Judicial Gatekeeping of Kinship Care Participation in Pennsylvania Dependency Proceedings: Commentary on the 2025 Amendments to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1241, 1242, 1501, 1514, 1601, and 1608

Judicial Gatekeeping of Kinship Care Participation in Pennsylvania Dependency Proceedings

Commentary on the 2025 Amendments to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1241, 1242, 1501, 1514, 1601, and 1608

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, acting in its supervisory and rulemaking capacity, has amended multiple Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure governing dependency cases: Rules 1241 and 1242 (shelter care), 1501 and 1514 (disposition and removal), and 1601 and 1608 (permanency proceedings). Although styled as rule amendments rather than an adversarial decision, the Order functions as a significant “opinion” in the sense that it sets out a coherent procedural framework implementing legislative policies on kinship care and family finding.

The central theme of these amendments is the creation of a structured, court‑controlled mechanism for:

  • Bringing potential kinship care resources into the case early, and
  • Requiring the court to make explicit, on‑the‑record decisions about whether such persons will receive continuing notice of hearings and be permitted to participate in future proceedings.

In parallel, the amendments harmonize notice provisions across all major hearing types (shelter, dispositional, permanency), tie the rules more tightly to statutory family finding and kinship care mandates in 67 Pa.C.S. §§ 7501 et seq., and clarify the interaction between the court, county agencies, and non-party participants (such as potential kin, foster parents, CASAs, and educational decision makers).

In short, the Order establishes a new procedural principle: potential kinship caregivers, once they appear and present their qualifications, are entitled to a deliberate judicial determination as to their continuing informational and participatory role in the dependency case, and that determination must be revisited at each major procedural stage.

II. Summary of the Opinion and Rule Changes

A. Rule 1241 – Notification of Shelter Care Hearing

  • The list of persons who must be notified of the shelter care hearing now expressly includes “the potential kinship care resource, if the child is removed from home or removal has been requested” as subdivision (a)(7), with a catch‑all “any other appropriate person” moved to (a)(8).
  • The Comment:
    • Reaffirms that all guardians must be notified, citing In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000); failure to notify a guardian requires a rehearing upon affidavit.
    • Clarifies that the court must direct the county agency to give timely hearing notice to foster parents, preadoptive parents, relatives, or a potential kinship resource, consistent with 42 Pa.C.S. § 6336.1.
    • Explains that “potential kinship care resource” is defined at 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302, and that once such a person has addressed the court, the court must determine under Rule 1242(c)(7) whether that individual will receive notice of, or participate in, future hearings; if the court decides not, later notice is not required.
    • Clarifies that a court appointed special advocate (CASA) is notified as “any other appropriate person” under subdivision (a)(8).

B. Rule 1242 – Shelter Care Hearing

The structure of the hearing is largely preserved, but a new substantive determination is added:

  • Subdivision (c)(7) requires the court, at the shelter care hearing, to decide:
    “whether the potential kinship care resource may receive notice of, or participate in, future hearings, if custody of the child is warranted and the potential kinship care resource has addressed the court as to the individual's qualifications.”
  • The Comment:
    • Defines the court’s tasks at shelter care: sufficiency of facts, reasonable efforts, least restrictive placement, and emergency circumstances.
    • Reinforces family finding requirements, cross‑referencing Rule 1149 and multiple other rules that require ongoing judicial review of family finding efforts.
    • Explains that the court must determine whether a non‑agency applicant for shelter care is a party (Rule 1242(c)(4)), distinct from kinship resources who may be “participants.”
    • Directs the court to inquire whether there is “reason to know” that the child is an Indian child under Rule 1203.
    • References 67 Pa.C.S. § 7507(c) in connection with the new kinship care determination under subdivision (c)(7).

C. Rule 1501 – Dispositional Notice

Rule 1501 reorganizes its subsections as (a)–(i) and expressly adds that notice of the dispositional hearing must be given to:

  • “the potential kinship care resource, if the child is removed from home or removal has been requested” (subdivision (h)).

