In Pennsylvania, Child and Youth Services (CYS) does not have unlimited authority to intrude into a family's life. Its powers to investigate are strictly limited by statute — and those limits matter.
The statute is clear: CYS cannot begin an investigation based on a hunch, a vague complaint, or a non-abuse concern. Its authority to act only begins “upon receipt of a report of suspected child abuse.”
Cited Statutes:
23 Pa.C.S. § 6368(a): "Upon receipt of a report of suspected child abuse from an individual, the county agency shall ensure the safety of the child and immediately commence an investigation."
23 Pa.C.S. § 6368(b): "Upon receipt of a report of suspected child abuse from the department, the county agency shall immediately commence an investigation."
Thus, two conditions must be satisfied:
CYS must receive a report; and
That report must involve suspected child abuse as strictly defined by law.
"Child abuse" is not a subjective feeling. It has a precise legal definition under Pennsylvania law.
→ 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1):
Child abuse means intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committing certain acts against a child — including causing bodily injury, sexual abuse, serious neglect, or engaging in other specifically listed forms of harm.
Additionally, under → 23 Pa.C.S. § 6313, a written report must specifically contain:
The nature and extent of the suspected abuse
Where the abuse occurred
Who caused it
Evidence supporting the allegation
The statute mandates that allegations must tie a specific individual to specific harm that fits one of the legally defined categories of abuse.
And crucially:
Conduct that causes injury or harm to a child shall not be considered child abuse unless there is evidence of intent, knowledge, or recklessness.
If the conduct described in a report does not satisfy both:
The culpability standard (intentional, knowing, or reckless acts), and
One of the 10 specific categories of abuse,
then it is not a report of suspected child abuse — and no investigation is authorized.
It does not matter if the allegations are "concerning" or "unusual."
If they don't meet the legal standard, they don't trigger CYS authority.
Example:
Reporting that parents do not have health insurance is not child abuse.
Reporting that parents declined to share their future pediatrician is not child abuse.
Reporting that a parent declined an optional vaccine is not child abuse.
Without a valid report, CYS must discard the allegation—not weaponize it.
As the Third Circuit recognized:
Reasonable suspicion is lacking when a child welfare agency has consciously disregarded a great risk that there had been no abuse.
→ Mulholland v. Gov't Cnty. of Berks, 706 F.3d 227, 241 (3d Cir. 2013)
This is not a loophole. It is the fundamental protection the law demands.
If the legislature intended CYS to investigate anything remotely "concerning," it would have said so. Instead, it created a strict two-part test for triggering investigations—because government power must have limits when it targets families.
Allowing CYS to act outside these limits destroys the protection and makes every parent vulnerable to arbitrary intrusion.
The purpose of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law is clearly stated:
Abused children are in urgent need of an effective child protective service to prevent them from suffering further injury and impairment. It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage more complete reporting of suspected child abuse..."
The statute’s focus is narrow and deliberate: protecting children from true abuse—not policing lawful parenting choices, lifestyle differences, or non-abusive conduct.
It is designed to respond to legitimate harm, not to initiate investigations against families without any legal threshold being met.
Moreover, when interpreting Pennsylvania law, courts are bound by 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922 — the presumptions for ascertaining legislative intent:
(1) The General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable.
(2) The General Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.
(3) The General Assembly does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this Commonwealth.
Allowing CYS to investigate without a valid "report of child abuse" would lead to an absurd result—subjecting all families to governmental intrusion based on any concern or differing of opinions, no matter how baseless.
It would render the protections of the statute ineffective and would violate constitutional rights to family integrity and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Thus, interpreting the CPSL to require a legally valid, statutorily defined report of "child abuse" before any investigation begins is not only correct — it is necessary to honor the Constitution and legislative command.
CYS’s authority begins only upon receipt of a valid report of suspected child abuse — no earlier, no broader, no more.
Otherwise, families would be left defenseless against government intrusion based on rumor, misunderstanding, or retaliation — and the constitutional protections meant to safeguard the home would become meaningless.
The current practice seems driven by a presumption of abuse—acting first, searching for facts later, and seldom considering the possibility that no abuse occurred at all.
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.