In the Interest of: K.S., a Minor
In the Interest of: K.S., a Minor No. 1662 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 29, 2017Background
- DHS received a GPS report (Mar 11, 2016) alleging eviction, malnourishment, chronic truancy, medical neglect, and transience for four children (K.S., N.B., T.B., M.B.).
- DHS filed dependency petitions (Apr 15, 2016); family court held an adjudicatory hearing (Apr 27, 2016) and adjudicated all four children dependent and ordered immediate removal and medical exams.
- The written dependency orders also stated the court found that “DHS made NO Reasonable Efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.”
- Family court explained its "no reasonable efforts" finding was based solely on DHS’s failure to have identified a placement/permanency plan by the dependency hearing, treating the issue like a permanency-planning inquiry.
- DHS appealed, arguing it had standing because the adverse finding would jeopardize federal foster-care reimbursement and that the family court applied the wrong legal standard and its finding was unsupported by the record.
- The Superior Court vacated the “no reasonable efforts” portion of the orders in part and remanded for the family court to apply the correct statutory standard (Section 6351(b)) and make findings whether reasonable preplacement efforts were made or, for emergency placement, whether lack of preventive services was reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Family Court/System) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | DHS is aggrieved because the "no reasonable efforts" finding will make DHS ineligible for federal reimbursement; thus DHS may appeal | The dependency grant favored DHS procedurally; DHS not aggrieved | Held: DHS has standing — it was denied the full relief requested and faces financial harm to federal funding eligibility |
| Correct legal standard for "reasonable efforts" | Trial court applied permanency/planning standard (Section 6351(f)); DHS says preplacement standard in Section 6351(b) governs dependency removal findings | Court applied a permanency-plan focus, criticizing lack of placement plan | Held: Trial court applied incorrect standard and abused discretion; remand required to apply Section 6351(b) or, if emergency, §6351(b)(3) standard |
| Sufficiency of record re: reasonable efforts | DHS contends record shows efforts or, at minimum, that court should consider whether preventive services were reasonable under emergency circumstances | Court found no reasonable efforts based only on lack of a plan at hearing | Held: Record not evaluated under correct standard; remand for family court to make findings whether preplacement efforts were reasonable or emergency placement justified omission of preventive services |
| Status of dependency and interim placement | DHS sought vacatur of dependency finding tied to the reasonable-efforts ruling | Family court ordered removal and medical exams; no party sought return to home | Held: Dependency adjudications, removal orders, and 48-hour medical exam orders remain intact; children stay removed during remand to preserve status quo |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Am. Standard, 8 A.3d 318 (Pa. 2010) (standing is a question of law; review de novo)
- Donahue v. Commonwealth, Office of Governor, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (describes prudential standing and ‘‘aggrieved’’ party test)
- In re J.G., 984 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2009) (party is aggrieved when adversely affected by an appealable order)
- In the Interest of W.M., 41 A.3d 618 (Pa. Super. 2012) (permitting child‑welfare agency appeal of no‑reasonable‑efforts finding)