J.A21007/15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: MA.W., C.W., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

AND M.W. : PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: J.K., MOTHER :

: No. 840 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Orders Entered March 5, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County 

Criminal Division No(s).: CP-13-DP-0000025-2014

 CP-13-DP-0000027-2014

 CP-13-DP-0000028-2014

BEFORE: ALLEN, MUNDY, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2015

Appellant, J.K. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered March 5, 

2015,1 denying the petitions for dependency as to Ma.W., C.W., and M.W. 

(“Children”) and directing that the Carbon County Office of Children and 

Youth Services (“CYS”) be permitted to enter Children’s home to complete

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We note Mother filed one notice of appeal from three orders. The 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure address the requisites for an 

appealable order and provide: “Every order shall be set forth on a separate 

document.” Pa.R.A.P. 301(b). This Court in Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi, 

100 A.3d 587 (Pa. Super. 2014), noted that “[t]aking one appeal from 

separate judgments is not acceptable practice and is discouraged.” Id. at 

589 n.1 (citation omitted). The Saidi Court declined to find the procedural 

error fatal to the appeal because the trial court addressed the issues. Id. 

Similarly, we find the procedural error is not fatal in the case sub judice 

because the trial court addressed the issue. We have amended the caption 

accordingly.
J.A21007/15

- 2 -

the assessment required by 55 Pa. Code § 3490.232.2 Mother argues there 

was no probable cause to allow a government agency access to Children’s 

home.3 We affirm.

 

2 The code provides, inter alia, as follows when the agency receives a report 

alleging a need for general protective services (“GPS”):

(a) The county agency shall be the sole civil agency 

responsible for receiving and assessing all reports alleging 

a need for general protective services. . . .

 * * *

(f) The county agency shall see the child and visit the 

child’s home during the assessment period. The 

home visits shall occur as often as necessary to complete 

the assessment and insure the safety of the child. There 

shall be a least one home visit.

 * * *

(h) The county agency may make unannounced home visits.

 * * *

(j) The county agency shall initiate the appropriate court 

proceedings and assist the court during all stages of the 

court proceedings if the county agency determines that 

general protective services are in the best interest of a 

child and if an offer of an assessment, a home visit or

services is refused by the parent.

55 Pa. Code § 3490.232(a), (f), (h), (j) (emphases added). GPS in Section 

6303 of the Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”) includes “[t]hose services 

and activities provided by each county agency for cases requiring protective 

services, as defined by the department in regulations.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303.

3 We note the issue is not moot based upon the denial of the dependency 

petitions.
J.A21007/15

- 3 -

We adopt the facts and procedural history of this case as set forth in 

the trial court’s opinion. Trial Ct. Op., 4/13/15, at 2-15. On March 5, 2015, 

the court denied the petitions for dependency and ordered that CYS be 

permitted to enter Children’s home. This timely appeal followed. Appellant 

filed a court-ordered4statement of errors complained of on appeal in each 

case. Mother raises the following issue5for our review:

 

It is well settled that the proper inquiry in a dependency 

adjudication follows a bifurcated analysis: “Is the child at 

this moment without proper parental care or control?; and 

if so, is such care or control immediately available?” 

Because the element of time is integral to the dependency 

adjudication, each petition in this instance necessarily 

implicates a different cause of action. Thus, technical res 

judicata cannot apply.

In re N.A., 116 A.3d 1144, 1149 (Pa. Super. 2015) (footnote and citations 

omitted), appeal denied, ___ A.3d ___ Pa. 2015).

4 Appellant did not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which provides, inter alia, 

in a children’s fast track appeal, the concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal shall be filed with the notice of appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2)(i). 

We do not find this defect fatal to the appeal. See In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 

745, 747 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding failure to file 1925(b) statement 

concomitantly with a children’s fast track appeal is considered defective 

notice of appeal, the disposition of which is decided on a case by case basis).

5 We note Mother raised an additional issue on appeal.

When a government agency files multiple dependency 

petitions, involving three siblings residing in the same 

home with the same mother and father, all of the 

allegations in the petition and all of the evidence presented 

at the single hearing is identical as to each minor, no 

allegation or piece of evidence is peculiar to one child, and 

the Trial Court enters three identical Orders, disposing of 
J.A21007/15

- 4 -

When a government Agency presents evidence that the 

yard of a minor’s house is cluttered with mostly 

unidentified material, that an unnamed informant reported 

that the house was messy, had a boarded-up window and 

might have had a hole in the wall, but presented no 

evidence that the house was unsafe or that [C]hildren 

were in danger and, in fact, testified that [CYS] had no 

concern for the safety of [C]hildren, does the [t]rial [c]ourt 

err in concluding that probable cause exists to believe that 

evidence of child abuse or endangerment may be found in 

the home?

