feature
PA Supreme Court ruling protects Fourth Amendment rights of parents in child welfare cases [ Summary of In the Interest of Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d 602 ]
By Katrina Ihrer, Legal Aid of Southeastern PA (LASP) Staff Attorney, and Kasey Daniel, LASP Doylestown Managing Attorney
IN DECEMBER 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision that strengthens Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches. Attorneys from the Bucks County Dependency Court Conflict Attorneys’ Panel and Legal Aid of Southeastern Pennsylvania submitted an amicus brief arguing that Fourth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitutional privacy protections should apply to home inspections conducted by child welfare agencies investigating anonymous ChildLine calls. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. The ACLU of Pennsylvania and Community Legal Services of Philadelphia also filed an amicus brief. This case involved a mother who was politically active and who had been protesting for about eight hours in front of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) received an anonymous call indicating that the mother was seen sleeping outside of the PHA and may not have been feeding her child during the eight hours of protest. The mother denied having her children with her on the day she was protesting. Unable to corroborate the allegations, DHS wanted to enter the mother’s home as part of its investigation. The mother refused entry to DHS, and the trial court granted DHS’ petitions to compel the mother to allow DHS to enter her home. The mother appealed, and the Superior court affirmed the trial court’s order. The mother then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The Superior Court allowed knowledge of prior contact with the child welfare agency to assist in the probable cause determination. While the parties agreed that an order to search a home must be supported by probable cause, they disagreed as to what constitutes probable cause in a child welfare investigation. Mother argued the lower courts’ holdings diluted the probable cause standard outlined by the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions in three ways. First, there was no requirement to indicate with particularity the area and items to be targeted by the search. Second, there was no requirement to assess the reliability of the source of information. Third, there was no requirement for a nexus between the allegations and what could be found in the
Prior to the December 2021 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, the Superior Court had required a showing of probable cause, or a showing of “fair probability” that children need services and that evidence relating to that need would be found in the home. However, child welfare agencies were not held to the same probable cause requirements as required in the criminal context. 18