Cancelled football seasons matter, but far more consequential are the behaviors of youth and adults that led to the cancellations.

Grand Jury report escalates community outrage

In July 2026, a Montgomery County Grand Jury issued its report (Investigation No. 636) describing harm to a 15-year-old sophomore, who was a member of the football team. The harm started as “emotional bullying” before escalating into “brutal physical attacks.” During a September 3, 2025, incident, the victim’s high school teammates reportedly stomped on his head and groin and attempted to “poke him in his butt with a broomstick”. The juvenile victim “suffered a contusion to his penis”.

Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele has announced criminal charges against four adult coaches (three of whom also served as paid employees of the school) and six youth, who played football with the victim. Two of the football players were 18 years of age at the time of the incident so they will face charges in adult court. The remaining four teammates were juveniles, and their cases will proceed through Juvenile Court, which means their identities will not be revealed.

The Grand Jury said the four coaches engaged in a “concerted effort to discredit” the juvenile victim and “to cover up and diminish the hazing allegations to protect the team.”

At a recent school board meeting, a coalition of parents and community members, including the United Parents Group (UPG), the Special Education Alliance of Cheltenham, and the Cheltenham African American Alliance, called for a zero-tolerance policy on bullying, hazing and sexual harassment. Overall parents cited diminished trust and advocated for greater accountability and transparency.

Board President, Leah Mulhearn, announced that the district had engaged Dr. Leigh Dalton, a shareholder in the Saxton & Stump Education Group, to undertake an independent investigation. Parents also told the Board that there are other incidents – distinct from those involving the 15-year-old football player – where youth safety was compromised. This board meeting was the first since the district’s Superintendent resigned. His resignation arrived months after the Board displayed confidence in him as they approved a five-year contract on December 9, 2025.

The foundation of child protection in the United States and the reporting of suspected or known abuse or neglect of children has long been built upon an idea that child abuse involves harm to children by adults. Incidents that involve only children, including sexually problematic behavior, hazing, sextortion, using artificial intelligence to generate child sexual abuse material, are complicated and reveal policy gaps related to identifying, reporting, and intervening to stop youth from harming other youth.

The response of the coaches and the school

Immediately following the September 3, 2025, incident, the victim was “crying” and disclosed to one coach that his teammates had “jumped” him. This disclosure followed the victim encountering a school administrator while the victim was seeking ice for his injuries. The victim told the administrator he was hurt but did not disclose the details of the assault.

After the victim disclosed to the coach, that coach engaged with the other coaches. The Grand Jury reviewed messages that were said to reveal a decision to keep the incident “quiet” since it was “just like hazing” and could “put the whole team in jeopardy”. In other elements of the messages, the coaches said what happened was consistent with “horseplay” or “rough housing”. At some point, the coaches indicated that this wasn’t about hazing versus behavior resulting from frustrated team members upset the youth had been “stealing from” them.

The coaches also had a direct conversation with the juvenile victim.

None of the coaches outreached to the victim’s family.

Days later, the victim’s mother would learn of the incident. At that time, she took her son for medical care and immediately contacted a school official.

The Grand Jury report traces how the school official contacted by the mother then outreached to other school employees “to inform them of what happened” and describing the juvenile victim as an individual with “a chip on his shoulder.” The administrator would talk with the head coach, who reportedly said the juvenile had been “kicked in the nuts”.

By September 9, 2025, the juvenile victim’s locker had been “vandalized” causing the mother files a Title IX complaint.

The victim and his mother would be interviewed by school officials. In this meeting, the football coach reports that none of the youth were coming forward with information.

According to the Grand Jury, on September 18, 2025, there was an anonymous report filed with Pennsylvania’s Safe2Say Program, a school safety tool operated by Pennsylvania’s Office of Attorney General (OAG). The OAG’s office received the tip “alleging a potential sexual assault of a child” and relayed it to Cheltenham school officials. At that point, school officials filed a report of suspected child abuse with ChildLine.

The Grand Jury revealed that the school district “carried out three school-led investigations.” The Grand Jury described the individual leading the investigations has having no “experience or training” to conduct the investigation and that he was “unfamiliar with the process by which coaches are informed and trained about their mandatory reporting obligations.” These school-led investigations were described as “so flawed” with a demonstrated “incompetence” failing not only the victim child but putting “every young man on the football team at risk.”

The Grand Jury was the first to discover that the September 3, 2025, incident was the second attack on the 15-year-old football player. The juvenile victim did not previously disclose an August 2025 incident. This violent incident was recorded and “circulated around the school” yet remained unknown until 2026 as part of the Grand Jury’s investigation. Like the September 2025 incident, at least one of the victim’s teammates tried to “Broomstick him” in the August incident.

Confusion about mandatory reporting

The Grand Jury flagged the football coaches for failing to make a report to ChildLine – Pennsylvania’s child abuse and neglect reporting hotline. Additionally, the coaches, three of whom were paid employees of the district, were cited as not being compliant with training related to recognizing and reporting child abuse and neglect.

Pennsylvania law requires school employees to complete a minimum of three hours of training every five years.

On September 3, 2025, the juvenile victim did speak with a school administrator indicating he had been injured and needed ice. At that time neither the victim nor a juvenile accompanying him disclosed what happened with the broom. Before the Grand Jury, the administrator testified that had they been told of it, they would have immediately called ChildLine.

The Grand Jury acknowledged that testimony “from all employees revealed considerable confusion about mandatory reporting rules, including what constitutes a reportable offense and the process by which reports are made.” They also wrote that at least one school employee noted the necessity of “corroboration” before making a report.

The Grand Jury wrote, “The secretive way hazing pervades our educational institutions and is allowed to fester threatens the safety of our children.” The Grand Jury acknowledged that the Commonwealth has demonstrated its commitment to protect children by enacting laws “directing those who work with children to immediately report suspected child abuse and criminalizing those individuals who fail to do so.” Here the Grand Jury raises concerns that the existing mandatory reporting law in Pennsylvania does not “recognize hazing as a form of child abuse that must be immediately reported to authorities by mandated reporters.”

