|
S.J. was adjudicated dependent and was in Pennsylvania’s foster care system prior to her 18th birthday. Upon completing high school and before turning 18, S.J. petitioned the court to allow her to remain in care while she attended college. Pursuant to its authority under the Juvenile Act, the juvenile court sitting in Pittsburgh granted S.J.’s request in an order dated September 1, 2004. The juvenile court further ordered the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (OCYF) to provide limited financial support to S.J. and her foster parents during this period. OCYF appealed the order.
NCYL joined as amicus curiae along with numerous youth advocacy organizations arguing that the Juvenile Act, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the Foster Care Independence Act and Pennsylvania case law support the juvenile court’s authority to continue its jurisdiction over S.J. while she pursues a college education and to order OCYF to provide limited financial support. Amici filed their brief on January 19, 2005.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the order of the court to continue jurisdiction of S.J. and provide her with minimal financial support while college is in session and payments to her foster parents when college is not in session. Appellant's petition for re-argument was denied by the Superior Court. Appellant submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which later remanded the case to the Superior Court for consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Curtis v. Kline, 666 A.2d 265 (Pa. 1995). The Superior Court found that Curtis had no application because it concerned a “parent’s obligation to pay child support” and was irrelevant to youth adjudicated as dependent “who is not the subject of a private child support matter.” In re S.J., 906 A.2d 547, 548 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). The Superior Court again affirmed the juvenile court’s decision finding that the court had the authority to enter an order requiring OCYF to provide S.J. with financial assistance. The county initially appealed the decision, but later withdrew its appeal.
Counsel: Leecia Welch, NCYL; Tina Baker, KidsVoice; Jennifer Pokempner and Lourdes Rosado, Juvenile Law Center; the Center on Children and Families; the Children & Youth Law Clinic; the Children’s Law Center; Covenant House of Pennsylvania; the Defender Association of Philadelphia; Education Law Center of Pennsylvania; Florida’s Children First, Inc.; the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, Inc.; the Juvenile Rights Project; Lawyers for Children, Inc; the National Association of Counsel for Children; the National Foster Care Coalition; the National Juvenile Defender Center; the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty; Pennsylvania State Foster Parent Association; the People’s Emergency Center; Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth; the Support Center for Child Advocates; Tabor Children Services, Inc; the Peter Cicchino Youth Project of the Urban Justice Center; Youth Advocacy Center; Youth Law Center; Mark E. Courtney; Frank F. Furstenberg.
Updated March 17, 2010
|
 | |
|
