# In Re Tameka M.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 21, 1990 · 525 Pa. 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649897

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re TAMEKA M., a Minor. Appeal of CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 21, 1990
- **Citations:** 525 Pa. 348; 580 A.2d 750; 1990 Pa. LEXIS 171
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 46 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/9649897

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 th…
- 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 chi…
- 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 c…
- noting that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a), trial court contemplating an “order of disposition best suited to the protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of [a dependent] child” may be faced with options of two “equally effective schools, both suited to the child’s needs”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649897. Public record. Not legal advice.