It is well-settled that subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived. It may be challenged at any time, even by the court itself:
In order to have the power to determine the right to custody as between litigants, a court must have subject matter jurisdiction over the person of the child. In re Sagan, 261 Pa.Super. 384, 396 A.2d 450 (1978); Commonwealth ex rel. Graham v. Graham, 367 Pa. 553, 80 A.2d 829 (1951). A court has the inherent power to determine on its own motion whether it has the jurisdiction to decide the cause before it. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943); Harris-Walsh, Inc. v. Dickson City Borough, 420 Pa. 259, 216 A.2d 329 (1966). Therefore, even if a party fails to raise this issue by objection or exception in the court below, it is still the affirmative duty of our Court to consider the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Cathcart v. Crumlish, 410 Pa. 253, 189 A.2d 243 (1963); Marcus v. Diulus, 242 Pa.Super. 151, 363 A.2d 1205 (1976). Orders of a court which is without proper subject matter jurisdiction are without legal force. Commonwealth v. Miller, 306 Pa.Super. 468, 452 A.2d 820 (1982); Commonwealth v. Boerner, 281 Pa.Super. 505, 422 A.2d 583 (1980).
Before a trial court can determine custody rights between parties, it must have proper jurisdiction over the subject matter—the child. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6321 provides that jurisdiction in dependency proceedings which commences only upon the filing of a valid petition.
Under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq., and clarified by Pa.R.J.C.P. 1330, a proper dependency petition must plainly allege:
A concise statement of facts supporting the allegation,
Not mere conclusory statements.
Every petition shall set forth plainly ... a concise statement of facts in support of the allegations for which the petition has been filed.
The General Assembly’s use of “shall” imposes a mandatory obligation (1 Pa.C.S. § 1903).
Generally, words are construed to mean their common usage. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903. By definition, "shall" is mandatory. Accordingly, there is no latitude for overlooking the plain meaning of § 10508(2) to reach a more desired result.
→ Coretsky v. BOARD OF COM'RS, 555 A. 2d 72 - Pa: Supreme Court 1989
Thus, filing a petition titled "dependency petition" is not enough—it must contain a concise statement of facts in support of the allegations.
The allegation of a child being “without proper care or control” must be supported by factual claims that show the child "is presently without proper parental care and when such care is not immediately available."
Consequently, a child will only be declared dependent when he is presently without proper parental care and when such care is not immediately available.
In this case, no supporting facts were presented to meet the statutory threshold for dependency. Instead, the petition merely asserted lawful parental decisions, such as:
"Removed the child from the hospital, however this was not considered to be against medical advice as child did not appear to have any current issues at discharge" (i.e., discharging a healthy newborn after two days);
"Child was hospitalized at CHOP ... Child was discharged from CHOP..." (proving necessary care was successfully provided);
"Parents followed through with the first two appointments post discharge from CHOP." (proving continued medical care after discharge);
Parents did not "provide information to the medical provider in the King of Prussia area as to where child will receive other follow-up care" (an action taken by the parents to prevent further unauthorized communications between CYS and medical providers, after court intervention failed).
Not only did the petition fail to present a single fact supporting the dependency allegation—it included assertions that directly demonstrated the parents were providing appropriate care.
Without any facts supporting the dependency allegation—and, worse, with facts affirmatively disproving it—the petition was legally deficient, and no valid dependency proceeding ever properly commenced.
The trial court argued that:
Section 6335(a) creates a mandatory requirement that a hearing be conducted, i.e., the statute states that "the court shall fix a time for hearing.
Trial Court Opinion
—conveniently omitting the full opening of 6335(a) which states:
(a) General rule.--After the petition has been filed alleging the child to be dependent or delinquent, the court shall fix a time for hearing thereon
The trial court’s argument, if upheld, would imply that CYS could file any document—no matter how frivolous—such as one stating, "Roses are red, violets are blue, therefore we summon you," title it “Dependency Petition,” and thereby "create a mandatory requirement that a hearing be conducted."
The trial court’s opinion further has the effect that even a completely blank petition could result in parents being summoned to court.
Such an interpretation is not only absurd—it is explicitly prohibited by law.
In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:
(1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.
→ 1 Pa. C.S. § 1922. Presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent.
The law expressly states jurisdiction attaches "by the filing of a petition as provided in this chapter..."
Comment: These rules govern proceedings when the Juvenile Act vests jurisdiction in the Court of Common Pleas. See 42 Pa.C.S. § § 6321 and 6302.
42 Pa. C.S. § 6321
(a) General rule.--A proceeding under this chapter may be commenced:
(3) In other cases by the filing of a petition as provided in this chapter…
If a petition was not filed as provided, then no jurisdiction was ever vested, which means
No hearing can be scheduled,
No guardian ad litem can be assigned,
No summons can be issued.
Jurisdiction is not a trial court discretionary decision. The law either authorized it or it didn't and it's the courts duty to verify it was authorized.
A court has the inherent power to determine on its own motion whether it has the jurisdiction to decide the cause before it. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943); Harris-Walsh, Inc. v. Dickson City Borough, 420 Pa. 259, 216 A.2d 329 (1966).
The trial court’s dismissal of the petition after hearing does not cure the harm. Families should never have to endure:
Summonses,
Emotionally distressing court hearings,
Private medical information exposure,
Guardian ad litem appointments,
Public allegations of unfitness,
based on facially invalid petitions.
Without strict enforcement of petition standards, every parent becomes vulnerable to intrusive, traumatic, and baseless proceedings—with no preventing it and no review of why it happened.
This issue meets two core exceptions to mootness:
It is of great public importance, involving family integrity and constitutional due process.
It is capable of repetition yet evading review, because trial courts act on defective petitions before appellate review can occur.
Litigation of a moot case can proceed where: "(1) the conduct complained of is capable of repetition yet likely to evade judicial review; (2) the case involves issues of great public importance; or (3) one party will suffer a detriment in the absence of a court determination.
→ Mistich v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court must provide guidance to ensure statutory protections are enforced at the outset—not after the damage is done.
Our case exposed a critical failure at the very outset of dependency proceedings.
Neither CYS nor the trial court explained how their assertions—such as:
—could satisfy the statutory requirement for facts supporting the allegation that the child was without proper care or control.
Several of these statements not only failed to demonstrate a lack of care—they affirmatively confirmed that care was being provided.
Yet proceedings were initiated anyway.
Under Pennsylvania law, dependency petitions must allege specific facts supporting dependency—not mere assertions or administrative frustrations. Jurisdiction does not attach through allegation alone; it attaches only where allegations are supported by articulable facts meeting statutory requirements.
In practice, it appears that once a petition is filed and titled as a "dependency petition," the next procedural steps—hearing scheduling, summons issuance, and appointment of guardian ad litems—may be initiated without meaningful judicial scrutiny of the petition's sufficiency. Whether due to administrative custom or misunderstanding of Rule 1330, the result is the same: families are summoned into court without valid jurisdiction.
By the time the judge fully engages with the case—typically at the hearing—the constitutional violations have already occurred.
Rubber-stamping allegations without reviewing for statutory sufficiency is not judicial oversight. It is a systemic failure at the first gate—one that demands urgent correction to preserve the rule of law in dependency proceedings.
Sign up for updates on legal progress, media coverage, and new posts.
Thank you for subscribing!
Have a great day!
This didn’t end with us. Without a ruling from the Supreme Court, no family is safe. Here’s how you can help protect the next family.