The Grand Jury highlighted that the Commonwealth’s Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) defines those individuals who can be deemed a perpetrator of child abuse, which generally falls more into adults with direct contact or a caregiving role. A juvenile can meet the definition only in limited circumstances (e.g., they live with the child or they are in a direct caregiving role).

The Grand Jury identified an element of the CPSL long understood as problematic - exclusions from child abuse, including the exclusion framed as child-on-child contact.

In 2012, The Task Force on Child Protection created by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in response to the serial sexual abuse perpetrated by Gerald Sandusky, recommended exclusions from the definition of child abuse. The Task Force didn’t wish to see every “fracas between two children” be considered child abuse or rise to the level of a report to ChildLine. Eventually state lawmakers enacted a law including child-on-child contact as one of the enumerated exclusions. While creating this exclusion from what can be substantiated as child abuse, lawmakers did stipulate that certain “crimes against a child shall be” subject to the mandatory reporting requirements. Those crimes include:

• Rape.

• Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse.

• Sexual assault.

• Aggravated indecent assault.

• Indecent assault.

• Indecent exposure.

The Grand Jury wrote, “Thus, acts of hazing which fall short of a completed sexual assault, touching, or exposure, such as the threatened sexual assault in this case, are not subject to mandated reporting laws.”

District Attorney Steele’s press release reinforced that the CPSL does not “currently recognize hazing as a form of child abuse” and thus falls outside of any legally required report to ChildLine or law enforcement.

Legislators ready to add hazing to the CPSL

Pennsylvania State Senator Art Haywood (D-Philadelphia, Montgomery) and Pennsylvania State Representative Napoleon Nelson (D-Montgomery) have signaled they will work to amend Pennsylvania’s CPSL.

Haywood called the Grand Jury report “deeply disturbing” requiring “immediate attention and action.” He said he would work with urgency “to classify hazing as reportable child abuse.”

Nelson, meanwhile, faulted coaching staff for how they “downplayed the hazing as rough play”. He also noted that the coaches failed to notify the victim’s mother and “neglected to report abuse to ChildLine and law enforcement.” He noted that the CPSL does not recognize hazing as child abuse creating a “legal shortcoming” that can permit schools to not be held accountable “for covering up this kind of abuse.”

The part of the CPSL that Haywood and Nelson cite as under-developed is the same section that came into play when adults at the Lancaster Country Day School (LCDS) did not immediately report that male students had utilized artificial intelligence (AI) to create child sexual abuse material (pornography or sometimes cited as Deepfakes) of female classmates. Ultimately 60 females – 48 female students and 12 additional female teens not enrolled at LCDS – would be identified as victims. The delayed action and intervention had significant consequence in the number of impacted female students.

The child-on-child exclusion language also led Lancaster County District Attorney Heather Adams to conclude that no criminal charges would be filed against school officials because AI generated child sexual abuse material - notably when all those involved are minors - is included in the criminal offenses that legally require reporting to ChildLine.

Over the last year, the Pennsylvania Senate and the Pennsylvania House of Representatives unanimously passed virtually identical legislation (Senate Bill 1050 and House Bill 2474) to amend the CPSL related to this child-on-child contact exclusion provision. Lawmakers acted to expand the list of criminal offenses subject to reporting to modernize the statute in recognition of AI generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Lawmakers acted despite pushback from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS). Among the expressed concerns from DHS was lack of clarity about why lawmakers were singling out this type of report. The state agency question why it “is more important than other types of “child on child” reports that mandated reporters are excluded from making under §6304.”

Even as the full Senate and House have unanimously voted to rework the child-on-child contact language, no legislation has yet reached Governor Josh Shapiro’s desk. Child protection and the direct plea of those affected by the LCDS deepfake trauma have taken a back seat to the pushback from DHS and a 2026 election cycle driven by Democrats hopes to gain control of the House and Senate and Senate Republican leaders working overtime to not lose their majority in the Senate.

Until the political dust settles this fall, child safety likely remains a deferred agenda item for the Governor and bipartisan legislators.

Distinct from the CPSL, lawmakers will need to consider implications related to the 2018 antihazing law, which is applicable to public and private secondary schools. As defined, hazing is linked to “initiating, admitting or affiliating a minor or student into or with an organization, or for the purpose of continuing or enhancing a minor or student’s membership or status in an organization causes, coerces or forces a minor to do” things that can result in harm (e.g., consume food or alcohol or endure brutality of a physical, sexual, or mental nature). Schools must adopt an antihazing policy and keep track of “violations of the institution’s antihazing policy.” The statute does not specify a requirement for hazing to be reported (for possible investigation) to authorities outside the school.

Meanwhile, Florida’s statute makes a direct reference to reporting to law enforcement. Texas and Illinois have a “failure to report hazing” statute applicable to school officials (e.g. teachers, counselors, coaches). Such approaches do not get to the underlying child protection question versus highlight the opportunity for reporting obligations to exist outside a state’s approach to defining child abuse.

Another Pennsylvania law requires that annually School Safety incidents must be reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), including a list of criminal offenses. While bullying and cyberbullying are on the list, hazing is not.

Pennsylvania’s 2025-2026 Safe2Say report includes no reference to hazing.

Legislation, on its own, will not change culture

Even if amending the CPSL is determined to be productive and gets done, the cited testimony of the victim’s team members, throughout the Grand Jury report, reveals a troubling culture and lack of understanding about the immediate and long term consequences of what happened within that high school locker room

One 17-year-old senior testified the incidents were just “playing around”. The youth was shown the video of the August 2025 incident and when asked if he still saw it as “playfulness” even with the attempt to shove a broomstick up the Juvenile Victim’s butt. In response, the youth said he had seen similar things happen “multiple times” across his 12 years of playing football.

Another 17-year-old football player told the Grand Jury that the incident was “rough housing”. This youth testified that he had lied to school investigators when asked if he’d ever witnessed anyone feeling unsafe. The youth did not tell school officials because he didn’t want to have the football season canceled.

