# In Re Petition to Compel Cooperation With Child Abuse Investigation > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 20, 2005 · 2005 Pa. Super. 188 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636706 ## Case - **Full name:** In Re: PETITION TO COMPEL COOPERATION WITH CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATION. Appeal Of: R.G. & S.G., Natural Parents, Appellants - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** May 20, 2005 - **Citations:** 2005 Pa. Super. 188; 875 A.2d 365; 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1309 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Beck - **Judges:** Elliott, Joyce, Beck - **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636706 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that appeals stemming from orders compelling parents to comply with CPS investigations are “clearly capable of repetition, yet evading appellate review” and present “questions of great public importance, implicating fundamental constitutional rights enjoyed by every ci… - stating that “[a]s we interpret the statute and agency regulations, [an agency] must file a verified petition alleging facts amounting to probable cause to believe that an act of child abuse or neglect has occurred and evidence relating to such abuse will be found in the home” - holding plaintiff Child and Youth Services need not obtain warrant when performing investigation subject to domestic relations court order, but - 12 - J-S24024-23 separate criminal matters require solicitation of warrant supported by probable cause - concluding that an uncorroborated telephone tip alleging potential child abuse was “insufficient” to compel parents “to submit to a search of their home” - finding that, in the context of a “home visit,” federal and state constitutional provisions governing searches and seizures applied to CPSL ## Opinion text *380 Concurring OPINION BY BECK, J.: ¶ 1 I join the soundly reasoned majority opinion because it finds that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures applies to actions of a social services agency seeking to investigate an anonymous complaint of child abuse. I write separately, however, to add two observations in this case. ¶ 2 First, I caution future parties and courts faced with this issue to consider that the purposes and goals underlying the activities of child protective agencies differ significantly from those of law enforcement generally. As a result, it would be unwise to apply the standard notion of probable cause in criminal law to cases such as these. While the Fourth Amendment certainly is applicable to these matters, we must not forget the very purpose for the Child Protective Services Law. Child Line and other services like it exist to encourage people to report incidents of potential danger to children. Likewise, we impose upon certain professionals an affirmative duty to report conduct they believe may be harmful to a child. For these reasons, simply requiring an agency to show “probable cause” as it is defined in the criminal law is not enough. Instead, the nature and context of each scenario must be considered. ¶ 3 What an agency knows and how it acquired its knowledge should not be subject to the same restrictions facing police seeking to secure a search warrant. For instance, an agency’s awareness of previous conduct on the part of parents would be relevant, indeed vital, information to include in a request for a court-ordered home visit. What constitutes probable cause in the child protective arena is far different from what constitutes probable cause in the criminal law. Social services agencies should be held accountable for presenting sufficient reasons to warrant a home visit, but those same agencies should not be hampered from performing their duties because they have not satisfied search and seizure jurisprudence developed in the context of purely criminal law. I urge the courts deciding these issues to accord careful consideration to the unique circumstances they present. ¶ 4 Second, - I would encourage agencies such as Susquehanna County Services for Children & Youth (C & Y) to include in their petitions all information at their disposal. Here, the majority aptly notes that C & Y’s petition included little detail of the circumstances surrounding this case. This was so despite the fact that the agency interviewed several persons who treated the child and also had repeated contact with the parents. Although the child ultimately received the medical care recommended to her parents, C & Y apparently believed that further investigation, by way of a home visit, was necessary. The agency must articulate to the court the basis for its belief; it cannot simply assert the belief without explanation. ¶ 5 I recognize the burdensome case loads agencies such as the one here face. I also recognize that these same agencies often are criticized for not doing enough to help a child in need. Failure to make a home visit to insure a child’s safety is a frequent criticism in cases that turn tragic. Therefore, the frustration agency officials experience in carrying out their tasks must be immense. Nonetheless, it is critically important that we insure agencies act within the bounds of the Constitution. When an agency sets out for the court all of the information it has in support of a motion to compel, the constitutional concerns can be addressed and the agency’s duties are met. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636706. Public record. Not legal advice.