holding that “[t]he Juvenile Court maintains a continuing plenary jurisdiction in dependency cases under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6351 and has the power to review the circumstances of dependent juveniles and to question both the legal custodian, CYS, and the foster parents concerning the condition and the needs of the dependent child”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[t]he Juvenile Court maintains a continuing plenary jurisdiction in dependency cases under 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6351 and has the power to review the circumstances of dependent juveniles and to question both the legal custodian, CYS, and the foster parents concerning the condition and the needs of the dependent child”
- stating, “In ordering a disposition under Section 6351 of the Juvenile Act, the court acts not in the role of adjudicator reviewing the action of an administrative agency, . . . rather the court acts pursuant to a separate discretionary role with the purpose of meeting the child’s best interests,” quoting In re Lowry, 484 A.2d 383, 386 (Pa. 1984)
- stating, “[i]n ordering a disposition under Section 6351 of the Juvenile Act, the court acts not in the role of adjudicator reviewing the action of an administrative agency, . . . rather the court acts pursuant to a separate discretionary role with the purpose of meeting the child’s best interests.”
- approving trial court’s order directing a county agency with legal custody of a child to pay the foster family’s expenses for enrolling the child in a Montessori school, where that educational structure was in the best interest of the child, despite the county’s objection that the expense was not reimbursable
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I write separately to emphasize that the decision here should not be interpreted as authorizing foster parents to seek, or judges to order, payment for “non-funded” services in routine placement situations. The decision of the juvenile court was based on the highly unusual set of facts presented at the hearing in this matter, which is virtually sui generis. The court determined that the state-funded therapeutic pre-school was inadequate and ineffective in addressing this child’s extreme masochistic *361 behavior and other behavioral problems, while the non-funded program had proven beneficial. This determination was consistent with the assessment provided by the psychologist to whom CYS had referred the child. The order, which was subject to review in six months, was both reasonable and necessary for the protection and welfare of the child.