One of the youths used terms like “fussed around” and “horsing around” to describe the incidents. After he was “pressed” during his testimony, he testified that what happened was the victim “getting bullied”. This youth did acknowledge the incident escalated when others “grouped” the victim.

Yet another juvenile witness acknowledged that a teammate was trying to put the broomstick up the victim’s butt, but that the victim was not naked and the perpetrator wasn’t “going like full force.” This same witness told the Grand Jury that the victim had tried “to defend” himself and that when the assault was over, he was crying and holding his “private part.” This witness said that he had been told by one of the coaches to stay quiet. His team mates were blunter advising him not to be a “rat”.

In conclusion

What is before Pennsylvania is a decision more consequential than whether hazing should be added to the list of criminal offenses that legally require a report to be made to ChildLine.

Policy makers may decide that adding hazing to the CPSL makes sense, but if that is the only action taken, they will shortchange a much needed and broader examination of the Commonwealth’s approach to child-on-child harm.

When a child experiences sexual assault, or hazing or is exploited through technology, the age of the perpetrator should not influence or undermine protection and intervention.

Pennsylvania must be intentional so as not to deem every harm between children as child abuse, while also not fearing state or systems involvement so much that there is an unintentional signal that violence, humiliation, and exploitation is okay being framed as “horseplay” or “rough housing” or “boys being boys”.

There is hard work to be done to navigate the extremes and the tall task of ensuring that adults and youth themselves have the knowledge and tools to recognize harm, report it and secure interventions before a culture of indifference and silence makes another victim inevitable.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Some of these proposed “critical updates” relate to Pennsylvania’s Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) registry.

Hanbidge and Delozier recognize the need to clarify the CPSL related to concurrent investigations so that “administrative child abuse investigations remain pending if there is a “simultaneous criminal investigation”. The bipartisan lawmakers appear ready to address an issue – unresolved across multiple legislative sessions – related to what happens when a person successfully completes the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program.

Hanbidge and DeLozier are rightfully focused on expunction and registry reforms, but they will need to guard against advancing solutions that are too blunt given the significant consequences of the registry.

Pennsylvania’s CAN registry is not well understood or measured for effect

The CAN registry is promoted as a tool to screen the backgrounds of potential foster or adoptive parents or employees or volunteers that will have contact with a child.

The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains the registry as part of its broader protective services database. As part of a CAN registry background certification, DHS is legally required to disclose if an individual is named as a perpetrator of CAN in a founded or indicated report or listed as an alleged perpetrator in a report that remains under investigation. If DHS discovers the person is named as a perpetrator of an indicated or founded report, the agency will provide the date of the incident(s) and type of abuse(s) that was substantiated.

A person can be named as a perpetrator of an indicated report following an investigation by a Pennsylvania child welfare agency (county or regional) where the agency determines there was “substantial evidence” that abuse or neglect occurred “based on medical evidence, the child protective service investigation, or an admission by the perpetrator.” The person, named as a perpetrator, will be placed on the registry prior to any appeal before DHS’ Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA).

Meanwhile, a founded report requires a judicial adjudication that is “based on a finding that a child who is a subject of the report has been abused and the adjudication involves the same factual circumstances involved in the allegation of child abuse”. The entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, a criminal conviction, a finding of dependency, acceptance into an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program and a final protection from abuse (PFA) order (where only one individual is charged with the abuse) all can result in a founded report and placement on the CAN registry. Individuals named as a perpetrator of a founded report are not eligible to file an appeal with BHA.

The CPSL sets forth “grounds” for denying employment or volunteering in a “program, activity or service” that involves children. The law places a ban on employment or volunteering when the person has been determined to be a perpetrator of a founded report of child abuse or neglect “within the five-year period immediately preceding” the date when the registry is being checked for employment or volunteering.

While there is not a universal exclusion (from employment or volunteering) connected to an indicated report, most employers or agencies screening volunteers will still exclude the person citing potential liability issues.

Central PA and Northampton County expunction cases offer instruction

Pending litigation, including a case challenging the overall constitutionality of the registry, and recent administrative appeals provide justification for a more robust focus on due process and the overall operations of BHA.

Recently the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rendered a decision in a “sealed child abuse expunction case”involving Northampton County’s Children, Youth and Families Division.

This case began as an indicated report and was later converted to a founded report after the child’s father pled guilty to simple assault.

The timeline illustrates the perennial concerns surrounding the extensive delays between substantiating CAN, the named perpetrator filing an appeal and a final BHA decision. In this case, the physical abuse was reported in 2019 and the BHA hearing was held in February 2023 with the decision of the ALJ adopted by DHS in January 2025 and the Commonwealth Court decision rendered in July 2026

Northampton County Children, Youth and Families Division v. DHS

• 2006: Victim child born.

• August 2019: Victim child is presumably approximately 13 years of age. Court documents note that the father “grabbed Child by the throat, pushed her into a wall and the ground, and put her in a headlock”. The child is reported to have had “significant pain to her neck and jaw.” The father is charged criminally (“one count of Simple Assault and one count of Harassment - Subject Other to Physical Contact”).

• September 2019: Northampton County’s child welfare agency substantiates the report of suspected child abuse naming the father as a perpetrator in an indicated report based, in part, on “a video” of the incident showing the child in a “chokehold”. Father appeals the child welfare finding (his being named as a perpetrator in an indicated report)

• September 2020: Father pleads guilty to simple assault and “The Northampton County Court of Common Pleas (Common Pleas) did not make a finding of child abuse.”

• December 2022: BHA schedules a hearing re: father’s appeal of being named as a perpetrator of child abuse in an indicated report

• January 2023: DHS changes the father’s status from an indicated to founded report due to the 2020 guilty plea. DHS files a motion to dismiss the father’s appeal because he is now named as a perpetrator of a founded report.

• February 2023: BHA denied DHS’ motion to dismiss and proceeds with a hearing “on the change of status.”

• January 2025: BHA adopted the ALJ’s recommendation to have the father listed as a perpetrator of an indicated (versus founded) report of CAN.