Mother’s Brief at 5.

Mother argues that probable cause is required to permit CYS to access 

her home pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

Id. at 18. She avers there was no probable cause for a home inspection. 

Id. Mother contends CYS can only inspect the home pursuant to 55 Pa. 

Code § 3490.55(i)6 when investigating a report of suspected child abuse. 

 

three identical petitions, should an appeal from those three 

decisions be quashed for failing to file individual appeals?

Mother’s Brief at 5. We have resolved this issue. See note 1.

6 Section 3490.55 requires a home visit when the agency is investigating 

reports of suspected child abuse. Section 3490.55(i) provides:

(i) When conducting its investigation, the county agency 

shall visit the child’s home, at least once during the 

investigation period. The home visits shall occur as often 

as necessary to complete the investigation and to assure 

the safety of the child.

55 Pa. Code § 3490.55(i). The trial court found a home visit was required 

by 55 Pa. Code § 3490.232. Order, 3/5/15. In the case sub judice there 

were no allegations of child abuse in the petitions filed by CYS. Mother’s 

reliance on Section 3490.55(i) is of no moment. The Code provides for a 
J.A21007/15

- 5 -

Id. Mother claims that CYS “must allege and prove facts, ‘amounting to 

probable cause to believe that an act of child abuse or neglect has 

occurred and evidence relating to such abuse will be found in the home.’” 

Id. at 19 (emphasis added) (citing In re Pet. to Compel Cooperation 

with Child Abuse Investigation, 875 A.2d 365, 377 (Pa. Super. 2005)). 

Our review is governed by the following principles:

[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an 

appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility 

determinations of the trial court if they are supported by 

the record, but does not require the appellate court to 

accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion.

In re E.B., 83 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted).

In In re Petition to Compel, the parents appealed an “order 

compelling their cooperation with Susquehanna County Services for Children 

and Youth (“C & Y”) for the scheduling and completion of a ‘home visit’ of 

their residence.” Id. 875 A.2d at 368. The trial court granted C & Y’s 

petition notwithstanding the fact that there was no dependency petition 

before the court.7 Id. at 369. This Court opined:

 

home inspection when CYS receives a report of abuse and/or neglect. The 

issue of whether probable cause exists for the home inspection pertains in 

either case. See In re Pet. to Compel, 875 A.2d at 377, 379.

7

In In re Petition to Compel, the home inspection had taken place. 

However, this Court declined to find the issues moot because “the issues 

before us are clearly capable of repetition, yet evading appellate review.” 

Id. at 370-71.
J.A21007/15

- 6 -

[The a]ppellants’ first substantive argument is that the 

court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order because C & Y 

had not filed a dependency petition. [The a]ppellants’ 

position is that administrative regulations alone are 

insufficient to confer jurisdiction; and that in the absence 

of a petition filed pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301 et seq., C & Y could not legally invoke 

the court’s jurisdiction. We disagree.

The legislature’s purpose in enacting the CPSL is stated in 

Section 6302(b):

It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage more 

complete reporting of suspected child abuse; to the 

extent permitted by this chapter, to involve law 

enforcement agencies in responding to child abuse; 

and to establish in each county protective services 

for the purpose of investigating the reports swiftly 

and competently, providing protection for children 

from further abuse and providing rehabilitative 

services for children and parents involved so as to 

ensure the child’s well-being and to preserve, 

stabilize and protect the integrity of family life 

wherever appropriate or to provide another 

alternative permanent family when the unity of the 

family cannot be maintained. It is also the purpose 

of this chapter to ensure that each county children 

and youth agency establish a program of protective 

services with procedures to assess risk of harm to a 

child and with the capabilities to respond adequately 

to meet the needs of the family and child who may 

be at risk and to prioritize the response and services 

to children most at risk.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(b).

The CPSL charges the county agencies with 

investigating each report of suspected child abuse:

Upon receipt of each report of suspected child abuse, 

the county agency shall immediately commence an 

appropriate investigation and see the child 

immediately if emergency protective custody is 

required or has been or shall be taken or if it cannot 
J.A21007/15

- 7 -

be determined from the report whether emergency 

protective custody is needed. Otherwise, the county 

agency shall commence an appropriate investigation

and see the child within 24 hours of receipt of the 

report. The investigation shall include a 

determination of the risk of harm to the child or 

children if they continue to remain in the existing 

home environment, as well as a determination of the 

nature, extent and cause of any condition 

enumerated in the report and any action necessary 

to provide for the safety of the child or children.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6368(a). Our legislature has expressly 

authorized the Department of Public Welfare (“DPW”) to 

adopt whatever regulations are necessary to implement 

the CPSL. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6348.

Title 55 of the Pennsylvania Administrative Code, 

Section 3490.55, states in relevant part: “When 

conducting its investigation, the county agency shall 

visit the child’s home, at least once during the 

investigation period. The home visits shall occur as often 

as necessary to complete the investigation and to assure 

the safety of the child.” 55 Pa.Code § 3490.55(i). 

 * * *

As we interpret the statute and agency regulations, C & Y 

must file a verified petition alleging facts amounting to 

probable cause to believe that an act of child abuse or 

neglect has occurred and evidence relating to such abuse 

will be found in the home.

 * * *

However, C & Y’s responsibilities under the DPW 

regulations and the CPSL to investigate each and every 

allegation of child abuse/neglect, including visiting the 

child’s home at least once during its investigation, do not 

trump an individual’s constitutional rights under the Fourth 

Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution.

Id. at 371-72, 377, 379 (emphases added). 
J.A21007/15

- 8 -

In In re Petition to Compel, Judge Beck filed a concurring opinion 

which was joined by Judge Ford-Elliot and Judge Joyce. Both Judge Beck 

and Judge Joyce also joined the majority opinion. Judge Beck opined:

I join the soundly reasoned majority opinion because it 

finds that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from 

unreasonable searches and seizures applies to actions of a 

social services agency seeking to investigate an 

anonymous complaint of child abuse. I write separately, 

however, to add two observations in this case.

First, I caution future parties and courts faced with this 

issue to consider that the purposes and goals underlying 

the activities of child protective agencies differ significantly 

from those of law enforcement generally. As a result, it 

would be unwise to apply the standard notion of probable 

cause in criminal law to cases such as these. While the 

Fourth Amendment certainly is applicable to these matters, 

we must not forget the very purpose for the Child 

Protective Services Law. Child Line and other services like 

it exist to encourage people to report incidents of potential 

danger to children. Likewise, we impose upon certain 

professionals an affirmative duty to report conduct they 

believe may be harmful to a child. For these reasons, 

simply requiring an agency to show “probable cause” as it 

is defined in the criminal law is not enough. Instead, the 

nature and context of each scenario must be considered.

What an agency knows and how it acquired its 

knowledge should not be subject to the same restrictions 

facing police seeking to secure a search warrant. For 

instance, an agency’s awareness of previous conduct on 

the part of parents would be relevant, indeed vital, 

information to include in a request for a court-ordered 

home visit. What constitutes probable cause in the 

child protective arena is far different from what 

constitutes probable cause in the criminal law. Social 

services agencies should be held accountable for 

presenting sufficient reasons to warrant a home visit, but 

those same agencies should not be hampered from 

performing their duties because they have not 

satisfied search and seizure jurisprudence developed 
J.A21007/15

- 9 -

in the context of purely criminal law. I urge the courts 

deciding these issues to accord careful consideration to the 

unique circumstances they present.

Id. at 380 (emphases added).

In the instant case, CYS filed dependency petitions, indicating its 

efforts to visit Children’s home and requesting the court to allow CYS to visit 

the home as part of its investigation.8 

Instantly, the trial court opined:

At the hearing on this petition, the caseworker, Alyssa 

Denardo, presented additional testimony regarding the 

condition of the home and her initial in-school visits with 

[C]hildren that are the subject of these petitions. She also 

identified a number of photographs that she took during 

her first visit to the home. The photos showed the yard of 

the home with garbage strewn around, several rolls of 

used carpeting, and a general state of “clutteredness.” 

These photos were admitted as an exhibit, without 

objection. The caseworker also testified that [C]hildren 

have all been withdrawn from the Palmerton School 

District,17 meaning there is no way for CYS to follow-up 

with speaking to [C]hildren regarding the interior of the 

home.

 * * *

The report to [CYS] was regarding the condition and 

cleanliness of the home. The petitions detailed the 

condition of the exterior of the home, which included a 

boarded up window inside of the home, which was clearly 

visible from outside. The petitions included information 

from the caseworker’s interviews with [C]hildren. The 

petitions also identified the unwillingness of the natural 

parents to allow [CYS] into the home. This [c]ourt finds 

that this information, in and of itself, would be sufficient to 

justify the probable cause necessary for an order 

 

8 We note that CYS did not seek the removal of Children from the home.
J.A21007/15

- 10 -

permitting [CYS] to enter [Children’s home] to conduct 

their investigation as required by the CPSL.

