25 A.3d 330
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Mother challenges two juvenile court orders: May 7, 2010 allowing psychotropic medication for W.H. and July 1, 2010 canceling a Mercy Behavioral Health therapy appointment.
- Appeal 886 WDA 2010 concerns the medication order; appeal 1128 WDA 2010 concerns the canceled appointment and is moot.
- CYF sought psychotropic treatment under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6339(b) and DPW procedures; Mother contested consent and process.
- Glade Run psychiatrist Dr. Bukhari recommended a trial of stimulant medication for ADHD; Mother refused consent.
- Court ordered nonroutine treatment with a court order after Mother refused; a second medical opinion was later ordered and sought.
- A second medical opinion was obtained by CYF after the May 28, 2010 order, and the June 30, 2010 cancellation order became moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to support prescribing medication? | Mother argues record lacks best-interest basis to medicate. | CYF/child court contend authority to treat under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6339(b) with safeguards. | Yes; trial court had authority and evidence supports best-interest. |
| Was May 7, 2010 order vague or overbroad? | Mother claims lack of specificity renders order vague. | Order provides necessary flexibility for Dr. Bukhari to prescribe appropriately. | No; order sufficiently clear and not vague or overbroad. |
| Did the court err in denying stay and allegedly misstate that it ordered medication? | Mother alleges court effectively ordered medication and prohibited stay. | Court acted within authority; stay denial proper pending second opinion. | No; arguments not warranted; moot insofar as later proceedings occurred. |
| Did CYF violate consent procedures or disclosure requirements? | Mother asserts DPW consent procedures were not followed and disclose concerns. | CYF complied with § 3130.91 and court authorization; no improper procedure. | No; CYF followed statutory/regulatory procedures and court order. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.S.C., 851 A.2d 189 (Pa. Super. 2004) (collateral order review; three-pronged test)
- Geniviva v. Frisk, 555 Pa. 589 (1999) (collateral order doctrine narrowly interpreted)
- In re F.B., 927 A.2d 268 (Pa. Super. 2007) (scope of review in dependency cases; credibility of findings)
- Nagle v. Nagle, 871 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. 2005) (collateral order precedent for guardianship/custody)
- J.S. v. Whetzel, 860 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2004) (collateral order doctrine elements)
- Read v. Read, 693 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 1997) (scope of appellate review in dependency cases)