The Comment tracks the structure of Rule 1241:

  • Refers to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302 for the definition of “potential kinship care resource.”
  • States that once a potential kinship care resource has addressed the court, the court must decide under Rule 1514(a)(7) whether that person may receive notice of, or participate in, future hearings.
  • Clarifies that if the court ultimately decides the person will not receive notice, further notice is not required.

D. Rule 1514 – Dispositional Finding Before Removal from Home

Rule 1514 lists required findings the court must make before issuing a dispositional order that removes a child from the home. To these existing findings, a new requirement is added:

  • Subdivision (a)(7) requires the court to state on the record:
    “If a potential kinship care resource has addressed the court as to the individual's qualifications, then whether the potential kinship care resource may receive notice of, or participate in, future hearings.”

The Comment:

  • Cross‑references 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(b) (dispositional review standard) and federal law on sibling placement.
  • Explains that the court must ensure compliance with family finding under Rule 1149 and may use its powers to enforce legislative mandates in 67 Pa.C.S. §§ 7501 et seq..
  • Notes that the permanency plan requirements under 67 Pa.C.S. § 7504 apply when custody is temporarily transferred.
  • Specifically links subdivision (a)(7) to 67 Pa.C.S. § 7507(c) (the Kinship Care Program).

E. Rule 1601 – Permanency Hearing Notice

For permanency hearings, Rule 1601 now requires notice at least 15 days before the hearing to include:

  • “the potential kinship care resource, if the child is removed from home or removal has been requested” (subdivision (a)(8)), with “any other persons as directed by the court” moved to (a)(9).

The Comment:

  • Again refers to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302 for the definition of “potential kinship care resource.”
  • Provides that once the resource has addressed the court, the court must decide under Rule 1608(d)(1)(xviii) whether the person may receive notice of, or participate in, future hearings; if the court decides not, further notice is not required.
  • Reiterates that if any party intends to seek a goal change away from reunification, this purpose must be set out in the notice or in a separate notice.

F. Rule 1608 – Permanency Hearing Findings

Rule 1608(d)(1) lists a series of findings that the court must make at every six‑month permanency hearing. To the existing list, the amendments add:

  • Subdivision (d)(1)(xviii), requiring the court to state:
    “if a potential kinship care resource has addressed the court as to the individual's qualifications, then whether the potential kinship care resource may receive notice of, or participate in, future hearings.”

The Comment:

  • Cross‑references 67 Pa.C.S. § 7507(c) again in relation to the Kinship Care Program.
  • Maintains prior guidance on the “reasonable and prudent parent standard” and youth participation in age‑appropriate activities, as mandated by federal law.

III. Precedents and Statutory Framework Cited

A. In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000)

The Comment to Rule 1241 cites In re M.L. for a specific procedural proposition: it is insufficient to notify only one guardian of the shelter care hearing; all guardians must be notified, and if a guardian has not been notified, a rehearing must be ordered upon submission of an affidavit by that guardian.

By incorporating this case into the rule commentary, the Supreme Court underscores that notice to guardians is a core due process requirement in dependency proceedings. The new kinship‑care‑related notice rules are consciously built on the same conceptual foundation: failure to notify persons with legally recognized or statutorily protected interests in the child’s placement undermines the fairness and validity of the proceeding.

B. The Juvenile Act – 42 Pa.C.S.

Several provisions of the Juvenile Act are woven into the rule text and comments:
  • § 6302 – Definitions
    Provides the statutory definition of “potential kinship care resource,” which the rules rely on in multiple places (Rules 1241, 1501, 1601, and related Comments). The precise statutory language is not reproduced in the opinion text, but the rule structure assumes that:
    • a potential kinship resource is not yet an approved placement but
    • has expressed the willingness and apparent ability to care for the child.
  • § 6332 – Informal Hearing
    Referenced in the Comment to Rule 1242(d) regarding the shelter care hearing, emphasizing that the hearing is informal but must meet statutory requirements for timeliness and procedural fairness.
  • § 6336.1 – Notice to Foster Parents, Pre‑adoptive Parents, and Relative Caregivers
    Cited in Rule 1241’s Comment for the proposition that foster parents, preadoptive parents, relative caregivers, and now potential kinship resources are entitled to timely notice of hearings. The rule amendments extend and structure these notification obligations to include potential kinship care resources.
  • § 6339 – Physical and Mental Examinations and Treatment
    Referenced in the Comment to Rule 1242, clarifying the court’s authority to order medical or mental health treatment for the child even absent guardian consent in emergency circumstances.
  • § 6351 – Disposition of Dependent Child
    Governs dispositional orders and periodic review; cited in the Comments to Rules 1514 and 1608. The new kinship care provisions are integrated into the broader permanency and reasonable efforts structure of § 6351.