The ALJ “explained that DHS’ burden for maintaining a founded report” required the following:

1. The child meets the definition of child in the CPSL.

2. The person placed on the registry can meet the definition of perpetrator.

3. There has been a judicial adjudication.

4. The guilty plea contains a finding that the subject child has been abused.

5. The finding of abuse pertains to the same factual circumstances as those involved in the instant appeal.

The ALJ found that DHS had satisfied #1 and #2.

As to #3, the ALJ had compared allegations in the child welfare record with allegations in the criminal information and determined that DHS had “provided substantial evidence” that the father’s guilty plea to the criminal offense of simple assault was related to the “same factual circumstances as those involved in this instant appeal.”

On points #4 and #5, the ALJ determined the CPSL is “very clear” in requiring that there be a judicial adjudication “based on a finding that a child who is a subject of the report has been abused and the adjudication involves the same factual circumstances involved in the allegation of child abuse.” The key word - and.

The ALJ determined that DHS “did not provide substantial evidence” that there was a judicial adjudication stipulating a “finding of child abuse.” Therefore, DHS could not “correctly maintain a founded report of child abuse” involving the father. The ALJ determined the father was entitled to continue with his appeal and that DHS should have to change his status from founded to indicated.

Commonwealth Court disagreed, “We conclude the ALJ erred in determining the Department additionally needed to provide substantial evidence that the judicial adjudication contained a specific reference to child abuse.” The court ordered DHS to “amend the status of the Report from indicated to founded.”

In a separate CAN expunction case, the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) was recently provided with a Final Administrative Action (FAA) involving a central Pennsylvania father whose child disclosed child sexual abuse. The ALJ stipulated that the case:

The child’s disclosure and the report to child welfare was made in May 2024. The child has a forensic interview at that time. The county child welfare agency deemed the report unfounded. In September 2024, another report involving the same child was received and another forensic interview conducted. This time the report was substantiated (the father named as a perpetrator of an indicated report) in what the FAA suggests resulted from a multidisciplinary team decision. The father appealed the indicated finding, and his BHA hearing was held in May 2025. Throughout 2024 and 2025, the father and the child’s mother have contact with the courts surrounding custody and Protection from Abuse (PFA) proceedings.

The FAA was released in spring 2026 – two years following the child’s initial disclosure of sexual abuse.

In the May 2026 FAA, the ALJ called it “problematic” that the child “story keeps evolving” and that the child admitted “her story keeps changing because she is getting these memories through dreams and nightmares.” The ALJ would also note the county’s decision to obtain two forensic interviews, but not then introduce them as evidence. Here the ALJ wrote, “A fact finder may draw an inference from a party’s failure to call a particular witness that the testimony given would have been unfavorable to that party.”

In the end the ALJ ordered that the father’s name be removed from the CAN registry.

Seven years ago, Pennsylvania’s Auditor General called BHA’s expunction process “very lopsided”

In January 2019, Eugene DePasquale, who was serving as Pennsylvania’s Auditor General, announced a special audit of DHS’ BHA.

DePasquale was motivated, in part, by a Commonwealth Court decision involving a Luzerne County child who had disclosed being sexually abused and being forced “to watch pornographic videos”. When a BHA hearing was slated, the county child welfare agency noted that the child was not available to testify but other parties were. The child welfare agency sought a continuance which was denied. Commonwealth Court faulted BHA’s decision to deny a continuance reminding that a county children and youth agency “does not represent an abstract bureaucratic interest in expunction proceedings, but the interests of children who have been abused or are potentially subject to abuse.” Commonwealth Court then reversed BHA’s decision and remanded the case for proceedings stipulating that the denied continuance “was both unreasonable and a misapplication of law and was thus an abuse of discretion.”

DePasquale would cite the BHA process as “very lopsided.” He stressed that BHA represented a “shadow justice system.”

By 2021, DePasquale would release his report citing how BHA is an “obscure entity within state government” that has been empowered to wield “an immense amount of power over people’s lives.”

Lawmakers responded, in part, with Act 23 of 2024 providing a child witness at a BHA hearing with the opportunity to be accompanied by a support person and/or to have testimony options beyond face-to-face.

During a February 2026 state budget hearing in which DHS was presenting their 2026-2027 budget request, Senator Tim Kearney (D-Delaware County) cited his concerns about the lack of due process for individuals placed on Pennsylvania’s registry. He noted how individuals can be placed on the registry “before they can contest” the child welfare decision – “a decision that places them on the list for life regardless the type of accusation.” Kearney has worked with bipartisan senators to introduce other registry reforms, including bringing a tiered approach to the length of time a person remains on the registry.

In recent years, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association have called for reforms to the state’s registry. Model legislation has been crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

In 2027, state lawmakers must address profound human consequences

Seven years after Pennsylvania’s Auditor General urged lawmakers to address Pennsylvania’s “shadow justice system”, too little has changed.

The Commonwealth’s CAN registry and the broader child protection system are overdue for a careful evaluation of whether crafted policies and implemented practices are advancing child safety, transparency, and due process in a manner consistent with their intended purpose.

When the General Assembly convenes a new two-year legislative session in 2027, bipartisan lawmakers must recognize that a system with profound human consequences and substantial public investment deserves comprehensive evaluation, not just technical amendments.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

These 530A accounts, which are being structured as a type of individual retirement account (IRA) opened on behalf of a child (with a social security number), were authorized when H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) was enacted in July 2025.

HR 1 also created a “Contribution Pilot Program” so that once an “election” is made to open the 530A account certain children (those born after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029) become eligible for a $1,000 initial contribution into the account. Parents, family or guardians or their employers or even philanthropy can annually contribute up to (a combined) $5,000 into the child’s 530A account. Meanwhile, the Dell Family has pledged $6.25 billion to make a $250 deposit into the accounts of children, who are 10 or younger and live in zip codes with median incomes below $150,000.

Any funds contributed to the child’s account will continue to grow tax free. The funds cannot be withdrawn prior to the child reaching the age of 18. After reaching the age of 18, the funds can be withdrawn, subject to penalty and taxation if withdrawn before age 59 and a half. There are limited circumstances where penalties can be avoided if the withdrawal is made to help underwrite certain costs associated with post-secondary education or a first-time home purchase.

