Lee v. Child Care Service Delaware County Inst. Dist.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1975 |
| Parties | Edwin B. LEE and Rita M. Lee, his wife on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. CHILD CARE SERVICE DELAWARE COUNTY INSTITUTION DISTRICT et al. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Martin H. Aussenberg, David A. Scholl, Suzanne Noble, Delaware County Legal Assistance Assn. Inc., Chester for appellants.
Stewart C. Crawford, Media, for appellee, Charlotte L Hammell.
Ralph B. D'Iorio, Media, for appellee, Carolyn J LaBrum.
Melvin G. Levy, Levy & Levy, L. J. Sinatra, Chester for appellee, Child Care Service of Delaware County Institution Dist.
Matthew M. Strickler, Philadelphia, for appellee, Norma Sullivan.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
In this appeal, appellants, as representatives of all those similarly situated, challenge the use of 'placement agreements' by the Child Care Service of the Delaware County Institution District. Under these agreements parents consent to the transfer of the custody of their children to the Service. Appellants contend that these agreements are without statutory authorization and that their use violates the due process clause of the federal constitution.
The action from which this appeal arises was filed in equity. The chancellor, concluding that appellants had failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted, sustained appellees' preliminary objections and dismissed the class aspects of the action. We affirm.
According to their complaint, on August 28, 1972, appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Lee, entered into a 'placement agreement' transferring custody of their son to the Child Care Service. About eight months later, the Lees wrote the Service requesting that their child be returned to their custody. When the Service refused to return the child, the Lees brought this action both as individuals and as class representatives.
As individuals, appellants claim that they were fraudulently induced to sign the agreement transferring custody. On this theory they seek to recover $10,00 compensatory and $20,000 punitive damages against the appellees: the Service, the caseworker who it is asserted induced them to sign the agreement, the director of the Service, the administrative assistant of the Service and two unknown, unnamed agents of the Service. They also seek to recover from appellees $2,500 compensatory and $5,000 punitive damages for the intentional infliction of mental distress and loss of consortium.
The Lees also assert that they are representatives of a class composed of all residents of Delaware County the custody of whose children has been or may in the future be transferred by parents to the Service pursuant to 'placement agreements.' On behalf of this class, the Lees request the rescission of the agreements transferring custody from the members of the class to the Service, $10,000 compensatory and $20,000 punitive damages, and preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering the Service to cease entering into 'placement agreements' without court approval.
Appellees filed preliminary objections. After a hearing on appellants' application for a preliminary injunction, the chancellor sustained appellees' preliminary objections with leave to amend as to the individual claims. These individual claims are apparently still pending below and are not the subject of this appeal. As already noted the chancellor also sustained preliminary objections to the class claims and dismissed the class action. It is from that portion of the order that this appeal arises. [1]
The Service utilizes 'placement agreements' [2] pursuant to regulations of the Department of Public Welfare. Regulation 3220 C provides:
'Children shall not be removed from their own homes without the written consent of the parents . . . unless the child has been committed to the agency by the court.'
Regulation 3231 D sets the requirements for such agreements:
Appellants assert that these regulations contravene the statutes governing administration of child care services and are therefore void. They contend that under Pennsylvania statutes custody of a child cannot, even with parental consent, be transferred to an agency without a court order.
The source of the Department of Public Welfare's authority to promulgate regulations is the Act of June 13, 1967, P.L. ---, No. 21, art. 7, § 703, 62 P.S. § 703 (1968).
'The department shall make and enforce all rules and regulations necessary and appropriate to the proper accomplishment of the child welfare duties and functions vested by law in the county institution districts or their successors.'
The duties and functions vested in the county institution districts are contained in the Act of June 24, 1937, P.L. 2017, art. IV, § 405, as amended, 62 P.S. § 2305 (1968):
'The local authorities of any institution district shall have the power, and for the purpose of protecting and promoting the welfare of children and youth, it shall be their duty to provide those child welfare services designed to keep children in their own home, prevent neglect, abuse and exploitation, help overcome problems that result in dependency, neglect or delinquency, to provide in foster family homes or child caring institutions adequate substitute care for any child in need of such care and, upon the request of the court, to provide such service and care for children and youth who have been adjudicated dependent, neglected or delinquent.'
The chancellor, after reviewing the statutes, concluded that
We agree that the Department of Public Welfare in adopting regulations 3220 C and 3231 D was acting well within its statutory power to make rules necessary and appropriate to the accomplishment of the county institution districts' duty 'to provide in foster family homes or child caring institutions adequate substitute care for any child in need of such care.' 62 P.S. § 2305 (1968). The Service in following these regulations was also acting within its proper authority.
Appellants claim that the existence of statutes requiring judicial action in other instances of alterations of parental rights suggests a legislative policy of requiring a judicial hearing prior to the transfer of custody with parental consent. We find this argument unconvincing. The provisions cited by appellants are designed for purposes clearly distinguishable from the non-final, consensual transfer of custody achieved by the execution of a 'placement agreement.' The existence of these statutes for vastly different objectives does not establish that the Service's procedure is inconsistent with legislative intent. [3]
Nor can we agree with appellants' argument that Pennsylvania case law prohibits the transfer of custody by parental agreement. Pennsylvania precedents merely provide that contracts for custody of children will not foreclose a court from making a contrary disposition in the best interests of the child. This doctrine does not support appellants' claim that 'placement agreements' are void as against public policy. Commonwealth ex rel. Children's Aid Society v. Gard, 362 Pa. 85, 92, 66 A.2d 300, 304 (1949); Commonwealth ex rel. Bankert v. Children's Services, 224 Pa.Super. 556, 307 A.2d 411 (1973); Commonwealth ex rel. Bachman v. Bradley, 171 Pa.Super. 587, 91 A.2d 379 (1952); Commonwealth ex rel. Brincher v. Bair, 169 Pa.Super. 45, 82 A.2d 79 (1951); Commonwealth ex rel. Berg v. The Catholic Bureau, 167 Pa.Super. 514, 76 A.2d 427 (1950).
Appellants argue that even if the use of 'placement agreements' is authorized by Pennsylvania law, such use nevertheless violates the due process clause of the federal constitution. Relying chiefly upon the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965), they argue that parents have a constitutionally protected interest in their children which may not be suspended without due process of law. They further assert that because the execution of a 'placement agreement' transfers custody of the children to the service with parental consent without provision for a court hearing, the use of such agreements is constitutionally impermissable as a denial of due process of law.
While it is certainly true that parents have a constitutionally protected interest in their children, see, e.g., Weinberger v Wiesenfeld, --- U.S. ---, ---, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 1226, 43 L.Ed.2d 514 (1975) (dictum); Stanley, supra; appellants have failed to establish that the use of these 'placement agreements' in any way deprives them of due process. This is not a case where parental rights are terminated without an opportunity for the parent to prove their suitability to retain custody of their children. Compare Stanley, supra, and Armstrong, supra. Instead, here the parents consent to the transfer of custody to the Service and on that basis the Service undertakes the care of their children. Parents are told in...
To continue reading
Request your trial