In the Interest of: L.J.B Appeal of: A.A.R.
199 A.3d 868 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), a mother's illegal drug use while pregnant does not constitute 'child abuse' because a fetus is not defined as a 'child' under the statute, and therefore the mother does not meet the definition of a 'perpetrator' at the time of the act.
Facts:
- In 2016, A.A.R. ('Mother') relapsed into drug addiction, using opioids and marijuana.
- After becoming pregnant with L.J.B. ('Child'), Mother sought treatment for her addiction but relapsed again.
- In mid-January 2017, while pregnant, Mother tested positive for unprescribed opiates, benzodiazepines, and marijuana.
- Mother gave birth to Child on January 27, 2017, testing positive for marijuana and subutex at the time of birth.
- On the third day of life, Child began exhibiting symptoms of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), including tremors and increased muscle tone, which required treatment with morphine.
- Hospital personnel reported Child's condition and Mother's drug use to the Clinton County Children and Youth Social Services Agency ('CYS').
Procedural Posture:
- Clinton County CYS filed a dependency petition in juvenile court (the court of first instance), alleging Child was a victim of child abuse by Mother.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the Child dependent by agreement but, after briefing, issued an order finding that Mother's prenatal actions did not constitute child abuse under the CPSL.
- CYS, as appellant, appealed the juvenile court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court reversed the juvenile court, holding that a mother's illegal drug use while pregnant may constitute child abuse under the CPSL.
- Mother, as appellant, then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mother's use of illegal drugs while pregnant, resulting in her newborn suffering withdrawal symptoms, constitute 'child abuse' under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Donohue
No. A mother's use of opioids while pregnant, which results in a child born suffering from neonatal abstinence syndrome, does not constitute 'child abuse' as defined by the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL). The court's reasoning is based on a plain language interpretation of the statute. The CPSL defines a 'perpetrator' in relation to a 'child,' and a 'child' is defined as an individual under 18 years of age, which does not include a fetus. Therefore, at the time of the alleged abusive act (prenatal drug use), there was no 'child,' and the mother could not have been a 'perpetrator.' The court holds that the status as a perpetrator must exist contemporaneously with the act, not merely when the injury manifests after birth. The legislature has explicitly protected fetuses in other statutes but did not do so in the CPSL, an omission the court considers intentional.
Concurring - Chief Justice Saylor
No. Although the lower court's interpretation based on the statute's two-year lookback period is reasonable, the statutory language is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant applying principles of statutory construction. Based on that construction, the majority's result is correct.
Concurring - Justice Dougherty
No. The statutory text is ambiguous, as reasonable minds have reached different conclusions. The statute does not explicitly require temporal proximity between the perpetrator's status and the harmful act. However, interpreting the law to cover acts committed before a child exists would lead to absurd and unreasonable results, such as punishing women for a wide range of behaviors during pregnancy. Therefore, to avoid such results, the statute should be construed to require that a 'child' exist at the time of the act for that act to constitute child abuse.
Dissenting - Justice Mundy
Yes. A mother's prenatal drug use that causes injury to her newborn should constitute child abuse. The plain language defines child abuse as 'causing bodily injury to a child through any recent act.' Here, the Child suffered bodily injury (withdrawal symptoms) caused by a recent act of the Mother (drug use within two years). The mother meets the definition of a 'perpetrator' because she is the 'parent of the child.' The dissent argues that an individual becomes a perpetrator at the time the injury manifests in the child, not necessarily at the time of the act that caused it. At the time of injury, L.J.B. was a child and A.A.R. was her mother, fulfilling the statutory requirements.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly interprets Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law, establishing that prenatal conduct is outside its scope. It sets a significant precedent by requiring a contemporaneous perpetrator-child relationship at the time of the allegedly abusive act, refusing to apply the statute's protections to a fetus. This places the responsibility on the legislature to explicitly amend the statute if it intends to classify prenatal substance use as child abuse. The ruling avoids potential negative policy outcomes, such as discouraging addicted mothers from seeking prenatal and postnatal medical care for fear of prosecution, thereby prioritizing family preservation goals within the CPSL framework.