Alongside the July 4^th official launch, it was reported that more than 6 million 530A accounts had been requested and “over 86%” were for children in families earning less than 200,000 annually. For some context, it is estimated that there are approximately 72 million children in the United States.

As the ceremonies and celebration of the 530A accounts continue, there remain many outstanding issues to resolve and a multitude of unintended consequences to avoid.

In May, state treasurers from Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont joined with The New School Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy in observing that “most substantive policy design questions” remain “unresolved”. This group touted their combined “expertise in early wealth building policy and program design” as they underscored these unresolved issues will ultimately “determine whether the program functions as a meaningful and equitable asset-building tool or reinforces existing economic disparities.” They stressed that the current design “will disproportionately benefit young people who are from wealthier families and thereby make wealth inequality – particularly the racial wealth gap – in America, even worse.”

On July 16th, the United States Department of Treasury listened to direct feedback regarding the 530A regulations . Several of the repeated themes woven into written comments and the oral testimony are explored in today’s Child Protection Check Up.

Pennsylvania’s Keystone Scholars in the spotlight

Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity and Deputy Treasurer Julie Peachey offered important testimony. Garrity oversees Pennsylvania’s Keystone Scholars Children’s Savings Account program. Keystone Scholars is “the nation’s first legislatively created, universal, automatic, at birth CSA program.” Keystone Scholars, which provides a $100 scholarship to every child born or adopted into a Pennsylvania family since January 1, 2019. The program was initially launched as a pilot program in six counties (Delaware, Elk, Indiana, Luzerne, Mifflin and Westmoreland) before bipartisan lawmakers included Keystone Scholars in a 2018 enacted fiscal code bill.

Prior to the July 16^th testimony, Garrity wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent assuring that Pennsylvania’s Treasury “strongly supports the goals” of the 530A accounts and the Commonwealth’s Keystone Scholars infrastructure “provides a tested and practical foundation for implementing” the accounts “at scale”.

Garrity, who is the Republican nominee for November’s gubernatorial election, outlined the “most important recommendation”: establishing “a clear, flexible regulatory framework allowing states to serve as administrators” of the 530A accounts is essential. This would allow states to administer 530A accounts alongside 529s, ABLE programs, and state-facilitated retirement plans “on a unified, accessible, and transparent platform” and to reduce “duplication of administrative functions between federal and state systems.”

Jin Huang, the Irving Louis Horowitz Professor in Social Policy at the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, and co-director of the Center for Social Development has been working with PA Treasury surrounding “state engagement” in the 530A accounts. He urged a commitment to “an important principle: that state agencies can serve as authorized individuals for purposes of opening” the 530A accounts.

Automatic enrollment a repeated recommendation

Opening an account requires “an election” by an “authorized individual.”

Garrity and Peachey stressed that automatic enrollment “remains one of the most effective mechanisms for ensuring broad equitable participation in children’s savings programs.” Keystone Scholars is designed for automatic enrollment with Treasury working in partnership with the Department of Health (DOH). As a result, every baby born in Pennsylvania automatically has a Keystone Scholars account created with their state provided $100 starter deposit that can grow and eventually be utilized for post-secondary education costs. Even with automatic enrollment, parental and family awareness about activating and remaining engaged with the Keystone Scholars is difficult. At the end of 2024-2025 fiscal year, PA Treasury reported that only 11 percent of families had “claimed” their child’s account.

Huang has been at the center of an 18-year randomized “policy experiment” - SEED for Oklahoma’s Kids (SEED OK). More than 2,700 newborns have been enrolled with the newborns “randomly assigned” to a treatment group that were automatically connected to an account with a $1,000 deposit or a control group who did not get an account. One finding has been that savings by parents, through contributions to a 529 account, increased and “was disproportionately greater for disadvantaged parents than for advantaged ones.”

The SEED OK initiative has informed wealth building policies and the development of child development accounts in other states, including Pennsylvania as it designed and implemented its universal at-birth $100 child savings account – Keystone Scholars – for every child born or adopted into a Pennsylvania family since January 1, 2019.

Huang stressed that the SEED OK research demonstrates that “enrollment design determines who participates.” Huang noted that the proposed 530A approach requires a parent or authorized party to take “affirmative action” to open the account and separately elect the $1,000 pilot contribution (if the child is eligible). He assured that “this design will leave millions of eligible children behind.” Oklahoma’s program achieved 99.9% with automatic enrollment. Meanwhile a Maine program, providing $500 to babies, began with an opt-in design and “reached only 40% of eligible families.” When the shift was made to automatic enrollment “participation rose to 100% immediately, and recruitment costs dropped to nearly zero.”

Huang acknowledged a recent “positive development” when the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that it would include the 530A enrollment in the Enumeration at Birth (EAB) program. SSA will provide updated guidance to hospitals so that 530A election can occur when a parent uses the existing EAB program. EAB allows a parent to complete the application for a Social Security Number (SSN) for the newborn as part of the hospital registration process. EAB was implemented in 1987 as a pilot program in several states and today the SSA reports that “almost all parents utilize EAB to obtain an SSN for their child” with “approximately 99% of SSNs for infants” being assigned through the EAB process.

Huang urged SSA and Treasury to be intentional in its design and implementation so that the EAB modification becomes one of a “true opt-out” situation by which the account is opened unless the parent declines versus an “additional check-the-box option on the hospital form.” He also urged Treasury to ensure that families need only take one step so that the opening of the account also serves as “election to receive the $1,000” if the child is eligible for the pilot contribution.

Authorized individual needs to align with shifts in “caregiving authority”

Opening an account requires “an election” by an “authorized individual.” The proposed rule set forth an “ordering rule” about who may make that election with the IRS stipulating that the authorized individual “in order of priority” would be:

• A legal guardian

• A parent

• An adult sibling

• A grandparent

In March, the IRS asked for comments about whether definitions were needed for terms like legal guardian, parent, grandparent. It also sought feedback regarding:

Among the early comments was submitted by a person who flagged the proposed regulation for how it assumed “a single, stable relationship between a child and an authorized adult”. The commentator noted that many children experience a change in “caregiving authority” over time. Added emphasis was made about how “transitions in legal custody and caregiving responsibility are not exceptional events, but routine features of the child welfare system.” The commentator urged the IRS to “explicitly” recognize foster parents as authorized individuals to make the initial election and to clarify the “role of state agencies in opening and controlling accounts.”

