## Facts

- Joanne LaRue voluntarily entrusted her two sons, John and James LaRue, to a county welfare agency in July 1971.
- The agency placed the children with foster parents later in 1971, where they remained for several years.
- In January 1975, the mother withdrew consent to the voluntary entrustment and demanded the children’s return.
- The agency filed a juvenile petition alleging the children were “deprived” (dependent) under the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, seeking continued foster placement.
- At the hearing, evidence showed the children were doing well in the foster home; the record did not establish chronic abuse, neglect, or current parental unfitness.
- The trial court expressly found the children were not deprived under the statute, but nonetheless ordered them to remain with foster parents and continued the matter for later review.
- The mother appealed the order continuing foster placement.

## Issues

1. What standard and burden of proof govern a petition to adjudicate children dependent (then “deprived”) in order to keep them in foster care against a natural parent’s request for return?
2. Whether a juvenile court may continue foster placement over a parent’s objection after expressly finding the children are not dependent under the statutory definition.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held the petitioner agency bears the burden to prove dependency by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court held that, without a statutory dependency finding, the Juvenile Act does not authorize continued foster placement over the natural parent’s objection.
- Because the trial court found no dependency, it could not deny return of custody based on a comparative “better home” or generalized best-interests assessment.

## Legal Principles

- A dependency adjudication requires clear and convincing evidence; the burden of proof rests on the petitioner.
- The court’s dependency analysis must be comprehensive and supported by specific factual findings and a full discussion of the evidence.
- A court may not treat “best interests” as a substitute for the statutory dependency test; best-interests considerations may be relevant only after dependency is established.
- Courts may not justify state custody by simply comparing foster and parental homes; the dispositive threshold is whether the statutory criteria for dependency are proven.
- If the child is not found dependent, the proper result is dismissal of the petition and return of the child to the parent.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court required clear and convincing proof of statutory dependency before state interference with parental custody and held that, where dependency is not found, a juvenile court lacks authority to continue foster placement over the natural parent’s objection.


In re LaRue, 244 Pa. Super. 218, 366 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)