IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Geneva Johnson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Department of Human :

Services Bureau of Hearings and :

Appeals, : No. 517 M.D. 2015

Respondent : Submitted: February 19, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: May 5, 2016

The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (Department) filed 

preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Geneva Johnson’s (Johnson) 

petition for review (Petition) filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction. In her Petition, 

Johnson asks this Court to reverse the Department’s Bureau of Hearings and Appeals’ 

(Bureau) September 28, 2015 order denying Johnson’s permanent legal custodian 

(PLC) subsidy and affirming Johnson’s eligibility to receive the PLC subsidy so long 

as Johnson’s niece, Zakiyyah Johnson (Zakiyyah), continues to engage in qualifying 

activities through age 21. The issue before this Court is whether Johnson has stated a 

claim upon which relief can be granted in this Court’s original jurisdiction. After 

review, we sustain the Department’s preliminary objections.

In 2001, the General Assembly created a subsidy program which 

provides crucial financial support for families willing to become permanent legal 

custodians pursuant to Section 6351(f.1)(3) of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 
2

6351(f.1)(3). The PLC subsidy is a need-based program which mandates the legal 

custodian to meet all of the requirements for foster parenthood, submit to an annual 

eligibility evaluation and have the ability to provide for the child without court 

supervision. 

Johnson is the primary caregiver and permanent legal custodian of 

Zakiyyah, who is a full-time Pennsylvania State University (PSU) student in State 

College, Pennsylvania. Johnson has been Zakiyyah’s sole caregiver and permanent 

legal custodian, and has received a PLC subsidy since 2009, when Zakiyyah was 11

years old. The PLC subsidy has been crucial to Johnson’s ability to financially 

provide for her niece’s basic needs, as Johnson solely uses that money for Zakiyyah’s

books, clothing, food, toiletries and other personal items. 

In June 2012, Johnson’s sister, Zakiyyah’s mother, filed a petition to

modify custody, in which she sought full legal and physical custody of then-14-yearold Zakiyyah. In response, a new set of permanency hearings were conducted to 

determine if Zakiyyah’s reunification with her mother was possible. In January 2013, 

when Zakiyyah was 15 years old, the petition to modify custody was resolved, and 

Johnson retained her PLC subsidy. Zakiyyah graduated from Multicultural Academy 

Charter School in Philadelphia on June 12, 2015. Zakiyyah has always been a hardworking student dedicated to pursuing a college education. Zakiyyah turned 18 years 

old in August 2015, as she was leaving for PSU to begin her first year of college.

In 2012, the definition of “child” eligible for the PLC subsidy was 

amended by Act of June 30, 2012, P.L. 668, No. 80 (Act 80), which revised what was 

then called the Public Welfare Code1to extend subsidy eligibility to age 21 for 

 

1

The Act of June 13, 1967 (P.L. 31, No. 21), as amended, 62 P.S. §§ 101–1503. Effective 

December 28, 2015, the Public Welfare Code was renamed the “Human Services Code.” 62 P.S. § 

101. 
3

caretakers of children who were older than age 13 when their associated PLC orders

were effective and who engaged in one of the following activities:

(i) completing secondary education or an equivalent 

credential;

(ii) enrolled in an institution which provides postsecondary 

or vocational education;

(iii) participating in a program actively designed to promote 

or remove barriers to employment;

(iv) employed for at least 80 hours per month; or

(v) incapable of doing any of the activities described in

subparagraph (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) due to a medical or 

behavioral health condition, which is supported by regularly 

updated information in the permanency plan of the child. 

Section 1302 of the Public Welfare Code, 62 P.S. § 1302.2 

The Department notified Johnson by July 9, 2015 letter, received on July 

17, 2015, that her PLC subsidy would be discontinued on Zakiyyah’s 18th birthday in 

August 2015. On August 11, 2015, Johnson appealed from the Department’s July 9, 

2015 notice. On August 25, 2015, the Department issued a Rule to Show Cause 

requesting factual and legal support to continue Johnson’s PLC subsidy. On 

September 16, 2015, Johnson submitted her response to the Rule to Show Cause. On 

September 28, 2015, the Bureau issued an order denying Johnson’s PLC subsidy. On 

October 28, 2015, Johnson filed her Petition in this Court’s original and appellate 

jurisdictions. On November 25, 2015, the Department filed preliminary objections in 

the nature of a demurrer to Johnson’s Petition filed in this Court’s original 

jurisdiction. On December 8, 2015, Johnson opposed the Department’s preliminary 

objections.

