J.P.
v. Department of Human Services – Cmwlth. Court – November 21, 2016
J.P.,
paramour of child’s parent, was entitled to appeal and have a hearing to
challenge the CYS finding that she had abused the child, because she had not
received notice or opportunity to participate in a prior juvenile proceeding,
which changed a finding of “indicated” to a finding of “founded.”
Commonwealth
Court held that JP had not received adequate notice of the juvenile court
hearing, nor had she received that court’s order. A founded report of child abuse is an
adjudication and that, under Section 504 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2
Pa.C.S. § 504, ‘[n]o adjudication of a Commonwealth agency shall be valid as to
any party unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of a hearing
and an opportunity to be heard.’ K.R.
v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 950 A.2d 1069, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) [emphasis in
original]. “Due process of law requires
notice to be given to the respondent so that [s]he may adequately
prepare h[er] defense in such cases.” Straw v. Pa. Human Relations Comm’n, 308
A.2d 619, 621 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) [emphasis in original].
Here, the
only notice provided regarding the dependency hearing was the notice to J.P.’s
paramour. The fact that J.P. read his notice, does not transform his notice
to her notice. This conclusion is especially true here, where J.P.
testified that she “was told specifically from [CYS] themselves that any matter
pertaining to anything that has to do with the [C]hild, I am not allowed to ask
any questions” and she assumed she would not be permitted to participate in the
dependency hearing because she was not the Child’s parent.
While “[DHS] may rely on the
factual findings of the trial court in a dependency adjudication to dismiss an
appeal for a request for expungement[,]” K.R., 950 A.2d at 1078, because
J.P. did not receive notice prior to the adjudication, she did not receive the
requisite due process for a valid adjudication.
-----------------
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar)
