Interest of A.N. v. Appeal of A.N.
39 A.3d 326
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- A.N. (Child), born 1995, adjudicated dependent in 2005; case transferred from Washington County to Allegheny County in 2008.
- At the May 2, 2011 hearing, Child was living with his Father in Allegheny County, attending South Park High as a freshman.
- Child’s older brother resided with Father; younger sister resided with Mother in Washington County; siblings previously involved with dependency.
- Parents have long histories of drug/alcohol abuse and domestic violence; CYF services have been provided over many years.
- August 9, 2010 Permanency Review Hearing revealed marijuana use and behavioral problems; court ordered return to Father and to follow AFA recommendations.
- December 13, 2010 and October/December 2010 hearings required drug/alcohol treatment, education improvements, and compliance with the Family Service Plan.
- March 7, 2011 showed some academic improvement but continued misbehavior; Child began drug/alcohol treatment (Mon Yough) in January 2011 and tested positive for THC at the May 2, 2011 hearing.
- May 2, 2011 expedited hearing resulted in a determination that placement at George Junior Republic Residential Treatment Facility was warranted; bed became available May 20, 2011; motion for reconsideration denied May 25, 2011, after new D&A evaluation suggested outpatient treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal at a permanency hearing can be ordered for new concerns unrelated to the original dependency. | Child argues permanency hearing cannot remove the child for new concerns without a new petition. | The court may address new bases of dependency at the permanency hearing with appropriate findings. | Removal sanctioned; proper findings and flexibilities of permanency hearings permitted. |
| Whether the removal was supported by clear necessity. | CYF failed to show that removal was clearly necessary. | Evidence showed unfeasibility of alternate services; clear necessity established. | Yes, clear necessity supported; removal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348 (Pa.Super.2004) (appellate deference to court’s findings; review for abuse of discretion)
- In re D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super.2009) (disposition and dependency petition mechanics at play; procedural posture considered)
- In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa.Super.2003) (clear necessity standard applied to removal of child from home)
- Interest of K.B., 419 A.2d 508 (Pa.Super.1980) (clear necessity must be shown after unfeasible alternative services)
- Interest of S.S., 651 A.2d 174 (Pa.Super.1994) (trial court is the fact-finder on removal necessity; appellate review deferential)