The California Child Savings Account (CSA) Coalition commented that the proposed “hierarchy” risks “excluding youth in foster care, those living with non-relative caregivers, and other minors in non-traditional arrangements.” CSA recommended that the final federal regulation confirm that a state “acting as a legal guardian of a child is an authorized individual eligible to open the account.”

The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) offered several recommendations to the IRS including:

“Authorize the State agency holding legal custody of a child in foster care (or the agency’s designee) to elect to open an initial Trump account for that child, as an authorized individual of last resort and acting only when no higher-priority individual (legal guardian, parent, adult sibling, or grandparent) has made the election within a defined period.”

DCFS also recommended that the “custodial” state agency be permitted to serve as the account’s “responsible party” only while the child remains in the legal custody and “subject to fiduciary safeguards and mandatory succession rules that transfer responsible party role upon permanency (reunification, adoption, or guardianship, upon emancipation, or at the close of the growth period.” The state agency also said there should be protections – “an express prohibition on any use of account assets to reimburse or offset the State’s cost of care.”

On June 11^th, the IRS clarified that a child welfare agency that is serving as the “legal guardian (or equivalent) of the eligible child” is authorized and “may elect to open an initial account for the child.” The IRS recognized the necessity of “special instructions” for the child welfare agency and noted that the IRS’ government liaison “will ensure that the agency has the necessary information to complete and submit an election for an initial Trump account.” This June clarification from the IRS also stipulated, “A child welfare agency cannot elect to receive the $1,000 pilot program contribution to the child’s Trump Account.” Instead, the child’s parent or other individual, including a foster parent has to elect for the child to receive the $1,000 contribution.

That clarification arrived on the same day that First Lady Melania Trump and Scott Bessent, United States Secretary of the Treasury “announced Fostering the Future accounts” – a specific focus on opening 530A accounts for children in foster care.

Bessent’s remarks drew upon the legacy of America’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton. The Secretary reflected on how Hamilton was “an orphan, sustained by little more than a belief that his origins need not define his fate.” The Secretary also cited how Hamilton’s wife, like First Lady Trump, “committed to the cause of foster children” with Hamilton opening America’s “first private orphanage.” The announced initiative was intended to incentivize state agencies, who are responsible for foster care and serve as the “legal guardian of an eligible child who has a Social Security Number,” to elect a child’s 530A account.

While the IRS clarified that child welfare agencies may open accounts for eligible children in foster care, significant implementation questions remain.

Fostering the Future accounts could prove “transformative”

Testimony offered by Todd Lloyd on behalf of the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) underscored that 530A accounts could prove “a transformative asset-building tool for children and youth who experience foster care.” Across two decades, AECF has administered Opportunity Passport – “an evidence-based financial education and matched savings intervention for youth in foster care”. More than 22,000 youth have been connected to the Passport and have saved “more than $13.6 million and leveraged $32 million in total assets through matching funds.” Lloyd highlighted, “Youth who acquire assets are more likely to be employed, enrolled in school and stably housed.”

Lloyd, echoed PA Treasurer Garrity and Huang, highlighting how state treasurers “are uniquely positioned to support both enrollment and long-term account administration through existing child welfare, Medicaid, and savings program data and infrastructure.” He addressed how the proposed process “relies on individual submissions by child welfare agencies” a process he assured is “unlikely to scale efficiently.”

He addressed how the annual $5,000 contribution limit “creates challenges that are unique for youth in foster care.” Youth who are eligible for survivor benefits (Social Security or veterans) “frequently exceed this amount”. It was recommended that such benefits should be treated differently in the context of the cap.

530A accounts could unintentionally disadvantage some youth

Many have observed that, without intentional federal action, these accounts might prove a double edge sword for young people – celebrated as an asset and provide a foundation to build wealth while also working against the young person if they require support through any means-tested program.

Huang flagged this as a “design concern at the end of the growth period.” He noted how upon reaching the age of 18 the accounts convert to a traditional IRA meaning that account balances “become countable assets for means-tested programs such as Supplemental Security Income, which imposes a $2,000 asset limit.” He noted how this could disproportionately impact young adults “diagnosed with a qualifying disability.” He urged Congress and the Trump Administration to work together to provide for a “permanent categorical disregard” for 530A accounts “consistent with the treatment of ABLE account assets.”

Lloyd’s testimony on behalf of AECF also addressed the “potential negative interactions” when a young person pursues eligibility for Medicaid or Chafee Education and Training Voucher awards.

Written comments from The National Association of Benefits and Work Incentive Specialists (NABWIS) also urged that the account should not count as income.

Fostering the futures of children in remembrance of Grace Packer

Throughout the Treasury listening session, it was crystal clear that policy design and implementation matter. Decisions about who can open the account, how much and what type of resources can be contributed, and whether a 530A account might jeopardize eligibility for means-tested services and supports are not inconsequential. How these matters get decided will influence whether 530A/Fostering the Future accounts promote equity or deepen perennial economic and racial disparities.

The decisions to come won’t simply be technical, they will determine to what degree children, who have already experienced significant adversity, are supported in getting ahead or left to fall further behind.

Pennsylvania has an opportunity to become a national leader demonstrating what equitable implementation should look like, particularly for children who experience foster care.

In 2016, 14-year-old Grace Packer was brutally killed following a childhood marked by sexual abuse, physical violence and repeated contact with the child welfare system. Grace had been adopted by a woman employed by a child welfare agency.

Several years after Grace’s death, a woman from outside Pennsylvania, who herself had been adopted, unexpectedly sent the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) a $300 donation accompanied by a simple, yet powerful request: create a “Saving Grace” fund. That gift has remained in C4CJ’s bank account, waiting for the right moment.

