In the Interest: E.G., Appeal of: N.G. and A.T.
1364 WDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Emergency protective custody of two children (E.T. and E.G.) was granted to Allegheny County CYF after concerns over parents’ conduct at Magee-Women’s Hospital.
- Initial shelter hearing took place on August 7, 2024; full adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2024, but not all witnesses were available.
- Parents objected to continuance, but waited to present their evidence after CYF rested its case.
- Before the continued hearing, the court entered an adjudication order (Sept. 13, 2024) declaring the children dependent, relying on testimony from available witnesses and a stipulation at the shelter care hearing.
- Parents argued this deprived them of due process, as they had no opportunity to present evidence before adjudication; the court later allowed a motion to vacate but maintained the dependency finding.
- The Superior Court reviewed the case on appeal regarding due process and procedural fairness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err in adjudicating dependency without a full hearing? | Parents: Adjudication occurred before they could present evidence; deprived of opportunity to be heard. | CYF: Court relied on available testimony and stipulation; parents could have moved to vacate. | Yes; the court erred—due process rights were violated. |
| Did the court violate due process by not allowing parents to be heard before adjudication? | Parents: No real chance to respond to adverse evidence; adjudication premature. | CYF: Post-adjudication opportunity to move to vacate was sufficient. | Yes; parents must have a meaningful opportunity to respond before adjudication. |
| Did the court err in denying recusal after the expedited adjudication order? | Parents: The judge’s conduct indicated bias and prejudgment. | CYF: No evidence of bias; procedural, not personal, dispute. | Not addressed due to disposition on due process grounds. |
| Was relying on shelter hearing evidence improper for adjudication? | Parents: Shelter hearings use looser standards; not binding for dependency. | CYF: Evidence was sufficient for dependency finding. | Reliance was improper without chance for rebuttal; order vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Standard of review in dependency cases; factual findings accepted if supported by record, law reviewed de novo)
- In re E.B., 83 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Burden of proof in dependency; petitioner must show dependency by clear and convincing evidence)
- Int. of A.D.-G., 263 A.3d 21 (Pa. Super. 2021) (Due process requires notice and meaningful hearing in dependency cases)
- Int. of K.B., 331 A.3d 50 (Pa. Super. 2025) (Meaningful opportunity to be heard is required by due process in dependency matters)