In The Interest of: K.C., a Minor
156 A.3d 1179
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- K.C., a minor, was adjudicated dependent on April 26, 2016 for incorrigibility and chronic truancy after reports of violent outbursts and failed community referrals.
- At a pre-hearing the parties agreed dependency would be entered and K.C. would remain with his mother; at the adjudication hearing the mother for the first time said she did not want him returned home.
- DHS requested adjudication and that the court find DHS had made "reasonable efforts" to avoid placement, but conceded DHS had not secured a placement prior to the hearing.
- The trial court removed K.C. from the home, adjudicated him dependent, but denied DHS’s request for a finding of reasonable efforts, explaining DHS should have come to the hearing with a placement/concurrent plan.
- DHS moved for reconsideration arguing the court applied the wrong statutory standard (permanency-hearing standard) instead of the preplacement standard in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(b); the motion was denied and DHS appealed.
- The Superior Court vacated the reasonable-efforts ruling in part, concluding the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard and remanded for application of the proper § 6351(b) preplacement inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal the no-reasonable-efforts finding | DHS is aggrieved because denial bars federal foster-care funding and thus may appeal | Trial court did not contest appealability | DHS has standing; appeal permitted |
| Proper legal standard for reasonable-efforts finding | Trial court should apply preplacement standard in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(b) at adjudication | Trial court applied permanency-hearing criteria (§ 6351(f)) focused on having a placement/concurrent plan | Trial court erred; must apply § 6351(b) at adjudication |
| Whether DHS failed to make reasonable efforts because it lacked a placement at hearing | DHS lacked notice to seek removal until mother changed position at hearing; need to evaluate pre-hearing efforts or emergency-placement exception (§ 6351(b)(2)-(3)) | Trial court held DHS to a higher standard and refused reasonable-efforts finding because DHS did not have a placement in hand | Court erred as a matter of law by basing the finding solely on absence of a placement; remand required for correct § 6351(b) analysis |
| Scope of review and remedy | DHS sought vacatur of the no-reasonable-efforts finding because it triggers federal funding loss | Trial court declined reconsideration | Superior Court vacated the reasonable-efforts determination in part and remanded for proper application of law |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.P., 841 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review in dependency matters; appellate court reviews application of law de novo while deferring to factual findings)
- In re J.G., 984 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2009) (party is aggrieved for appellate standing when adversely affected by order)
- In the Interest of W.M., 41 A.3d 618 (Pa. Super. 2012) (permitting appeal by CYS regarding no-reasonable-effort finding)