In Re Wm
41 A.3d 618
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- CYS appeals an order finding it ineligible for federal foster care maintenance funds prior to January 14, 2011 because it did not use reasonable efforts to prevent removal of five children.
- The five children (W.M., J.M., T.M., M.M., and M.M.) were initially placed under a December 17, 2010 voluntary placement agreement after deplorable housing conditions; the home had flooding, moldy clothes, minimal food, and animal waste.
- CYS offered the voluntary placement, but Father did not request agency assistance; rather, the agency urged signing and warned of an emergency order if not signed.
- No formal case plan or services were provided under the voluntary placement, and CYS had no contact with the family after signing until January 13, 2011, when inspection was to occur.
- An Emergency Shelter Order was entered on January 14, 2011, leading to shelter-care placement; a Master recommended that reasonable efforts to prevent removal were lacking prior to January 14, 2011, but reasonable efforts were found after that date.
- The trial court adopted the Master’s recommendation, and CYS timely appealed to challenge both the voluntary placement basis and the pre-shelter efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary placement precludes reasonable-efforts findings | CYS argues §672(f) shows voluntary placement negates need for pre-removal reasonable efforts | Court should analyze voluntary placement under §672(a)(2)(A)(i) and not require prior reasonable efforts | No pre-removal reasonable-efforts finding required; but record shows no valid voluntary placement agreement |
| Whether the agency’s voluntary placement complied with statutory requirements | Father did not request assistance; the agreement may not satisfy §672(f) | Voluntary placement agreement signed by Father satisfied the statute | Agency failed to prove a valid voluntary placement agreement; thus not eligible for funds prior to 1/14/2011 |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the Emergency Shelter Order | CYS contends urgent facts and expiration of the voluntary placement created exigency | Trial court found the order appropriate to protect children | Appeal moot on this point because the order was entered and relief granted; issues regarding pre-shelter efforts remain dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P., 998 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review in dependency matters; weight given to findings of fact)
- In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9 (2010) (reasonable efforts and permanency considerations in dependency)
- Taper v. Taper, 939 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 2007) (credibility and master’s role in dependency proceedings)
- Mintz v. Mintz, 258 Pa. Super. 187 (1978) (credibility and appellate consideration of masters’ recommendations)
- In Interest of S.A.D., 555 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1989) (requirement of reasonable efforts to prevent removal when removal is through judicial determination)
- In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2004) (ASFA policy alignment with family preservation and reunification)
- Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 34 A.3d 104 (Pa. Super. 2011) (record completeness and evidentiary sufficiency on appeal)
- Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal. & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977) (considerations on voluntariness of placement and coercion concerns)