 ____________________

17 In this [c]ourt’s opinion, the fact that [C]hildren were 

removed from the Palmerton School District at a time 

when [CYS] wanted to question them about the home 

suggests “something to hide” relating to the condition 

of the home.

Trial Ct. Op. at 10-11, 12.

At the hearing, Marianne Grabarits, a caseworker supervisor with CYS 

testified that when CYS receives a GPS report, the case-worker is required, 

inter alia, “to complete a home assessment.” N.T., 1/30/15, at 9, 11. She 

assigned the report to the caseworker, Ms. Denardo. Id. at 18.

Ms. Denardo testified regarding the report CYS received on November 

13, 2014, indicating concern with the cleanliness of the home, “holes in the 

home and boarded up windows.” Id. at 25, 26. She interviewed Children at 

school on November 20, 2014. Id. at 26, 27. C.W. ”told me that it is a little 

dirty at the home, that dad does projects and doesn’t always finish them and 

that’s why it is dirty at the home.” Id. at 26. Ma.W. told her that the house 

was “sort of dirty, that dad boarded up a window in front to have privacy 

from the road.” Id. at 27. She also stated “that they had 13 cats[9]and 

 

9 We note that Mother’s counsel asked whether Ms. Denardo was “aware 

that the 19 cats were outside cats from the farm up the road[.]” Id. at 55. 

She responded that she was not “aware of that.” Id.
J.A21007/15

- 11 -

three dogs.” Id. M.W. stated “it’s a little dirty in the house. She did say 

there are no holes and the house is not boarded up.” Id. 

Ms. Denardo went to the home on December 5, 2014,10 and “saw that 

the outside was cluttered and boarded up where it looked like it could have 

been a window.” Id. at 28. She took six photographs and described them 

to the court. Id. at 30. “There is a bunch of garbage, about three or four 

garbage [sic] and it looks like maybe carpet rolled up.” Id. It was located 

“towards the end of the driveway.” Id. The second photograph depicted 

what looked to be “a barn of some kind.” Id. at 31. She stated she “took 

the photo because of the materials that are out there, with it being dirty and 

all the materials.” Id. The third photograph was of the home and it 

depicted a trailer. Id. The fourth photograph showed “the trailer, the 

home. And as you can see, here it’s boarded up.” Id. at 32. The fifth 

photograph of the trailer “is the close up of the front entrance of the home.” 

Id. at 32-33. She took the photograph “[b]ecause of all the clutteredness 

and the materials that are right outside of the home.” Id. at 33. The last 

photograph shows “right here is where you step into the house, the porch, 

and that is all the clutteredness.” Id.

She went to the home again and Father told her “I am not letting 

anyone in or under the government or bureaucracy of the government into 

 

10 She attempted to go to the home on November 20, 2014, but could not 

find it. Id. at 27-28. She tried to go to the home on November 26th but 

was unable “to make it out there” due to inclement weather. Id. at 28.
J.A21007/15

- 12 -

my house and that is why I have that sign.” Id. at 35. The sign said “no 

federal, state or agency [sic] allowed on this property without 

documentation.” Id. at 36.

Ms. Denardo testified she called the Palmerton School District on 

January 6, 2015. Id. at 37. C.W. had not been in school on January 2nd, 

January 5th and January 6th. Id. She called Palmerton Junior High and was 

told Ma.W and M.W.’s were withdrawn from the school district. Id. CYS was 

not asking for Children to be removed from the home. Id. at 43. CYS is 

requesting that Children be adjudicated dependent so that the agency could 

complete its evaluation. Id. “There was a report that came in that children 

come to school not clean.” Id. at 51.

The trial court denied the petition for dependency but found “in light of 

the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, probable cause was 

shown to warrant an order directing that [CYS] shall be permitted to enter 

[Children’s] home . . . .” Order, 3/5/15. We discern no abuse of discretion. 

See In re E.B., 83 A.3d at 430. Instantly, there was probable cause to 

warrant an order for a home visit. See 55 Pa. Code § 3490.232; In re Pet. 

to Compel, 875 A.2d at 374, 380. Accordingly, we affirm.

Orders affirmed.
J.A21007/15

- 13 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/14/2015
(4) of the W. children. 

( :. 't_ r': was no longer subject to a 

1 Separate petitions were filed involving four 

However, the oldest child (B.W.) has turned 18 and 

[FM-18-15] 

1 

home of the subject children. It is this part of the Order that 

Office of Children and Youth Services be permitted to enter the 

evidence presented for an order directing that the Carbon County 

this Court also stated in the order that there was sufficient 

for Dependency after conducting a hearing1 thereon. However, 

Carbon County Office of Children and Youth Services' Petitions 

On March 5, 2015, this Court issued an Order denying the 

Matika, J. - April _1_3~, 2015 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Robert J. Magee, Esquire 

Mark E. Combi, Esquire 

Counsel for Carbon County 

Children & Youth 

Guardian ad Li tern for Ma. W. r 

c.w. I & M.W. 

