IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.R. AND J.R. IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.R. AND J.R. IN THE INTEREST OF: G.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.R. AND J.R. IN THE INTEREST OF: R.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.R. AND J.R. IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.R. AND J.R.
from the Order Entered February 1, 2019 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at No(s): 6
JM 2018, 7 JM 2018, 8 JM 2018, 9 JM 2018, 10 JM 2018
BEFORE: OTT, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
(Father) and J.R. (Mother) appeal the court's order
compelling their cooperation with Fayette County Children and
Youth Services Agency (Fayette CYS) to submit to a home
inspection, as well as for Father to take a drug test,
pursuant to the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), 23
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301, et seq., and
corresponding regulations. The parents argue,  inter
alia, that the order violated their state and federal
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures. After careful consideration, we agree and vacate
the trial court's order.
pertinent history discloses the following:
January 2019, Fayette CYS presented a "motion to compel
cooperation with [General Protective Services]
assessment" before the Greene County Court of Common
Pleas. Fayette CYS averred that it received three
separate reports of Father being under the influence of an
unknown substance. In one of those instances, Father was
accompanied by one of his five children. In the third report,
an allegation was made that Father abused Mother, but that
criminal charges were dismissed because she refused to
testify. Fayette CYS interviewed all the children and sought
judicial records of the purported domestic violence. The
agency could not corroborate the allegations. Fayette CYS
requested that the parents submit to a home inspection and
that Father submit to a drug test. The parents refused.
parents objected to the motion to compel, arguing that
Fayette CYS should have filed a verified petition. They also
alleged that they lacked notice and an opportunity to be
heard. The parents' contended further that the judge
assigned to his case should recuse, because Father had active
cases before the court. The court set the matter for a
hearing ten days later, but denied the parents' request
to recuse. After a hearing, the court ordered the parents to
comply with the home inspection and ordered Father to submit
to a drug test via an observable urine screen. The court
furthered ordered the parents to "cooperate" with
Fayette CYS and threatened sanctions if they did not. The
parents filed this timely appeal. They raised ten issues:
1. Did the court err by entertaining [Fayette CYS]'s
unverified motion to compel when no abuse or neglect had been
alleged when the law requires the agency to file a verified
petition when requesting court action on abuse allegations?
2. Did the court err by granting [Fayette CYS]'s motion
when the motion was not presented to the court or served on
[the parents] more than 60 days after the allegations or
reports were made?
3. Did the court err by finding that the allegations against
[the parents] amounted to actual reports of child abuse and
that probable cause existed to enter the home when the agency
freely admitted no abuse was alleged?
4. Did the court err in refusing to apply the "probable
cause" standard to [Fayette CYS]'s motion and
thereafter finding that [Fayette CYS]'s request was not
of the same standard as a search warrant?
5. Does [Fayette CYS]'s motion and the court's order
for entry into the home, the body and compliance with
[Fayette CYS] amount to an illegal search and seizure under
the state and federal constitutions?
6. Did the court err and/or violate appellant Mother's
constitutional rights by issuing an order against her when no
allegations were made against Mother?
7. Did the court violate [the parents'] constitutional
rights by issuing an order against [the parents] for
sanctions if they did not comply with said order?
8. Does the CPSL allow for urine drug testing of private
citizens and if so does observable urine testing violate the
[Father's] constitutional rights?
9. Did the court err denying the motion to recuse itself and
the motion to remove the case from the jurisdiction?
10. Did the court err prohibiting [Father] from asking if he
reporting sources were [CYS] employees when the CPSL mandates
CPSL reports from employees must be made within 24 hours of
the alleged incident?
Brief at 12-14 (excess capitalization omitted).
we briefly address the issue of mootness. At oral argument,
Father indicated that the parents had not complied with the
court's order to cooperate with Fayette CYS. From what we
can discern, the trial court has not enforced its order while
the matter was on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(2).
Regardless of whether the parents complied with the order,
however, we conclude that the matter would still be properly
before us. In In re Petition to Compel Cooperation with
Child Abuse Investigation, a near carbon copy of the
instant matter and one we discuss in great detail
infra, we explained that these same issues were
clearly capable of repetition while evading appellate review.
875 A.2d 365, 370 (Pa. Super. 2005). We may properly review
the instant case.
we must determine whether the parents' issues are
preserved for our review. Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly
held that an appellant waives all matters for review where he
identifies an outrageous number of issues in the concise
statement. See Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86 (Pa.
Super. 2005) (holding that a seven-page, twenty-nine issue
statement resulted in waiver). This Court may also find
waiver where a concise statement is too vague. See In re
A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 350 (Pa. Super. 2013) ("When a
court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing,
that is not enough for meaningful review.") (citation
the parents were obligated to file a concise statement of
errors, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2). Although Rule
1925(b) dictates that the number of issues raised in a
concise statement will not be grounds for finding waiver,
this principle applies only "[w]here non-redundant,
non-frivolous issues are set forth in an appropriately
concise manner[.]" Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv); see
also Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super.
2004) (holding that by "raising an outrageous number of
issues" in a Rule 1925 statement, an appellant impedes
the trial court's ability to prepare an opinion
addressing the issues on appeal, thereby effectively
precluding appellate review).
their concise statement, the parents listed 25 numbered
paragraphs alleging various improprieties. The trial court,
impeded by the deluge or perhaps cognizant of our dim view of
rambling concise statements, chose not to discuss the
enumerated errors individually. Instead, the court reviewed
the transcript and articulated generally the reasons for its
on our review, we conclude that Father has preserved four
A. Whether the trial court erred in denying the parents'