41 A.3d 618
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- CYS appealed an order that it was ineligible for federal foster care maintenance payments before January 14, 2011 due to not using reasonable efforts to prevent placement.
- Children were removed December 17, 2010 under a voluntary placement agreement after deplorable housing conditions at Father’s home.
- Agency offered a voluntary placement and then sought an Emergency Shelter Order when the placement could not be maintained; no services or case plan were provided initially.
- January 27, 2011 shelter hearing found evidence of poor housing, lack of clothing/food, and animal neglect; agency failed to offer services or a case plan under the voluntary agreement.
- Master found no reasonable efforts before January 14, 2011 but reasonable efforts after that date; trial court adopted the Master’s recommendation and entered the order.
- CYS argues federal funds eligibility depended on AACWA/ASFA requirements and proper voluntary placement; appellate issues focus on whether a valid voluntary placement was ever formed and whether reasonable efforts were properly examined
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary placement precludes need for reasonable efforts finding | CYS argues voluntary placement removes need for a judicial reasonable‑efforts determination | Court suggests voluntary placement requires a valid written voluntary placement agreement and thus may still implicate reasonable efforts | CYS not entitled to funding due to lack of valid voluntary placement agreement |
| Whether the agency fulfilled the requirements of a voluntary placement agreement | Father apparently signed a voluntary placement; CYS contends it complied | Record shows Father did not request assistance and agreement not properly documented; no signed, complete agreement in record | No valid voluntary placement agreement established; ineligible for funds prior to Jan 14, 2011 |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified emergency removal prior to Jan 14, 2011 | Emergency Shelter Order necessary due to expiring agreement and housing concerns | Emergency order granted; issues moot on appeal because relief was granted | Not reached as dispositive; the key ruling rests on lack of valid voluntary placement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P., 998 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; deference to findings; independent judgment on legal principles)
- In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (dependency review; credibility; master’s advisory role)
- Taper v. Taper, 939 A.2d 969 (Pa. Super. 2007) (credibility of witnesses; master’s recommendation)
- Mintz v. Mintz, 258 Pa. Super. 187, 392 A.2d 747 (Pa. Super. 1978) (credibility and review standards in family matters)
- In Interest of S.A.D., 382 Pa. Super. 166, 555 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1989) (reasonableness of efforts to prevent removal; voluntary placements)
- Brandon v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 34 A.3d 104 (Pa. Super. 2011) (record completeness; burden on appellant to provide complete record)
- In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (ASFA and state plan requirements for foster care funding)
- Jones v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 995 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Super. 2010) (alternative bases for affirming an appellate ruling)