Counsel for J. K. , mother of 

Ma.W., C.W., & M.W. 

Kim M. Christie, Esquire 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE 

IN THE INTEREST OF 

Ma.W. No. 25 DP 14 

IN THE INTEREST OF 

c.w. No. 27 DP 14 

IN THE INTEREST OF 

M.W. No. 28 DP 14 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

2 

Children and Youth action. The hearings on the other three (3) children were 

consolidated. 

2 Dependency Petition of M.W. 

3 Dependency Petition of c.w. 

4 Dependency Petition of Ma.W. 

that the outside area of the home was "cluttered with random 

went to the family's home to investigate, where she reported 

in the front"4 of the home. On December 5, 2014, the caseworker 

dirty" 2 to "dirty" 3 to "sort of dirty" with a "boarded up window 

of the state of the house, ranging from the home being "a little 

children at their respective schools, who gave varying accounts 

A caseworker for Children and Youth spoke to each of the 

about the conditions of the home where the children were living. 

received a report on November 13, 2014 which expressed concerns 

The Carbon County Office of Children and Youth Services 

FACTUAL AND PRODECURAL BACKGROUND 

accordingly. 

to the Honorable Superior Court to dismiss Defendant's appeal 

in the March 5, 2015 order. Respectively, this Court recommends 

1925(a), to expand upon the brief ruling and rationale set forth 

accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

memorandum opinion is offered to the Superior Court, in 

J. K. I the natural mother of the minors, appeals. This 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
5 The caseworker also testified that in early January, she contacted the 

Palmerton School District to speak to the children again, as she had 

previously spoken to all three (3) of them in a school setting. The 

[FM-18-15] 

3 

petitions were filed on December 24, 2014.5 

dependency if the family continued to refuse to cooperate. The 

was informed that the agency would be filing petitions for 

refused to allow the caseworker into the home, at which time he 

investigate the inside of the residence. J.W. once again 

22, 2014, the caseworker went to the home again to attempt to 

J. K. denied before hanging up on the caseworker. On December 

The caseworker asked for permission to check the home, which 

Children and Youth had no business being involved in the matter. 

explained the allegations to J.K., to which J.K. responded that 

had visited the home and was denied entry. The caseworker 

which was answered by J. K. The caseworker explained that she 

On December 8, 2014, the caseworker called the home phone, 

leave. 

inside of the house. J.W. refused and asked the caseworker to 

cleanliness of the home and requested permission to check the 

children, informed him of the allegations regarding the 

be. The caseworker approached J . W. , the natural father of the 

objects" and there was a boarded up hole where a window used to 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

4 

caseworker was informed that the children had all been withdrawn from the 

Palmerton School District in late December or early January. 

6 All counsel submitted "letter briefs" to chambers of the undersigned, none 

of which were lodged in this matter, and therefore, do not appear in the 

record. 

7 Order of Court, March 5, 2015. 

1) The Trial Court erred in determining that probable 

cause was shown so as to justify the intrusion into 

the home of J.K. by members of the Carbon County 

Office of Children and Youth to complete an 

assessment, when the only evidence presented was some 

pictures of a cluttered, non-dangerous yard, and a 

statement from some unidentified informant whose 

reliability is completely unknown that the house was 

issues: 

timely filed. In this statement, Appellant J. K. raised two 

Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, which was also 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b} file a Concise 

Thereafter, this Court directed that she, pursuant to 

On March 13, 2015, J,K. filed an appeal to Superior Court. 

to conduct the necessary investigation. 

"shall be permittedu7 to enter the home of the subject children 

was probable cause to issue an order that Children and Youth 

5, 2015 denying the Petition for Dependency, but finding there 

briefs6 regarding the case, this Court issued an order on March 

the matter under advisement and allowing all parties to file 

counsel, a hearing was held on January 30, 2015. After taking 

After a continuance for the natural parents to obtain 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

5 

8 23 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 6301 et seq. 

9 55 Pa. Code§ 3490.232. 

