In the Interest of: D.R. Appeal of: CYS, No. 45 WAP 2019 In the Interest of: A.R. Appeal of: CYS -No. 46 WAP 2019 In the Interest of: G.R. Appeal of: CYS- No. 47 WAP 2019 In the Interest of: R.R. Appeal of: CYS-No. 48 WAP 2019 In the Interest of: C.R. Appeal of: CYS, 232 A.3d 547

Fayette County CYS (Agency) investigated reports that Father (an attorney) appeared impaired in the presence of his children; three anonymous/confidential reports alleged he was "out of it" and might be taking medication he shouldn’t.
The Agency filed a Motion to Compel Parents’ cooperation with a General Protective Services assessment; after a hearing the trial court ordered home access and required Father to provide an observed urine sample for drug/alcohol testing.
Parents appealed; the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s orders, holding the CPSL and its regulations do not authorize compelled drug testing during a pre‑adjudicatory investigation.
The Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the CPSL authorizes compelling an observed urine sample during a CYS investigation.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court: the CPSL’s investigatory powers do not include authority to obtain involuntary urine samples from subjects of investigations; the Court declined to reach constitutional Fourth Amendment issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPSL or its regulations authorize a county agency to compel an observed urine sample from a subject during a pre‑adjudicatory investigation	Parents: No statutory/regulatory text authorizes compelled bodily‑fluid testing; CPSL/regs permit interviews, home visits, and medical exams of children but not forced drug tests of parents	Agency: Investigation mandate and implementing regs (e.g., home visits, interviews, risk‑assessment factors including parental substance abuse) subsume authority to compel testing; Luminella and Vernonia balancing support court‑ordered testing	Held: No. The CPSL’s text and regulations do not expressly or implicitly authorize involuntary urine collection from investigation subjects; authority must come from statute/regulation, not by analogy to other areas of law
Whether constitutional limits (Fourth Amendment / PA Const.) would permit compelled observed urine testing in this context	Parents: Involuntary observed urine testing is a significant privacy intrusion and, absent statutory authority and probable cause, would be an unreasonable search	Agency: If statutory authority existed, Vernonia/Luminella balancing would justify testing given child‑safety interests	Held: Court avoided constitutional ruling, resolving case on statutory grounds; noted that constitutional issues were not reached because statutory authorization is lacking

Luminella v. Marcocci, 814 A.2d 711 (Pa. Super. 2002) (upheld court‑ordered drug testing in custody litigation subject to constitutional balancing)
Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (established special‑needs/balancing test for school drug testing)
Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (testing of bodily fluids is a search implicating privacy interests)
In re Petition to Compel Cooperation with Child Abuse Investigation, 875 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2005) (CYS home inspection is subject to search/seizure limits; ex parte compelled home search reversed)
Appeal of D.R. and J.R., 216 A.3d 286 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Superior Court reversed trial court order compelling home inspection and held no statutory authority for pre‑adjudicatory drug testing)
In re L.J.B., 199 A.3d 868 (Pa. 2018) (standard of review for statutory interpretation is de novo)
In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1996) (courts should avoid constitutional rulings when a case can be resolved on other grounds)