T.H. v. Department of Human Services
145 A.3d 1191
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Infant S.R. sustained severe non-accidental injuries (broken ribs, subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhages) consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome in late 2012–Jan 2013.
- County CYS filed indicated reports naming both Mother (T.H.) and Father (J.R.) as perpetrators; neither parent offered a definitive explanation and each blamed the other.
- Common pleas adjudicated the child dependent and a victim of abuse but did not identify which parent committed the abuse; later returned the child to Mother; Superior Court affirmed the return.
- Under 23 Pa. C.S. § 6381(d) (as interpreted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in L.Z.), a prima facie presumption may attach to parents/caretakers when injuries are of the type not ordinarily sustained except by acts/omissions of the caregiver, shifting the burden to rebut.
- ALJ applied L.Z., found CYS established a prima facie case against both parents, concluded neither rebutted the presumption, and the Bureau adopted that recommendation.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded because the factfinder failed to resolve conflicting rebuttal evidence (who had care when injuries occurred) and did not make credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/Father) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/CYS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §6381(d) presumption applies to both parents when multiple caregivers exist | Mother/Father: presumption should not apply where prior dependency courts found insufficient evidence to identify perpetrator and where one parent had limited unsupervised access | DHS/CYS: L.Z. permits applying the presumption to multiple caregivers when injuries are of the implicated nature and caregivers point fingers | Court: L.Z. controls; presumption may apply to both parents even if not physically present at injury time |
| Standard/burden to sustain an indicated report under CPSL | Mother/Father: CYS cannot meet CPSL "substantial evidence" standard here given prior findings | DHS/CYS: §6381(d) creates prima facie evidence that satisfies CYS’s burden unless rebutted | Court: CYS met prima facie showing via §6381(d); burden shifted to parents to rebut |
| Whether parents rebutted the presumption by showing child was in the other’s care or they had no reason to fear leaving child | Mother: she sought care and reported injuries, showing nonculpability. Father: limited unsupervised access; mostly supervised visits | DHS/CYS: parents’ dependency-court positions reflect pre–L.Z. law; records show both had unsupervised time and conflicting claims | Court: Parents presented conflicting rebuttal evidence but ALJ/Bureau did not resolve credibility; remand required for factfinding |
| Whether decision should be vacated/remanded for credibility findings | Mother/Father: yes, because ALJ relied on pre-L.Z. reasoning and failed to weigh rebuttal testimony | DHS/CYS: ALJ correctly applied L.Z. and found no rebuttal | Court: Vacated and remanded for new decision with explicit credibility determinations and findings of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (§6381(d) presumption applies in multi-caretaker cases; presumption is rebuttable and shifts burden)
- G.V. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 91 A.3d 667 (Pa. 2014) (definition of "indicated report" and CYS burden under CPSL)
- In re J.R.W., 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1993) (legislative purpose of prima facie standard to protect children when abuser cannot be identified)
- Bucks County Children & Youth Servs. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 616 A.2d 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (remand required where factfinder failed to resolve conflicting evidence and make credibility determinations)