C. Kinship Care and Family Finding – 67 Pa.C.S. §§ 7501 et seq.

The amendments repeatedly reference Chapter 75 of Title 67, dealing with Resource Family and Kinship Care, especially:

  • § 7504 – Permanency Plan and Services
    Cited in Rule 1514(a)(6) and its Comment. It imposes specific requirements on the county agency’s permanency plan when custody is transferred, including assessing and facilitating kinship care.
  • § 7507(c) – Kinship Care Program
    Cited in the Comments to Rules 1242(c)(7), 1514(a)(7), and 1608(d)(1)(xviii). The rule amendments effectively provide the procedural interface for courts to operationalize this statutory kinship care program: once potential kin are identified through family finding or self‑referral, the court must address their role.

Together, these statutory cross‑references show that the Supreme Court’s procedural rules are explicitly designed to enforce and give practical effect to legislative policies promoting kinship care and diligent family finding.

D. Federal Law on Education, Health, and Youth “Normalcy”

While not newly added by this Opinion, several federal statutes remain important backdrops in the Comments:
  • Education and IDEA‑related statutes:
    • 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (IDEA)
    • 20 U.S.C. § 1439(a)(5)
    • 34 C.F.R. § 300.519
    • 24 P.S. §§ 13‑1371, 13‑1372
    These support the requirement that the court address educational needs and, when appropriate, appoint an educational decision maker (Rule 1147).
  • Health‑care and disability statutes:
    • 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r) (EPSDT requirements under Medicaid)
    • 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and implementing regulations (ADA)
    • 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) and 45 C.F.R. Part 84
    These define minimum health and disability‑rights protections for children in care.
  • Fostering Connections and “normalcy” legislation:
    • 42 U.S.C. §§ 675, 675a (Fostering Connections and the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act)
    • 42 U.S.C. §§ 675(1)(G), 11431 et seq. (educational stability, McKinney‑Vento context)
    These statutes undergird requirements that children in foster care have educational stability and access to age‑appropriate, developmentally appropriate activities.

E. Indian Child Determinations – Pa.R.J.C.P. 1203

Rule 1242(c)(6) and the associated Comment require courts to determine whether the county agency has made efforts to determine whether the child is an “Indian child” and whether anyone has “reason to know” that the child is an Indian child. Although the text references Rule 1203 rather than the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by name, the structure reflects typical ICWA‑type obligations: early inquiry, ongoing duty to report new information, and heightened procedures if ICWA applies.

IV. Legal Reasoning and Structural Logic of the Amendments

A. Central Principle: Court‑Managed Participation by Potential Kin

Across all six rules, a single structural pattern emerges:

  1. Mandatory initial notice to potential kinship care resources when the child is removed from home (or removal is sought) at:
    • Shelter care (Rule 1241(a)(7)),
    • Dispositional hearings (Rule 1501(h)), and
    • Permanency hearings (Rule 1601(a)(8)).
  2. Conditioned continuing participation: potential kinship care resources are not given automatic, indefinite rights to notice or participation. Instead, they must “address the court as to the individual's qualifications.”
  3. Mandatory judicial determination at each critical stage as to their ongoing role:
    • At shelter care: Rule 1242(c)(7).
    • Before removal from home at disposition: Rule 1514(a)(7).
    • At each permanency hearing: Rule 1608(d)(1)(xviii).
  4. Termination of notice obligations upon adverse determination: if the court decides the person is not to receive notice of future hearings, the Comments to Rules 1241, 1501, and 1601 clarify that notice to that individual is no longer required.

