In Re WH
25 A.3d 330
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- W.H. is the son of L.B. (Mother) and has a history with CYF dating to 2007, including removal from Mother's care in 2008 and a permanency goal of adoption set in 2009.
- A petition to terminate Mother's parental rights was filed in February 2010 but later vacated by this Court on procedural grounds and remanded for further proceedings.
- CYF sought court authorization on May 7, 2010 to permit a Glade Run psychiatrist to prescribe psychotropic medication for W.H. as part of his treatment; foster parents and school personnel were authorized to administer the medication.
- Mother opposed the medication and on May 28, 2010 sought a second medical opinion; the court ordered CYF to obtain such an opinion and scheduled subsequent proceedings.
- On June 30, 2010 the juvenile court canceled an Mercy Behavioral Health appointment Mother had arranged for a second-opinion evaluation; Mother appealed this order (1128 WDA 2010). The court later affirmed the May 7 order and dismissed the 1128 WDA 2010 appeal as moot, while CYF's motion to dismiss the 886 WDA 2010 appeal was denied.
- As of the filing, a separate termination-of-parental-rights order had been entered in December 2010 and is on appeal in a separate case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the May 7, 2010 order appealable as a collateral order? | Mother asserts the order is appealable under Rule 313 collateral order doctrine. | CYF contends the order meets collateral order criteria and is appealable. | Yes; the May 7, 2010 order satisfies the collateral order doctrine and is appealable. |
| Whether the record supports that it was in W.H.'s best interests to prescribe psychotropic medication over Mother's objections | Mother argues there was not sufficient support for overriding her objections. | CYF argues there was clear and convincing evidence of benefit and safeguards for a trial of medication. | Yes; the court had authority to prescribe on a trial basis and the evidence supported it. |
| Whether the May 7 order was vague, overbroad, or ambiguous | Mother contends the order failed to specify medication type and dosage, rendering it vague. | CYF maintains the order provided sufficient flexibility for medical decision-making by the psychiatrist. | No; the order was sufficiently definite and flexible to permit appropriate treatment. |
| Whether the court erred by disregarding post-order assertions about Dr. Bukhari's understanding of the court's order and about a foster-mother's disclosure | Mother claimed Dr. Bukhari believed the court ordered the medication and that disclosures were ignored. | These issues arose after the May 7 order and were not before the court when the order was entered; they are not reviewable in this appeal. | Mooted/not reviewable; not subject to this appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.S.C., 851 A.2d 189 (Pa. Super. 2004) (collateral-order review in dependency matters)
- Matter of T.R., 445 Pa. Super. 553, 665 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 1995) (order directing psychological evaluation; later reversed on other grounds)
- In re T.R., 557 Pa. 99, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999) (supreme court consideration related to dependency cases)
- Geniviva v. Frisk, 725 A.2d 1209 (Pa. 1999) (collateral-order-like considerations in context of appealability)
- Nagle v. Nagle, 871 A.2d 832 (Pa. Super. 2005) (dual-citizenship/collateral-order-type relief cited in custody context)
- Witt v. LaLonde, 762 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2000) (collateral-order doctrine elements reaffirmed)
- In re F.B., 927 A.2d 268 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review in dependency cases; presumption in favor of trial court findings)
- In re A.C., 991 A.2d 884 (Pa. Super. 2010) (waiver and briefing standards in appellate review)