Perhaps that moment has arrived.

Pennsylvania should lead the nation with intentional actions building upon the success of Keystone Scholars to

• automatically enroll children in foster care,

• draw down all federal contributions the child is eligible for, and

• protect the child’s assets from means-tested calculations.

In doing so, the Commonwealth could honor Grace’s memory by providing Pennsylvania children with greater opportunity to heal and thrive, supported in part by tangible financial assets that strengthen their immediate and long-term futures.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The spending plan projected to land on Governor Josh Shapiro’s desk is leaner (by about $2.4 billion) than the Governor’s February proposal. Shapiro and lawmakers could not reach a deal to create new revenue sources (e.g., legalizing adult use cannabis). Late Saturday night, it remained uncertain how much lawmakers were prepared to extract from Pennsylvania’s $8 billion Rainy Day Fund.

A good deal of the human service line items mirror the Governor’s requests for level funding. Two increased line items stood out Saturday night:

• $1.544 billion for county child welfare (Shapiro’s ask was $1.494 billion); and

• $24.171 million for Pennsylvania’s rape crisis, which essentially doubles a line item Shapiro proposed be level funded.

The rape crisis increase will be celebrated by the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect (PCAR) and its affiliates across the Commonwealth, who were persistent in how they humanized what these dollars support by way of healing and justice for survivors.

These funding decisions come at a time when Pennsylvania is once again confronted with whether its child protection strategies serve children as intended. This week, journalists from the Morning Call and NBC10 spotlighted the 10-year anniversary of the murder of 14-year-old Grace Packer. Prior to Grace’s brutal killing, her childhood was marked by extensive sexual abuse and child welfare involvement that crossed multiple counties and was known to a regional office of Pennsylvania’s Department of Human Services (DHS). In addition to her own lived experience with sexual assault, she was connected to other children impacted by sexual abuse while in foster or adoptive placement.

In the decade since Grace was murdered, there have been more children like Grace.

This weekend lawmakers will be asked to vote for a budget and other fast-tracked legislation. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s children continue to wait for comprehensive, continuous and independent-driven reviews of the content and impact of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (CPSL).

As media remembered Grace this week, the spotlight turned to the role of the Commonwealth’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).

After Grace’s Act 33 death review report was released in April 2019, state lawmakers wrote to Pennsylvania’s Office of Inspector General calling for an “independent investigation” of Grace’s life and death citing her extensive involvement with public and private agencies, including PA DHS. The OIG reportedly responded that such an investigation would be a “matter of high public concern and urgency” and that the agency was prepared to “put a lot of resources into it.”

Two years later, state lawmakers were trying to determine if the investigation occurred and if a report had been prepared. By 2023, CBS21 reported that OIG informed the media outlet that the investigation had been hampered by the Child Protective Services Law barring OIG access to child welfare records.

This week, OIG provided a statement to the Morning Call echoing the points made in 2023:

In 2026, OIG remains barred from providing an independent check and balance regarding consequential decisions affecting child safety, well-being and permanency, made with public funds.

In July 2019, Pennsylvania’s governor, referencing the lived experiences of children like Grace, created an Office of Child Advocate (OCA) through an executive order. In July 2026, Pennsylvania has no operational independent and permanent OCA.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Human Services Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF) released a brief titled Child Welfare Ombudsman Offices Provide System Oversight That Can Lead to Policy and Practice Reforms. In that brief, HHS/ACF identified that 45 states and the District of Columbia “have some form of ombudsman or ombudsman-type program”. Pennsylvania is not one of them.

Accountability questions lingered after Grace was killed, her adoptive mother reportedly received Social Security benefits on Grace’s behalf and her Estate secured an $8.9 million settlement after documenting a “lifetime of pain and suffering.” The settlement was reached with organizations that provided “foster, adoption and behavioral health services to Grace throughout her life.” The decision to keep the settlement shielded from public disclosure is being appealed by the Bucks County Courier Times supported by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Over and over, Pennsylvania lawmakers have been presented with powerful reminders how little transparency there is surrounding child welfare spending and outcomes. Still, lawmakers routinely stall providing the Commonwealth’s children (and taxpayers) with any mechanism to independently review and reconcile decisions that are so consequential to children, both in human and fiscal terms.

Alongside the budget, state lawmakers are likely to approve Senate Bill 45, which amends Titles 18 (Crimes), 23 (Domestic Relations) and 42 (Judiciary), and has been described by Senator Chris Dush as “relocating most prostitution offenses to the human trafficking section of the state Crimes Code, enhances the penalties for several of those offenses and places these offenses under the jurisdiction of the Office of Attorney General — giving it the ability to better combat prostitution and human trafficking across the commonwealth.”

The widely supported bipartisan Senate Bill 45 is now being fast-tracked to get to the Governor’s desk. This bill amends Pennsylvania’s CPSL making it an immediate and reasonable legislative vehicle by which lawmakers and Governor Shapiro could finally authorize OIG’s access to child welfare records as the office carries out its mission to “protect government integrity.”

Nothing will restore the life of Grace Packer, but budgets reveal priorities and it is not too late for Pennsylvania to prioritize children whose lived childhood experiences, like Grace’s, are marked by sexual trauma and, too often, preventable deaths.

As Pennsylvania lawmakers prepare to invest more than $1.5 billion in county child welfare, they should ensure that the growing public investment is matched by equally sharp tools of accountability and transparency. Empowering the OIG with access to needed information would be an important and initial step toward this goal.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Being legally eligible for adoption does not guarantee a child will achieve permanency.

While every state has a law authorizing a judge to terminate parental rights based on a specific set of requirements, fewer than half of the states have enacted a law providing a pathway for a former parent to petition the court seeking to have their parental rights restored.

More than a decade ago, Colorado lawmakers declared:

In 2026, Pennsylvania may join Colorado and other states that provide a pathway to restore the legal parent-child relationship.