10 Id. at § 3490.232 (e). 

11 Id. at § 3490.232 (f). 

child's home, at least once during the investigation period. 

conducting its investigation, the county agency shall visit the 

assessment period."11 Another section mandates that "[w]hen 

agency shall see the child and visit the child's home during the 

assessment.10 In the course of such an assessment, "(t]he county 

agency has sixty ( 60) days within which to complete an 

requirements that must be fulfilled. For example, the county 

("CPSL")8 and Pennsylvania Administrative Code9 have several 

Protective Services ( "GPS") , the Child Protective Services Law 

Once a county agency receives a report for General 

DISCUSSION 

The Court will address these issues accordingly. 

2) The Trial Court further erred, when, in the aftermath 

of dismissing the Petition for Dependency (the only 

matter then before the Court), the Court went on sua 

sponte, to Order J.K. to allow the Agency to enter her 

house and conduct an inspection, even though there was 

no surviving petition before the Court requesting any 

such relief. 

"messy", that there was a boarded up window, and that 

there "might have been a hole["] in some unidentified 

wall, and that the children when interviewed, appeared 

healthy, unharmed and clean; and 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

6 

12 55 Pa. Code § 3490. 55 (g) . 

13 Id. at§ 3490.233(h) 

14 Id. at§ 3490.232(j). 

rs 55 Pa. Code§ 3490.73. 

Office of Children and Youth Services, to determine what the 

responsibility of the county agency, such as the Carbon County 

child is at risk." rs Accordingly, it would appear to be the 

investigation, and the county is unable to determine whether the 

child abuse refuses to cooperate with the county agency in an 

to petition the court if the "subject of the report of suspected 

portion of the PA Administrative Code requires the county agency 

visit, or services are refused by the parents. Further, another 

"appropriate court proceedings" are when an assessment, a home 

However, the statute does not elaborate on what 

[t]he county agency shall initiate the appropriate 

court proceedings and assist the court during all 

stages of the court proceedings if the county agency 

determines that the general protective services are in 

the best interest of a child and if an of fer of an 

assessment, a home visit, or services is refused by 

the parents. 14 

visits .13 Finally: 

law also permits the county agency to make unannounced home 

the investigation and to assure the safety of the child."12 The 

The home visits shall occur as often as necessary to complete 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

7 

Amendment and/or Article I, Section 8 of Pennsylvania's 

a home visit, the rights of the alleged abusers under the Fourth 

applicable language of the pertinent Pennsylvania laws required 

County Services for Children and Youth that because the 

The Superior Court rejected the argument of Susquehanna 

the child abuse allegations." Id. at 369. 

to submit to a home visit as part of C&Y' s investigation into 

trial court in that matter was "whether appellants were required 

at 368. The Superior Court found that the only issue before the 

investigate their home based on a referral from Child Line. Id. 

Susquehanna County Services for Children and Youth to 

abuse" based upon the refusal of alleged abusers to allow the 

presented with a "petition to compel cooperation with child 

that case, the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas was 

Abuse Investigation. 875 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). In 

this issue was In re: Petition to Compel Cooperation with Child 

into a home. The one case this Court found to be guiding on 

where a county children and youth agency has been denied entry 

Pennsylvania case law is surprisingly light in matters 

matter. 

proper petitions are and file them before the court hearing the 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

8 

visit. Id. at 378. The Superior Court found that the petition 

the home, and the caseworker was required to complete a home 

neglect, the parents had refused to allow the caseworker into 

alleged, inter alia, that the referral was made for medical 

added). In that case before the Superior Court, the Petition 

such abuse will be found in the home. " Id. at 3 77 ( emphasis 

child abuse or neglect has occurred and evidence relating to 

facts amounting to probable cause to believe that an act of 

Therefore, \\C & Y must file a verified petition alleging 

supra, at 376-77. 

the regulations written to implement it." Petition to Compel, 

Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 apply to the CPSL and 

agree with the federal courts' analysis . and hold that the 

Court wrote that al though these were not binding authority, =we 

Family Servs., 240 F.Supp.2d 731 (N.D. Ohio 2003). The Superior 

(3d Cir. 1989); See also Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and 

Cty. County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087 

Court for the Northern District of Ohio. See Good vs. Dauphin 

both the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District 

determination, the Superior Court reviewed federal cases from 

constitution do not apply. Id. at 374. In reaching this 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
and conditions of the house in which the children were residing, 

[FM-18-15] 

9 

Services receiving an anonymous report regarding the cleanliness 

based upon the Carbon County Office of Children and Youth 

In the instant matter, the dependency petitions were filed 

In Interest of J.M., 652 A.2d 8771 880-81 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). 

In re M.K., 636 A.2d 198, 201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) See also 

[t] he standard of review which this Court employs in 

dependency cases is broad. However, the scope of our 

review is limited in a fundamental manner by our 

inability to nullify the fact-finding of the lower 

court. We accord great weight to this function of the 

hearing judge because he is in the position to observe 

and rule upon the credibility of the witnesses and the 

parties who appear before him. Relying on this unique 

posture, we will not overrule his findings if they are 

supported by competent evidence." 

this, the Superior Court has stated: 

determination in a General Protective Services matter such as 

When an appellant challenges the trial court's 

I. Probable Cause 

a formal petition for dependency." Id. at 379. 

issuance of a search warrant for appellants' home, and/or filing 

further investigation to collect additional facts to support the 

that petition, the county agency had several options \\including 

search warrant. Id. The court went on to say that after filing 

did not acknowledge sufficient facts to merit the issuance of a 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

10 

number of photographs that she took during her first visit to 

that are the subject of these petitions. She also identified a 

of the home and her initial in-school visits with the children 

Denardo, presented additional testimony regarding the condition 

At the hearing on this petition, the caseworker, Alyssa 

by the father. 

attempt to conduct the in-home assessment, and was again refused 

via telephone, the caseworker went back to the home to again 

home by the father in person on that occasion and by the mother 

window as previously indicated. After being denied entry to the 

"cluttered", and that the home did in fact have a boarded up 

went to inspect the home and found the outside to be 

comparable language. As part of the investigation, a caseworker 

each of the children regarding the home being "dirty" or some 

Off ice of Children and Youth Services contain statements from 

As stated above, the petitions filed by the Carbon County 

itself. 

found in the home. Here, the issue is the condition of the home 

aver that evidence of the issue the report was based on will be 

stated above, the Superior Court has held that the petition must 

along with corroborating statements from the children. As 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
16 N. T. 1/30/15 P. 29-34. 

17 In this Court's opinion, the fact that the children were removed from the 

Palmerton School District at a time when the Carbon County Office of Children 

and Youth Services wanted to question them about the home suggests "something 

to hide" relating to the condition of the home. 

[FM-18-15] 

11 

Thus, this information is distinguishable from the information 

when this Court was making its determinations on the matter. 

testimony and evidence at the time of the hearing on the matter 

Here, any additional information was provided by way of 

must allege those facts. Petition to Compel, supra, at 378. 

sufficient for a search warrant, saying that the petition itself 

information provided to the Superior Court in a brief that was 

Services for Children and Youth that there was additional 

Superior Court rejected the argument made by Susquehanna County 

This Court notes that in the Petition to Compel case, the 

to the children regarding the interior of the home. 

Office of Children and Youth Services to follow-up with speaking 

District17, meaning there is now no way for the Carbon County 

the children have all been withdrawn from the Palmerton School 

exhibit, without objection. The caseworker also testified that 

state of "clut teredness". 16 These photos were admitted as an 

strewn around, several rolls of used carpeting, and a general 

the home. The photos showed the yard of the home with garbage 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

12 

investigation as required by the CPSL. 

Services to enter the home of the W's to conduct their 

permitting the Carbon County Office of Children and Youth 

sufficient to justify the probable cause necessary for an order 

finds that this information, in and of itself, would be 

Office of Children and Youth Services into the home. This Court 

unwillingness of the natural parents to allow the Carbon County 

with the children. The petitions also identified the 

petitions included information from the caseworker's interviews 

of the home, which was clearly visible from outside. The 

exterior of the home, which included a boarded up window inside 

of the home. The petitions detailed the condition of the 

and Youth Services was regarding the condition and cleanliness 

to exist. The report to the Carbon County Office of Children 

finds that there was sufficient information for probable cause 

based on the facts averred in the petitions, this Court still 

In the alternative, if the probable cause can only be found 

Petition to Compel case. 

provided in the brief submitted to the Superior Court in the 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

13 

can draw from the Superior Court's opinions in supporting the 

Turning to the matter sub judice, this Court finds that it 

violation of the parents' due process rights. Id. 

997. This resulted, in the Superior Court's opinion, in a 

against the children's placement into state custody. Id. at 11 

with notice or an opportunity to present testimony or argue 

court found troubling was that the parties "were not presented 

the Superior Court in support of their decisions, the issue the 

In Brooks-Gall and in each of the three (3) cases cited by 

Super. Ct. 2003) (emphasis added). 

or following the required procedures. 840 A.2d 993, 996 (Pa. 11 

altered custody orders without providing the necessary hearings 

which a court has sua sponte adjudicated children dependent or 

decisions in cases where we have reversed trial court orders in 

Protection from Abuse hearing, stated "we are instructed by our 

removing children from their parents' custody following a 

Superior Court, when dealing with a trial court sua sponte 

Court can draw from in this matter. In Brooks-Gall v. Gall, the 

on point relating to this matter, there are similar cases this 

Again, while there does not appear to be case law directly 

II. Appellant's Claim of a "Bua Sponte" Act by this Court 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
u As stated above, the ambiguity in the statutory language as to what 

constitutes an "appropriate court proceeding" is part of the issue this Court 

had to decide. Although the petitions filed were formally called "Petitions 

for Dependency", the testimony at the hearing on these petitions show that 

the intended goal of the Carbon County Office of Children and Youth Services 

was merely for this Court to order Appellant to cooperate with the agency. 

