Court Opinion

ID: 9533895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:35:22.395324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:12.254925
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority in holding foster parents lack standing to pursue custody of a foster child. I dissent from that portion of the Opinion that concludes a remand is necessary.
First, I note the report indicating that the grandfather was suspected of possibly being responsible for the child’s initial injuries was before the trial court. An experienced trial judge, Judge Barry F. Feudale, concluded:
I’m not prepared to make a determination that the maternal grandfather was the perpetrator of the incident. It’s just that he could not be ruled out. It would seem that the more likely perpetrator would have been the Mother or the Father given the time sequence set forth in the report.
(N.T. 9/13/94 p. 7).
Having reviewed the complete record in this case, particularly the C.Y.S. reports, the evidence supports the court’s conclusion. It must be remembered that the initial report of suspected abuse arose when the child was presented at a hospital emergency room with serious injuries. The ensuing investigation determined that sometime, at least twelve hours prior to the admission, Appellee had custody of the child. That custody was followed by parental custody for a substantial period. In a shotgun approach, each of the five people that had custody of the child at any time during the 72 hours before his hospital admission was reported by the agency as a *286suspected abuser. See CYS report of November 24, 1992, R.R. 146a.
I also note that the CYS report of July 18,1994 reports that Appellee had a hearing to expunge the “indicated” report of child abuse naming him, but one year later, no decision had been made. Appellee’s efforts to respond to the initial report support the trial court’s conclusion that he is not an abuser.
The Majority refers to the Child Protective Services Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6344(d) and The Juvenile Law Center’s interpretation of that section. That section states:
(d) Prospective adoptive or foster parents — With regard to prospective adoptive or prospective foster parents, the following shall apply:
(1) In the course of causing an investigation to be made pursuant to section 2535(a) (relating to investigation), an agency or person designated by the court to conduct the investigation shall require prospective parents to submit the information set forth in subsection (b)(1) and (2) for review in accordance with this section.
The statute does not, as the Majority states, prevent an award of custody to the grandfather. We must keep in mind that the Appellee was the subject of an “indicated” report, not a “founded” report, and the issue was litigated.
This case was well tried before the trial court. All parties knew of the report of suspected abuse. The foster parents participated in the litigation and raised this issue at trial. It was not raised on appeal, but was addressed by the trial court in its decision. Given this record, I conclude the interests of the child have been well protected and suggest we should not substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge.