In the Int. of: J.L., Appeal of: J.L., 240 EDA 2019

Background

J.L., born June 2002, had chronic truancy beginning in 7th grade and by 2018–19 (age 16) had effectively lost 1.5 years of schooling and was repeating 9th grade.
The Montgomery County OCY and the school repeatedly used diversionary, in-home alternatives (Academy Truancy Diversion Program, casework, Multi-Systemic Therapy) over ~3 years, without success; J.L. often refused contact and locked his bedroom door.
OCY filed a dependency petition; at the December 11, 2018 adjudication the court found clear and convincing evidence of dependency and temporarily placed J.L. in a youth residential facility for short-term intervention.
The court emphasized removal was intended to be temporary, family reunification remained the goal, and parents agreed to placement; reasonable efforts to avoid removal were found to have been made.
On January 8, 2019 (dispositional hearing) J.L. was returned to his parents’ custody; counsel nevertheless filed this appeal from the December 11 order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court used correct removal standard (clear necessity v. best interests)	J.L.: court applied "best interests" rather than the stricter "clear necessity" test for removal	OCY/trial court: court applied clear necessity in substance; occasional use of "best interests" language is not dispositive	Court applied clear necessity standard in substance and removal was justified
Whether removal was an abuse of discretion given lack of evidence about education/psych/IEP	J.L.: record lacked individualized education, psychological, or disability evidence to justify congregate placement for truancy	OCY: long history of failed in-home services, inability to engage J.L., and substantial educational loss justified short-term placement and further assessment	Court: record supported removal; failure to produce IEP evidence was counsel’s choice and did not defeat clear necessity
Whether OCY failed to make reasonable efforts / less-restrictive alternatives available before removal	J.L.: agency did not implement adequate in-home/community services after opening formal case	OCY: multiple diversion efforts over years, recent MST and diversion attempts, and parents concurred that placement was needed	Court: reasonable efforts were made and documented; less-restrictive measures had failed
Whether J.L. received inadequate notice / procedural error re: dispositional timing	J.L.: inadequate notice that removal would be sought; dispositional hearing scheduled beyond 20‑day rule	OCY/trial court: petition and pre-hearing materials signaled possible placement; parties acquiesced to January 8 date; statutory timing noncompliance is not automatic ground for discharge	Court: counsel had notice and opportunities (and declined continuances); scheduling was not an abuse of discretion and statutory timing violation would not mandate dismissal

Key Cases Cited

In re E.B., 898 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (adjudication of dependency is a change of status final for appeal purposes)
In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (mootness doctrine and exceptions in dependency appeals)
In re J.A., 107 A.3d 799 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (dependency decisions can change quickly; some orders capable of repetition and apt to evade review)
In the Interest of A.L., 779 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (removal from parental custody requires clear necessity, balanced against preserving family unity)
In the Interest of C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standards for proving truancy/dependency and burden-shifting re: justification for absences)
Banfield v. Cortes, 110 A.3d 155 (Pa.) (appellate courts may not consider expert evidence not admitted in the trial record)