Superior Court: Trial court erred to the extent it terminated CYS’s presentation and resolved dependency without allowing full evidence; courts may not ignore competent evidence. |
| Whether the master’s recommendation, once accepted by a judge, could be reversed by another judge of coordinate jurisdiction | CYS: Once Judge Dayich accepted the recommendation within seven days, that order stood; another judge should not overrule. | Trial court asserted discretion to accept defective pleadings and to weigh best interests. | Superior Court: Coordinate‑jurisdiction rule and Rule 1191 mean a judge should not grant a rehearing after another judge timely accepted the master’s recommendation; trial court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review for dependency factfinding and discretion).
- Zane v. Friends Hosp., 836 A.2d 25 (Pa. 2003) (coordinate jurisdiction rule / law‑of‑the‑case principles).
- In re A.M., 530 A.2d 430 (Pa. Super. 1987) (judge’s discretion to order rehearing of master’s recommendation).
- Pa. Super. in Keffer v. Bob Nolan's Auto Service, 59 A.3d 621 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of prejudice for procedural defects).
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may not disregard competent, credible evidence).
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754 (Pa. 2013) (contextual note on procedural due process analysis).