COMMON PLEAS COURT Family seeks to have CYS held in contempt

Attorneys say the agency failed to follow court orders.
By HAROLD GWIN
VINDICATOR SHARON BUREAU
MERCER, Pa. -- A Mercer County judge is being asked to hold Mercer County Children & amp; Youth Services and two of its employees in contempt of court on allegations that they failed to try to reunify a family whose children are in CYS custody.
Attorneys representing the mother and one of the fathers of the three children were before common pleas Judge John Reed Monday arguing that CYS failed to follow standard procedure in a court-ordered child custody case that calls for reunification of the separated family.
Atty. Joann Jofery, representing one of the fathers, said CYS representatives spoke to her client and the children's mother, threatening involuntary termination of parental rights instead of pursuing reunification.
Atty. Brian Farrone, representing the mother, supported Jofery's version of the case.
Monday's hearing was on a motion by CYS; its executive director, Beverly Burrows; and its associate director, Karen Lanfair, to have the contempt petition against them dismissed.
Contempt hearing
Judge Reed made no ruling from the bench but said he would rule soon, as the contempt hearing itself is scheduled for Nov. 19.
Atty. David Acker, representing Lanfair, argued that there was nothing in any of Judge Reed's custody orders that barred CYS from talking to the mother and fathers about termination of parental rights. Nor was there any contempt in CYS' decision to replace the service-proficing agency that had been working on this particular case.
A new service provider was assigned, he said.
The contempt petition should be dismissed, Acker said, saying to do otherwise would be an attempt to micromanage CYS and its staff.
Atty. Melissa Cochran, representing CYS, also called for dismissal, arguing that state law gives the agency governmental immunity from contempt.
Further, actions taken by the agency don't amount to contempt, Cochran said, also arguing that there was nothing in Judge Reed's orders to prohibit CYS staff from talking to the parents about involuntary termination of parental rights.
Reunification goals
The agency has the right to work on a "concurrent" plan in addition to a family reunification effort, Cochran said, suggesting that terminating parental rights would be part of a contingency plan if the parents failed to meet CYS goals for reunification.
If the parents had a complaint about CYS actions, they should take those complaints to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare or the Mercer County Commissioner, who directly oversee the agency, Cochran said.
Jofery said a county agency isn't immune from contempt of court and this agency had a responsibility to follow an order of the court that says reunification of the family is the goal.
Neither her nor Farrone's clients were ever contacted by the replacement service agency hired CYS, nor were the attorneys ever notified that a contingency plan was being prepared, she said.
Case transferred
Jofery noted that Judge Reed transferred the case to Venango County, where the two fathers of the children live, in September 2003, but the children are still living in foster homes in Mercer County. The mother was living in Mercer County but now lives in Forest County, she said.
Judge Reed said that although he transferred the case to Venango, he can't force Venango to accept it.
The court's orders haven't been followed and the agency and its staff are responsible, Jofery argued, suggesting that, at the least, the court should hold the Nov. 19 evidentiary hearing to examine the contempt issue.
gwin@vindy.com