At one point, counsel for Children and Youth stated "We are just asking for 

cooperation from the parents. we are not asking to remove these kids from 

the home. We wouldn't have even filed the dependency petition if the parents 

were cooperative in the first place. 11 (N.T. 1/30/15 P. 63). Counsel 

later reiterated their intent in filing the petition, saying "[s]o the agency 

is just looking for cooperation from the parents. I believe in other cases 

like this, Your Honor has continued the matter, ordered the parents to 

cooperate, and then we can dismiss the dependency at the end of it. Again, 

we are just looking for cooperation so we can close this out." Id. at 64. 

When further questioned by this Court as to whether a formal petition for 

dependency was the proper vehicle for this request, counsel for Children and 

Youth stated "the way the regulations are set up, I believe this is our 

avenue or means of relief to complete our investigation. If we are unable to 

get into the home to complete the investigation, that would mean we would 

have safety concerns, meaning that we would need to file a dependency 

[FM-18-15] 

14 

custody matter. Here, Appellant was presented with notice and 

the judge determined the children were being used as pawns in a 

example, the parents went before the trial court for a PFA, and 

differentiated from cases like Brooks-Gall. In Brooks-Gall, for 

Further, this Court feels this instant matter can be 

permit Children and Youth into the home.10 

were brought before this Court to compel the homeowners to 

conduct a home visit, and were refused. Similarly, petitions 

received a report of potential abuse or neglect, attempted to 

Compel, the Carbon County Office of Children and Youth Services 

ruling that is now up for appeal. Just as in Petition to 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
petition in order to remedy those concerns. That is my understanding of the 

way that this works and that is why we filed the petitions." Id. at 67. 

19 Petitions for Dependency (P. 3) (emphasis added). 

[FM-18-15) 

15 

Dependency, along with the testimony of the caseworker, show 

opportunity to argue against such an order. The Petitions for 

from the dependency that Appellant did not have notice or 

This was not, in this Court's opinion, a matter so separate 

filing these Petitions for Dependency. 

need to conduct such an investigation, and their reason for 

with the mother and informed the parents of both the Office's 

attempts to visit the home and her phone call where she spoke 

condition of the home, along with the caseworkers two (2) 

Office of Children and Youth Services' main concern was with the 

specifically put Appellant on notice that the Carbon County 

reasons for the petitions being filed, as listed above, 

places the heal th, safety, or welfare at risk. II 19 The 

evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian, or custodian that 

there is a lack of proper parental care may be based upon 

Petitions for Dependency reads in part "a determination that 

Services' attempts to enter the home. The box checked on the 

dependency and the Carbon County Office of Children and Youth 

opportunity to present testimony, with regards to both 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

16 

had the opportunity to defend it. 

Court, the goal of which was properly noticed to Appellant, who 

Children and Youth Services was the same as that issued by this 

action. The ultimate goal sought by the Carbon County Office of 

sufficient probable cause, is not an erroneous, sua sponte, 

enter the home to complete their investigation, based on 

County Off ice of Children and Youth Services be permitted to 

adjudicate the children dependent, ordering that the Carbon 

feels that while there may not have been sufficient evidence to 

at the substance of the Petitions for Dependency, this Court 

to the intent and language of the CPSL. Therefore, in looking 

the basis for a possible Adjudication of Dependency, is contrary 

of the home, when the alleged conditions of the home may form 

and Youth Services not being able to investigate the conditions 

they filed these actions. The Carbon County Office of Children 

Office of Children and Youth Services was attempting to do when 

that Appellant was clearly aware of what the Carbon County 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM
[FM-18-15] 

17 

7~,La<-:~ 

"v .. ,,:;1 

i. ..... ~ 

l 

~:o=r, 

£ ' ' 

(...) 

··:.· .. ,~,~ .. 

BY THE COURT: 

~~- 

Jo~. Matika, J. 

Appellant's home be affirmed. 

Office of Children and Youth Services be permitted to enter 

that the March 5, 2015 Orders directing that the Carbon County 

Based upon the foregoing, this Court respectfully recommends 

CONCLUSION 

Circulated 08/05/2015 03:29 PM