 

2 Added by Section 1 of Act of September 30, 2003, P.L. 169.
4

This Court’s review of preliminary objections is limited to the pleadings. 

Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 

909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff’d, 924 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 2007). 

[This Court is] required to accept as true the well-pled 

averments set forth in the . . . complaint, and all inferences 

reasonably deducible therefrom. Moreover, the [C]ourt 

need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted 

inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or 

expressions of opinion. In order to sustain preliminary 

objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will 

not permit recovery, and, where any doubt exists as to 

whether the preliminary objections should be sustained, the 

doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the 

preliminary objections.

Id. at 415-16 (citations omitted).

The Department argues that Johnson’s Petition fails to state a claim for 

which relief can be awarded in this Court’s original jurisdiction because the Petition 

is based solely on alleged errors in the Bureau’s adjudication and does not assert or 

identify an original jurisdiction cause of action. We agree.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly held: 

[T]hose matters our legislature has placed within 

Commonwealth Court’s appellate jurisdiction under Section 

763 [of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 763,] are excluded 

from its original jurisdiction under Section 761(a)(1) [of the 

Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)]. In short, the 

Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction of actions 

against the Commonwealth is limited to those not within its 

. . . appellate jurisdiction over appeals from Commonwealth 

agencies, whether directly under Section 763(a)(1) or (2)

[of the Judicial Code], indirectly under Section 762(a)(3) or 

(4) [of the Judicial Code] or otherwise within its appellate 

jurisdiction.
5

Pa. Dep’t of Aging v. Lindberg, 469 A.2d 1012, 1015-16 (Pa. 1983). Section 

763(a)(1) of the Judicial Code defines this Court’s appellate jurisdiction, in relevant 

part:

General rule.-- . . . the Commonwealth Court shall have 

exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of 

government agencies in the following cases:

(1) All appeals from Commonwealth agencies under 

Subchapter A of Chapter 7 of Title 2 (relating to judicial 

review of Commonwealth agency action) or otherwise . . . 

and from any other Commonwealth agency having 

Statewide jurisdiction.

42 Pa.C.S. § 763(a)(1). 

Johnson properly admits in her answer to the Department’s preliminary 

objections that “Johnson has applied for a review of a final order of a Commonwealth 

agency, which is squarely within the appellate jurisdiction of this Honorable 

Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 763(a)(1).” Johnson’s Answer to Department’s

Preliminary Objections at 2 (emphasis added). 

This Court has observed since its inception that it 

exercises jurisdiction which is ‘unique in that it is 

predicated upon the identity of the parties and the 

capacity in which they sue or are sued rather than 

upon the nature of the cause of action asserted.’

Thus, absent statutory exception, the identity of [the 

Department] defines the perimeters of this Court’s 

jurisdiction. The identity of [the Department] as a 

Commonwealth agency is not in dispute. Therefore, 

[Johnson] may not circumvent the jurisdiction of 

this Court, original or appellate, by simply labeling 

[her] action against [the Department] as [a 

complaint in equity]. 

[E. Stroudsburg Univ. v. Hubbard, 591 A.2d 1181,] 1184

[(Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)] (emphasis added) (citations omitted). 

Here, [Johnson] sought to place this matter in this Court’s 

original jurisdiction by labeling it [an equity] action, not an 

appeal from the underlying . . . proceedings. Regardless of
6

how her claim is labeled, [Johnson] is seeking the review of 

the [Bureau’s September 28, 2015 order.]

As such, this Court lacks original jurisdiction over the 

matter.

Tran v. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 986 A.2d 179, 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 

Accordingly, the Department’s preliminary objections to Johnson’s Petition filed in 

this Court’s original jurisdiction are sustained.

3

Since Johnson filed in both this 

Court’s original and appellate jurisdictions, Johnson’s Petition filed in this Court’s 

original jurisdiction is dismissed, and the Petition will proceed in this Court’s

appellate jurisdiction.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

 

3

“Due to our disposition, we dismiss as moot [the Department’s remaining] preliminary

objections . . . .” Seitel Data, Ltd. v. Ctre. Twp., 92 A.3d 851, 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Geneva Johnson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Department of Human :

Services Bureau of Hearings and :

Appeals, : No. 517 M.D. 2015

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5

th day of May, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Human Services’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Geneva 

Johnson’s (Johnson) petition for review (Petition) filed in this Court’s original 

jurisdiction are SUSTAINED. Accordingly, Johnson’s Petition filed in this Court’s 

original jurisdiction is DISMISSED.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge