S.A. v. S.M.

J-S30015-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
L.A. O/B/O IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
S.A.
v.
S.M.
APPEAL OF: LACKAWANNA COUNTY
No. 1655 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered September 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 16 FC 40874
BEFORE: SHOGAN, RANSOM, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2017
Appellant, Lackwanna County Office of Youth and Family Services
(“OYFS”) appeals from the order entered on September 7, 2016, that denied
its motion to quash a subpoena and awarded L.A., on behalf of minor child
S.A. (“Victim”),1 attorney’s fees in the amount of $300. We affirm.
The facts of this matter were set forth by the trial court as follows:
This case involves S.[A]., a minor child, (hereinafter
“Victim”) attempting to obtain her records from the Office of
Youth and Family Services (hereinafter “OYFS”) of Lackawanna
County by a Subpoena to Produce Documents or Things for
Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.22. On July 22, 2016, the
Victim issued a Subpoena to Produce Documents or Things for
____________________________________________
1
L.A. is the Victim’s mother.
J-S30015-17
Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.22 to the [OYFS] requiring it to
produce “Any and all information, video, written statements and
physical evidence and or reports gathered by your agency
relative to [Victim], born [in June of 2011].” (Subpoena
07/22/16). On August 22, 2016, OYFS filed a Motion to Quash
Subpoena and Objection to Subpoena. (Motion 08/22/16). On
September 7, 2016, the Victim filed an Answer to Motion to
Quash and Objections to Subpoena. (Answer 09/07/16). Oral
Arguments were held before this Jurist on September 7, 2016.
This Court entered an Order dated September 7, 2016 denying
OYFS’[s] Motion to Quash Subpoena and Objection to Subpoena
and ordered OYFS to pay the Victim’s attorney’s fees in the
amount of three hundred dollars ($300.00) within thirty (30)
days of the Order. (Order 09/07/16). On October 3, 2016, OYFS
filed its Notice of Appeal of the Order dated September 7, 2016,
as it pertains to requiring the payment of the Victim’s attorney’s
fees in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300) by OYFS.
(Notice 10/03/16).
Trial Court Opinion, 11/16/16, at 1-2. Both OYFS and the trial court have
complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, OYFS raises the following issues for this Court’s
consideration:
I. Whether the judge erred and/or abused her discretion in
awarding attorney fees against [OYFS] on the basis that
[OYFS’s] Motion to Quash Subpoena was against the law or
contrary to the law?
II. Whether the judge erred and/or abused her discretion in
awarding attorney fees against [OYFS] when there were no
findings of fact to justify such action?
III. Whether the judge erred and/or abused her discretion in
awarding attorney fees against [OYFS] when there was no
finding of frivolous or done for delay?
OYFS’s Brief at 4.
Our rules of civil procedure provide in relevant part, as follows:
-2-
J-S30015-17
Failure to Comply with Subpoena. Notice to Attend or
Notice to Produce
(b) If a party fails to comply with a subpoena, a notice to attend
or a notice to produce, the court may enter any order imposing
appropriate sanctions authorized by Rule 4019(c) and, if the
failure to comply is for the purpose of delay or in bad faith, the
court may impose on that party the reasonable expenses
actually incurred by the opposing party by reason of such delay
or bad faith, including attorney’s fees. If the failure is wilful the
court, after hearing, may adjudge the party to be in contempt.
Pa.R.C.P. 234.5(b). Additionally, “[o]ur standard of review of an award of
attorneys’ fees is well settled: we will not disturb a trial court’s
determinations absent an abuse of discretion.” Miller v. Miller, 983 A.2d
736, 743 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted).
OYFS’s issues focus on the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees due to
OYFS’s failure to provide the information Victim requested. The trial court
addressed OYFS’s claims as follows:
According to the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services
Law, reports made pursuant to this chapter, including, but not
limited to, report summaries of child abuse and reports made
pursuant to Section 6313 as well as any other information
obtained, reports written or photographs or X-rays taken
concerning an alleged instance of child abuse in the possession
of the department or a county agency[,] shall be confidential. 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 6339 (West 2016).
However, such law provides clear exceptions for the
release of information in confidential reports. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
6340 (West 2016). [“]Upon written request, a subject of a report
may receive a copy of all information contained in the statewide
database or in any report filed pursuant to Section 6313.[”] 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 6340(b) (West 2016). Further, Pennsylvania Child
Protective Services Law defines “Subject of the report” as “[a]ny
child, parent, guardian or other person responsible for the
welfare of a child or any alleged or actual perpetrator in a report
-3-
J-S30015-17
made to the department or a county agency under this chapter.”
23 Pa.C.S.A. §6303 (West 2016). Furthermore, information
contained in case records shall be released upon request to
parents and legal guardians as well as to children[’s] and
parents’ attorneys. 55 Pa. Code § 3130.44(d) (Westlaw 2016).
Clearly, the Victim was entitled to her records from OYFS
according to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6340(b) and 55 Pa. Code §
3130.44(d).
During the hearing, OYFS stated that the Victim can review
the file, but that OYFS has always insisted on a court order and
not a subpoena for the release of the records. (H.T. 09/07/16, p.
7). However, that is contrary to law, and OYFS knew or should
have known of such when it filed its Motion to Quash Subpoena
and Objection to Subpoena. In 2015, the Honorable District
Judge James M. Munley ruled in L.W. v. Lackawanna Cty., Pa.,
[in] which OYFS was a named party, that the Agency’s Motion to
Quash a Subpoena for its case file in a tort action should be
denied based on the fact that the [V]ictim was entitled to the
reports as she was the “Subject of the investigation.” L.W. v.
Lackawanna Cty., Pa., No. 3:14CV1610, 2015 WL 1499865,
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2015).
Trial Court Opinion, 11/16/16, at 2-3.
As noted above, OYFS argues that the trial court erred in concluding
that its motion to quash the subpoena was against the law, erred in failing to
make findings of fact, and awarded attorneys’ fees where there was no
frivolousness or delay. We disagree with each claim of error.
The trial court clearly explained that despite OYFS’s “insistence” on a
court order to release the requested information, such is not the law. Trial
Court Opinion, 11/16/16, at 3. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6340(b), Victim
was entitled to receive the report pursuant to the subpoena, and the trial
-4-
J-S30015-17
court’s factual basis wherein it concluded that a court order was not
required, was apt. Id. at 4. Moreover, OYFS is presumed to know the law,2
and its filing of a motion to quash the subpoena, when a written request
was all that was required by law,3 was frivolous. Accordingly, we discern
no error of law or abuse of discretion, and we affirm the trial court’s order
denying OYFS’s motion to quash the subpoena and award of attorney’s fees.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/18/2017
____________________________________________
2
See In re Kearney, 7 A.2d 159, 161 (Pa. Super. 1939) (reiterating the
legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse because everyone is
presumed to know the law).
3
23 Pa.C.S. § 6340(b).
-5-