Thus, the new legal framework does not automatically elevate potential kinship care resources to full “party” status, but it does create a clear procedural right to a considered decision by the court on whether they will have an ongoing informational and participatory role.

B. Relationship to “Party Status” and “Other Appropriate Persons”

The amendments carefully preserve the distinction between:

  • Parties (the child, guardians, county agency, sometimes others), and
  • Non‑party participants (foster parents, relatives, potential kinship resources, CASAs, etc.).

Rule 1242(c)(4) obliges the court to determine whether a person (other than the county agency) submitting a shelter care application is a “party.” That determination is wholly separate from the kinship care mechanism, which focuses on notice and participation but does not itself confer party status.

Potential kinship care resources are initially folded into the broad category of “any other appropriate person” (Rule 1241(a)(8), Rule 1501(i), Rule 1601(a)(9)), but the new rules carve out a more structured path for them: they must be notified; they may address the court; and then the court decides the scope and continuation of their role.

C. Integration with Family Finding Obligations

The amendments are tightly integrated with Pennsylvania’s family finding mandate under Rule 1149 and 67 Pa.C.S. §§ 7501 et seq.:

  • Rule 1242(c)(2) requires the court to determine whether the county agency “has reasonably engaged in family finding.”
  • The Comments to Rules 1242 and 1514 stress that the county agency must report its diligent family finding efforts at subsequent hearings and that, if those efforts are inadequate, the court should use its power to enforce the legislative mandate.

Once family finding (or self‑identification by relatives) produces a potential kinship care resource, these amendments supply the **procedural “next step”**:

  1. Notice is given to the potential kinship resource.
  2. The resource appears and addresses the court as to their qualifications.
  3. The court decides:
    • whether the person will receive notice of future hearings, and
    • whether they may participate going forward.

In this way, the rule amendments close a prior gap: previously, statutes encouraged or required identification of kin, but there was no uniform procedural template for how those kin become, or fail to become, ongoing participants in the litigation.

D. Due Process and Timeliness Considerations

The amendments sit within an established framework of procedural protections:

  • Rule 1241’s Comment emphasizes the 72‑hour time limit for shelter care hearings and allows for oral notice because of that short window, but insists that “every possible attempt” be made to notify all parties and all guardians.
  • Rule 1242(d) prohibits waiver of the shelter care hearing, underscoring its centrality to the child’s liberty and family integrity interests.
  • In this context, the inclusion of potential kinship care resources at the earliest possible stage enhances the completeness of the court’s factual record and may provide less restrictive alternatives to removal or non‑relative foster care.

At the same time, the rules protect the system from being overwhelmed by unfiltered non‑party involvement: it is the court, not the agency or the kin themselves, that ultimately decides the scope of notice and participation, and can terminate those rights where continued involvement is not in the child’s best interests or is otherwise inappropriate.

E. Policy Rationale: Promoting Kinship Care as Least Restrictive Placement

Throughout the Rules and Comments, the court repeats the statutory and federal policy that a child’s placement must be:

  • the least restrictive placement that meets the child’s needs, and
  • as family‑like as possible, consistent with safety and well‑being.

Kinship care—placement with relatives or close family friends—typically satisfies these criteria better than traditional non‑relative foster care. The new procedural framework advances this policy by:

  • Ensuring potential kin are formally notified of key hearings;
  • Creating a visible record of the kin’s qualifications and the court’s assessment;
  • Embedding a recurring judicial obligation, at shelter, disposition, and permanency stages, to decide whether kin will remain engaged.

This also dovetails with federal mandates (e.g., Fostering Connections) that prioritize placement with relatives, support sibling connections, and require stability in education and caregiving relationships.

F. Relationship to ICWA‑type Requirements

Rule 1242(c)(6) and associated text maintain a separate, but conceptually related, requirement: courts must inquire whether the child is an “Indian child” and ensure the agency is making appropriate efforts to investigate. While distinct from kinship care, both sets of provisions share a common logic:

  • children’s cultural, familial, and tribal connections have legal significance;
  • the court bears an affirmative duty to inquire and make findings on the record; and
  • compliance must be monitored at each major stage of the proceedings.

