In the Int. of: K.,G., a Minor Appeal of: York CYS
In the Int. of: K.,G., a Minor Appeal of: York CYS No. 1922 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Child (born 2001) was adjudicated dependent on Aug. 16, 2016 and placed with paternal grandparents; CYF was granted medical and educational rights in the August disposition order.
- The court ordered CYF to “make a §3201 medical appointment” (referring to the Abortion Control Act) and authorized the GAL to pursue court procedures under that Act.
- GAL later moved to transfer medical/educational rights to paternal grandmother because CYF was reluctant to arrange/attend certain medical appointments; the agency did not object and the court modified rights.
- Grandmother paid $540 for the child’s abortion after CYF did not arrange the appointment; at the Oct. 25, 2016 status review the trial court found CYF in contempt for failing to follow directives and ordered CYF to reimburse the grandmother $540.
- CYF appealed, arguing (1) the court unlawfully ordered a public agency to fund an abortion (contrary to statute/constitution) and (2) the contempt finding lacked procedural notice and sufficient evidence of volitional, wrongful noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYF) | Defendant's Argument (Court/GAL/Grandmother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could order a county child-welfare agency to reimburse costs of a minor’s abortion | Ordering reimbursement forces public funds to pay for an abortion, violating 62 P.S. § 453 and constitutional appropriation limits; agency cannot be required to fund abortions | Court treated reimbursement as a contempt sanction for agency’s failure to follow clear directives to arrange medical care, and as compensation for damage caused by noncompliance | Vacated: court abused discretion to sanction CYF by effectively directing payment for an abortion without proper procedure under the Abortion Control Act and statutory authority |
| Whether the contempt finding was procedurally and substantively proper | No notice of contempt was given; no petition under §3206; evidence did not show volitional wrongful noncompliance or causal link to grandmother’s out-of-pocket abortion expense | Court found agency willfully refused directives, failed to provide services, and its noncompliance caused grandmother’s expense; thus contempt and reimbursement were appropriate | Vacated: agency lacked notice of judicial-bypass or contempt proceedings; contempt finding/sanction reversed for procedural and legal deficiencies |
| Whether the Abortion Control Act procedures (judicial bypass) were implicated and whether CYF had notice | CYF had no notice and no §3206 petition was filed; Abortion Control Act confers specific procedures and timelines that were not followed | Court referenced §3201/§3206 and earlier orders directing an evaluation; but did not have a bypass petition before it | Court concluded Abortion Control Act procedures were not followed and agency could not be indirectly ordered to pay for an abortion via contempt sanction |
| Appropriate remedy / next step | Remand for further dependency proceedings; court should not impose payment sanction without proper statutory basis or notice | Court’s order vacated in part; matter remanded | Court vacated contempt/sanction portion of order and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; appellate deference to trial court fact/credibility findings)
- In re Doe, 33 A.3d 615 (Pa. 2011) (judicial-bypass review under Abortion Control Act; trial-court discretion and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (scope of court’s authority to adjudicate dependency and order dispositions under Juvenile Act)
- Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481 (Pa. Super. 2001) (civil-contempt burden and requirement that mere noncompliance is insufficient; need for volitional wrongful conduct)