The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures. But when it comes to child protective services and family rights, those protections are often violated—and the system expects families to stay silent about it.
In our case, the Pennsylvania courts allowed our newborn daughter to be taken based on nothing but hearsay, fear, and fabricated allegations. No sworn affidavits. No verified evidence. No probable cause.
This post outlines, clearly and fully, the probable cause failures that led to the unlawful seizure of our child—and why it matters for every family.
Pennsylvania courts have ruled:
A state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse.
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children Youth 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997);
Mulholland v. Gov't Cnty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227, 241 (3d Cir. 2013)
Further, to compel a home inspection or any search related to child abuse investigations:
Probable cause must be established by affidavit, not unsworn statements.
Fourth Amendment protections apply. (Mulholland v. Government County of Berks, 706 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2013))
a person ordered to comply with CYS in its investigation of suspected child abuse is subject to Fourth Amendment protections.
IN THE INTEREST OF DP, Pa: Superior Court 2013;
Likening the circumstances to a request for a search warrant in a criminal case, this Court on appeal held that the Fourth Amendment was applicable and that CYS must present facts in its petition to compel to establish probable cause for the trial court to issue its order.
...
For a trial court to order a person to comply with an investigation of suspected child abuse, it must find that CYS presented sufficient facts in its petition to establish "probable cause to believe that an act of child abuse or neglect has occurred"
IN THE INTEREST OF DP, Pa: Superior Court 2013;
As we interpret the statute and agency regulations, [CYS] must file a verified petition alleging facts amounting to probable cause to believe that an act of child abuse or neglect has occurred and evidence relating to such abuse will be found in the home.
In re D.R., 216 A.3d 286, 294 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019)
In Pennsylvania dependency proceedings, a verified petition is legally required before a court can act. "Verified" means the person filing it must personally swear under threat of penalty that the facts are true to the best of their personal knowledge, information, and belief.
Pa.R.J.P. 1240
(a) Filings. A shelter care application may be oral or in writing. If oral, the county agency shall file a written shelter care application within 24 hours of exercising protective custody pursuant to Rule 1210.
(b) Application Contents. Every shelter care application shall set forth:
(7) a verification by the applicant that the facts set forth in the petition are true and correct to the applicant’s personal knowledge, information, or belief, and that any false statements are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities;
Pa.R.J.P. 1330
(b) Petition Contents. Every petition shall set forth plainly:
(8) a verification by the petitioner that the facts set forth in the petition are true and correct to the petitioner’s personal knowledge, information, or belief, and that any false statements are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities;
Simply put: "A shelter care application may be oral or in writing. The county agency shall file a written shelter care application within 24 hours of exercising protective custody. Every shelter care application shall set forth: a verification and that any false statements are subject to the penalties"
And "Every petition shall set forth plainly: a verification and that any false statements are subject to the penalties"
Nowhere does it say an oral shelter care application exempts the application's mandated contents. Oral application still requires some type of verification, which would require sworn testimony or at least mention to the court that the written application that is to be filed within 24 hours will have a sworn affidavit attached.
It must be factually grounded — because taking custody of a child is one of the most extreme actions the government can take against a family.
In our case:
The oral Shelter Care Application was "verified" by the CYS Director who had zero personal knowledge of the events she described.
The record shows no affidavits from firsthand witnesses were attached when they filed their written application.
The record shows no sworn testimony was provided to the court before the verbal custody order was issued.
The allegations presented were factually false — and later disproven by medical staff.
A verified petition based on secondhand, uncorroborated hearsay is not truly verified at all. It turns the verification process into a hollow ritual—and strips families of the protections the law was designed to provide.
You'll also learn in our subject matter jurisdiction legal question that CYS did this to us a second time!
You might wonder why this particular issue—CYS verifying petitions without personal knowledge—matters so deeply, and why we believe it’s a question of first impression for Pennsylvania courts.
There are two reasons:
Appeal Barriers:
The Superior Court has ruled that emergency custody orders are "not appealable." That means there has been no opportunity until now for appellate courts to even review the legality of these underlying petition practices.
Fourth Amendment Misunderstanding:
In the Appellee Brief, counsel for CYS (Jennifer McCambridge) argued that the cases cited by Appellants only apply to physical home inspections—not to the seizure of children.
This ignores the basic principle that the Fourth Amendment protects both searches and seizures. Seizing a child is a far greater intrusion on liberty than inspecting a home.
The United States Supreme Court has held that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the "care, custody, and management" of their children and that a natural parent's "desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children is a [liberty] interest far more precious than any property right."
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 758-59, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).
If courts continue to allow child protective agencies to "verify" petitions without firsthand knowledge, and without the safeguards of the Fourth Amendment, then the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures becomes meaningless and begs the question: What exactly is the purpose of the mandated verifications at all? What are these agents verifying?
Before issuing the Verbal Emergency Protective Custody Order:
The judge had no report of child abuse in hand as the record shows it wasn't even created yet.
No doctor testified that medical treatment was being blocked as none were requested to partake in the ex parte phone call.
The only "evidence" was the CPS Director, Michelle Graziano, during an ex parte phone call.
Quotes from the record:
Judge Legg: "I was told the child was being denied medical care and there was a threat of death... basically that the child's organs were shutting down."
Dr. Medoro (attending physician at CHOP):
"At no point did this family impair the medical care of this child."
"No, sir" — in response to whether the parents interfered in any treatment.
CHOP Social Worker Lindsey Kunkle:
"In this courtroom today is the first time I’m hearing anything about organs shutting down."
Exigent circumstances justify immediate state action only when there’s no time for due process because of immediate danger.
But here’s the timeline from our case:
Conversations between the hospital and CYS began around 1:00 PM.
Police were not called to stop some imminent threat.
Instead a judge was called.
The verbal custody order wasn't obtained until around 3:30 PM.
Police were still not called to stop some imminent threat.
Hospital security first approached parents around 7:30pm, attempting to prevent Parents from going to VC's unit.
Parents asked to see a court order, none was presented, so the social worker allowed us to go to the unit because Parents refused to leave their child without seeing a court order.
Police were finally called because hospital social workers believed “the parents would have to leave the premises because of the nature of the severity of the Order”.
The parents were not approached again until around 8:30 PM, this time with police.
Parents were told a "verbal order" was issued but shown nothing.
Parents were never told why this was happening other than the word "neglect" with no explanation of an action the Parents did that would constitute neglect.
The Parents refused to voluntarily leave their baby.
The Parents were finally removed from CHOP hospital around 9:00 PM in handcuffs.
No immediate danger was alleged, proven, testified to, or acted upon.
Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference. … That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency.
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F. 3d 1126 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000
If a CPS agent can call a judge, tell an unverified story of organ failure, and seize your child—with no evidence, no sworn statement, and no judicial scrutiny (cannot be appealed)—then no family is safe.
We fought this, alone and unrepresented, and won custody back.
But because we won, the appellate courts said our concerns are "moot"—and refused to review it.
Winning your child back shouldn’t erase how they were taken. Due process doesn’t expire.
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.