V. Impact on Practice and Future Cases

A. Impact on Courts

Trial courts will experience several practical changes:

  • Expanded notice lists: clerks and court administrators must ensure that potential kinship care resources are included on service lists for shelter, dispositional, and permanency hearings once identified.
  • New findings on the record: judges must now:
    • at shelter care, make a finding under Rule 1242(c)(7);
    • before removal at disposition, make a finding under Rule 1514(a)(7); and
    • at each permanency hearing, make a finding under Rule 1608(d)(1)(xviii).
    These findings must be stated in open court and incorporated into written orders.
  • Case management considerations: courts will need to balance the benefits of kin involvement against the risk of delay or duplication. The gatekeeping function (deciding whether kin may receive notice or participate) gives judges flexibility to maintain order and focus while honoring kinship care policy.

B. Impact on County Agencies

County child welfare agencies face strengthened expectations:

  • Identification and notification of kin: Agencies must conduct diligent family finding and, once potential kin are identified, ensure that their contact information is supplied to the court for notice purposes (especially at the fast‑moving shelter care stage).
  • Preparing for hearings where kin appear: If potential kinship resources attend and address the court regarding their qualifications, agencies must be prepared to:
    • present information about home studies, background checks, or preliminary assessments;
    • explain why a kinship placement is or is not currently feasible; and
    • respond to the court’s questions about the kin’s suitability.
  • Documentation of efforts: Because the court’s decision on kin participation will often depend on the agency’s information, agencies have an incentive to document contacts with relatives thoroughly and to avoid perceived disregard of kinship care possibilities.

C. Impact on Children, Guardians, and Kin

  • For children:
    • Increased likelihood that relatives will be identified early and have a meaningful chance to be heard.
    • Better prospects for placement with familiar caregivers, which often supports emotional stability, cultural continuity, and educational stability.
  • For guardians/parents:
    • Additional allies—relatives or kin—may be more formally involved in planning for the child, potentially offering services, support, or alternative placements.
    • At the same time, kin may sometimes be aligned with the agency’s concerns rather than the parent’s preferences, so formalizing their participation can shift the case dynamics in complex ways.
  • For potential kinship care resources:
    • The rules provide a clear pathway:
      1. Receive notice;
      2. Appear and address the court about qualifications;
      3. Obtain an on‑the‑record ruling on whether they will continue to receive notice or be allowed to participate.
    • Even if they are not approved as placement resources immediately, they may still be permitted to receive notice and provide information relevant to the child’s needs, cultural context, or family history.
    • Conversely, if the court finds their involvement inappropriate, the rules allow termination of further notice, which provides finality and clarity to all parties.

D. Potential Appellate Issues and Clarifications

Although the Opinion itself is a rulemaking act, it sets the stage for future appellate litigation on questions such as:

  • What qualifies as “address[ing] the court as to the individual's qualifications”? Must the kin testify under oath, or is an informal colloquy sufficient?
  • Under what standard does the court decide whether the kin “may receive notice” or “participate”? Best interests of the child? Contribution to the record? Potential for placement?
  • What level of participation is contemplated—attendance only, or also the ability to present evidence, cross‑examine, or file motions?
  • Can a kinship resource appeal a decision denying them notice or participation, and if so, on what jurisdictional basis?

While the rules do not directly answer these questions, they create a formal scaffold within which such doctrinal clarifications can be developed.

VI. Complex Concepts Explained in Plain Terms

A. Shelter Care and Shelter Care Hearing

  • Shelter care is temporary, emergency custody of a child—usually when a child has been removed from home due to immediate safety concerns.
  • The shelter care hearing must occur within 72 hours of taking the child into protective custody. At this hearing, the court decides whether the child should remain out of the home temporarily and under what conditions.

B. Dispositional Hearing and Removal from Home

  • After adjudication (a finding that the child is “dependent”), the court holds a dispositional hearing to determine the longer‑term plan for the child.
  • Before ordering that a child be removed from home, Rule 1514 requires the court to make specific findings on:
    • whether remaining at home is contrary to the child’s welfare;
    • whether the placement is the “least restrictive” alternative;
    • efforts to keep siblings together;
    • family finding efforts; and
    • whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal.

