Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ANDRE LOWRY AND JEFFREY LOWRY (07/08/83)

filed: July 8, 1983.

IN RE ANDRE LOWRY AND JEFFREY LOWRY, MINORS. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE LINDA DIAZ, ALSO KNOWN AS JOHANNA BERCELI, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE RONALD ZIEGLER. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE KATHLEEN BERGER, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE TRACEY MITCHELL, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE LEONARD BROOKS, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE SNOWLEY BROOKS, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE JULIE BRISON, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE HEATHER BROOKS, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE SARAH AYERS, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE LISA ANN ANGELO, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE CARMEN ANN JONES, A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. IN RE JOSEPH EVANGELISTA (BROWN), A MINOR. APPEAL OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY


No. 295 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at Nos. 2060 and 2061 of 1980, No. 301 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 171 of 1981 - Hist. #17891-A, No. 368 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. J-1007 of 1980 - Hist. #16707-A, No. 436 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. J-680 of 1979 - Hist. #14618-A, No. 448 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. J-1110 of 1979 - Hist. #14893-A, No. 822 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 1279 of 1981, No. 823 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 1280 of 1981, No. 825 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 834 of 1981, No. 875 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 1278 of 1981 - Hist. #18790A, No. 244 Pittsburgh 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. J-98 of 1982, No. 635 Pittsburgh 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 1754 of 1978 - Hist. #85599, No. 722 Pittsburgh 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. 605 of 1982, No. 949 Pittsburgh 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Juvenile Div. at No. J-3656 of 1977.

COUNSEL

James A. Esler, Assistant County Solicitor, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Mark P. Cancilla, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

Spaeth, Brosky and Montemuro, JJ.

Author: Spaeth

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 308]

This case arises on thirteen appeals which have been consolidated. The appeals involve the disposition of children adjudicated dependent under The Juvenile Act, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, effective June 27, 1978, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et seq. The lower court ordered the children placed in the custody of foster parents, and provided in its order that the placement should be "under the supervision of Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County," and, further, that Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County Institution District were to pay the foster parents "the current board rate per diem for foster home care." It has not been argued, either that the children should not have been adjudicated dependent, or that they should not have been ordered placed in foster homes. The issue is whether the lower court was authorized by The Juvenile Act to order a public agency, such as Children and Youth Services or the County Institution District, to pay for

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 309]

    the placement. We hold that a court may not order a public agency to supervise and pay for the placement of a dependent child in a foster home unless the home has been approved pursuant to the regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare applicable to foster homes. Here the record fails to disclose that the foster homes have been so approved. We therefore remand for further proceedings.

In each of the thirteen appeals before us the disposition is essentially the same, and all of the appeals have essentially the same procedural history. Rather than recite the history of each appeal, the history of the appeal involving Kathleen Berger will be recited as illustrative.

On March 27, 1979, a case worker representing Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County filed a petition with the lower court, representing that Kathleen was about 15 years old and was a dependent child in that she was without proper parental care or control as necessary for her physical and mental health.*fn1 On April 18, 1979, the lower court adjudicated Kathleen a dependent child. After two intervening placements, which are not pertinent to our present discussion, the lower court, on April 8, 1981, after a hearing, ordered Kathleen "placed in the custody" of one Charles R. Reis, "under the supervision of Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County." After reciting that "[t]his placement [had] been recommended to the Court by Children and Youth Services of Allegheny County as being in the best interest" of Kathleen, the court's order continued by directing that Children and Youth Services and the Allegheny County Institution District should "pay to Mr. Charles R. Reis the current board rate per diem for foster home care of [Kathleen], effective as of April 8, 1981, and so long as [Kathleen] remains in the custody and care of Mr. Charles R. Reis."

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 310]

In its opinion the lower court explains that it ordered Kathleen placed with Mr. Reis on the basis of testimony by a Children and Youth Services caseworker: "The caseworker assured the Court that the prospective placement was in Kathleen's best interest, that no other placement was more appropriate, and significantly, that she had developed close attachments to the Reis family." Slip op. at 2. The lower court goes on to say that "[it] declined, however, to await the completion of the home study before ordering [Children and Youth Services] to support the placement, instead directing the agency to pay the current foster care board rate effective April 8, 1981, the date of the placement." Id. at 3.

The propriety of the lower court's adjudication of Kathleen as a dependent child is not challenged. Neither is the court's decision to order her placed in a foster home. As appellant, Children and Youth Services only argues that the lower court erred in directing it to make foster home payments when it had not evaluated and approved the Reis home as being in compliance with Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Regulations.*fn2

-1-

The Juvenile Act provides that if, after petition and hearing, a child is found to be a dependent child, the court may order any of certain specified dispositions, as "best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a). The specified dispositions are as follows:

(1) Permit the child to remain with his parents, guardian, or other custodian, subject to conditions and limitations

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 311]

    as the court prescribes, including supervision as directed by the court for the protection of the child.

(2) Subject to conditions and limitations as the court prescribes transfer temporary legal custody to any of the following:

(i) Any individual resident within or without this Commonwealth who, after study by the probation officer or other person or agency designated by the court, is found by the court to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.