C. Permanency Hearings

  • Permanency hearings are periodic reviews (at least every six months) at which the court assesses the progress toward a stable, long‑term outcome—reunification with parents, adoption, permanent legal custodianship, etc.
  • The court must make many findings at these hearings, including whether the agency is making reasonable efforts toward the permanency goal, whether services are appropriate, and whether visitation is adequate.

D. Family Finding

  • Family finding refers to diligent efforts by the county agency to identify and locate relatives or close family friends who might be able to provide support or placement for the child.
  • It is not a one‑time task; courts expect agencies to continue family finding throughout the case and to report on these efforts at key hearings.

E. Kinship Care and “Potential Kinship Care Resource”

  • Kinship care is foster care or placement with relatives or other individuals who have a strong, pre‑existing relationship with the child (like godparents or close family friends).
  • A “potential kinship care resource” is someone who:
    • has expressed an interest in caring for the child, and
    • appears to have some relationship or connection to the child or family, but
    • has not yet been fully approved or licensed as a foster or kinship caregiver.

These rules assume that once such a person is known to the court, the court must decide whether they will be kept informed (receive notice) and allowed to appear and participate at future hearings.

F. “Reasonable Efforts” and “Least Restrictive Placement”

  • Reasonable efforts:
    • The agency must show it took reasonable steps to prevent removal of the child from the home, or, if removal was necessary, to make it possible for the child to safely return home.
    • If emergency conditions made it impossible to provide services before removal, the court must decide whether that lack of efforts was reasonable under the circumstances.
  • Least restrictive placement:
    • The placement should disrupt the child’s life as little as possible: ideally, near the child’s home, in a family‑like setting, and with siblings whenever safe and appropriate.
    • Kinship care is often considered less restrictive and more appropriate than non‑relative foster care.

G. “Aggravated Circumstances”

  • “Aggravated circumstances” (Rule 1514(b)) generally refer to serious facts—such as severe abuse, chronic neglect, or certain prior terminations of parental rights— which may allow the court to dispense with some “reasonable efforts” requirements for reunification.
  • If aggravated circumstances have been found and reasonable efforts have been deemed not required, certain findings under Rule 1514(a)(5) are unnecessary.

H. Advanced Communication Technology

  • Rule 1242(b)(4) allows the use of advanced communication technology (such as videoconferencing) for hearings upon good cause shown.
  • However, the Comment makes clear that in‑person attendance is expected, and remote participation is an exception, not the rule.

I. “Reason to Know” an Indian Child Is Involved

  • Under Rule 1242 and Rule 1203, the court must ask whether any participant has information suggesting the child may be an “Indian child.”
  • If such information exists, special procedures and higher standards may apply, reflecting federal and state protections for tribal sovereignty and Native families.

VII. Conclusion

The amendments to Pennsylvania Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure 1241, 1242, 1501, 1514, 1601, and 1608 create a coherent, statewide framework for recognizing and managing the involvement of potential kinship care resources in dependency proceedings.

They accomplish several interlocking objectives:

  • Uniform notice to potential kinship care resources at all critical hearing stages—shelter, disposition, and permanency;
  • Judicial gatekeeping via mandatory on‑the‑record determinations about whether such kin will continue to receive notice and be permitted to participate;
  • Integration with statutory mandates on family finding and kinship care (67 Pa.C.S. §§ 7501 et seq.) and with the Juvenile Act’s focus on least restrictive, family‑like placements;
  • Reinforcement of due process by ensuring that all guardians are notified (as underscored by In re M.L.) and that kin are given a structured opportunity to be heard;
  • Support for better substantive outcomes by elevating kinship options early, allowing courts to make more informed placement choices aligned with children’s best interests.

In the broader legal context, these amendments signal the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s commitment to translating legislative and federal policy preferences for kinship care into concrete courtroom practice. They transform what might once have been informal or ad hoc involvement by relatives into a systematic, reviewable, and transparent component of the dependency process, thereby reshaping both the procedural landscape and, potentially, the everyday lived experience of children in the child welfare system.

Case Details

Comments