Pennsylvania State Representative Rick Krajewski (D-Philadelphia) and Republican State Representative Sheryl Delozier (Cumberland) have cosponsored legislation aimed at providing “an opportunity to reinstate the parent-child relationship.” Krajewski and Delozier cited the existing permanent nature of a court order that terminates the parent-child relationship. They urged legislators to create a pathway writing:

Delozier and Krajewski reflected that county CYS agencies are “overwhelmed and frustrated that many children remain within their care for years when they could be with clearly rehabilitated parents.”

The lawmakers cited the “landmark Clean Slate” legislation that seals certain criminal records so that they do not surface as a person applies for employment or housing. Like Clean Slate, lawmakers asserted restoring parental rights would not be “about excusing the harm of the past but about recognizing that parents change, and families deserve second chances.”

On June 2, 2026, the Pennsylvania House Children and Youth Committee amended and then approved House Bill 133. The June 2^nd amendment significantly improved the bill by placing greater emphasis on protecting children, particularly those who previously experienced serious abuse.

As introduced, House Bill 133 placed no limitations on which former parents could petition the court to have their parental rights restored.

It was only through the June 2nd amendment that PA House lawmakers concluded certain former parents should be ineligible to seek restoration of their parental rights. As amended, the bill provides that the following former parents, whose parental rights were previously involuntarily terminated, would not be eligible to file a petition for reinstatement:

• The father of a child “conceived as a result of a rape or incest.”

• A former parent convicted of homicide or aggravated assault, or the the attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit homicide or aggravated assault, when the victim was the former parent’s child.

• A former parent“found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed sexual abuse against the child or another child of the parent”.

• A former parent named as a perpetrator in a founded report of sexual abuse or exploitation against the child or another child of the former parent.

• A former parent who is required to register as a sexual offender.

The amended bill passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives 191 to 11 and is now awaiting action in the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee.

The amended bill passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by a vote of 191 to 11 and now awaits consideration by the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee.

The altered House Bill 133 is consistent with approaches taken by some other states.

For example, Colorado does not permit pursuit of restored parental rights if the termination of those rights was connected to “allegations of sexual abuse or an incident of egregious abuse or neglect against a child, a near fatality, or a suspicious fatality or near fatality.”

Minnesota precludes reestablishment of the parent and child relationship if parental rights were terminated “based on a finding in a legal proceeding of either sexual abuse or other conduct that resulted in the death or a minor” or the individuals was convicted of any of the following crimes connected to “egregious harm” including:

• Infliction of substantial bodily harm (“bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member”).

• Felony malicious punishment of a child (“an intentional act or a series of intentional acts with respect to a child, evidences unreasonable force or cruel discipline that is excessive under the circumstances” and the punishment caused “substantial” or “great bodily harm” or was done to a child under the age of 4 who experienced bodily harm to the head, eyes, neck, or otherwise causes multiple bruises to the body…”).

• Felony unreasonable restraint of a child (physical confinement connected to “typing, locking, caging, or chaining for a prolonged period of time and in a cruel manner which is excessive under the circumstances”).

Not every state sets forth any exclusions. Statutes in North Carolina and Virginia do not appear to identify specific reasons why a parent would be excluded from seeking to have their rights restored. New York takes an eligibility-based approach versus an exclusion-based approach. The statute doesn’t identify categories of parents who cannot seek restoration. Instead, New York limits eligibility to those parents whose rights were terminated on the grounds of abandonment, mental illness or intellectual disability or permanent neglect.

House Bill 133 allows a county child welfare agency, an attorney representing a child who is the subject of the petition or the former parent (or their attorney) to file a reinstatement of parental rights petition.

A petition for reinstatement could be filed if at least 15 months “have elapsed since entry of the order terminating parental rights” or if the child is at least 17 years of age and that older child remains in the custody of a county agency with no petition filed for adoption. In the case of an older child the petition can also be filed if the child was previously adopted but the child is not now “in the custody of the adopted parent” and certain other conditions are met (e.g., a petition for involuntary termination of rights have been filed or are expected against the adoptive parent).

The filed petition would address the grounds on which a court previously terminated parental rights and provide for some “statement of facts and evidence” from the petitioner to demonstrate that the person whose rights would be restored “is willing and able to provide day-to-day care and maintain the child’s health, safety and welfare. If the child is 12 years of age or older then there would need to be some statement as to whether the child “consents to the reinstatement of parental rights or an averment that, despite good faith efforts, the child’s position cannot be ascertained.”

After the petition is filed, the court can “may cause an investigation to be made and a report to be filed” by the county child welfare agency or a private provider or another “appropriate person” as designated by the court. This could result in an “assessment of the home environment, the physical, mental and emotional needs and welfare of the child and the former parent’s capacity to meet the child’s needs.”

The child would be appointed a guardian ad litem and the former parent would receive appointed legal representation if they are unable to pay or securing counsel would “result in substantial financial hardship.”

A prehearing conference would have to be held within 30 days of the petition being filed. When other conditions are met then an evidentiary hearing would be held in 60 days. In that hearing it is the petitioner who has the burden of proof, and all parties can call witnesses and present evidence. If the child is 12 or older, they are to appear at the hearing (can happen “via video”). When the child is under 12 years of age then the court can waive the child’s appearance.

The court would be able to restore the former parent’s parental rights “only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence” that:

• Reinstatement is in the child’s best interest.

• There have been “material changes in circumstances” since the termination of parental rights.

• The child has not been adopted or there has been termination of the adoptive parent’s rights.

• The child (12 years of age or older) “consents to the reinstatement and desires to reside with the former parent”.

• The former parent “is willing and able to provide day-to-day care and maintain the child’s health, safety and welfare.”

The court would be required to issue its written order granting or denying the petition within 30 days. If denied, a new petition could not be filed until one year following the court’s decision.

Prior to the Pennsylvania House approving House Bill 133, a fiscal analysis projected there would be “no fiscal impact to commonwealth funds.” The fiscal note did say that county governments might have some “increase in costs” if they have to conduct “court ordered investigations”. Even those costs are not predictable since there is no way of knowing the “number of petitions for reinstatement that will ultimately be filed.”

During the June 2^nd Committee meeting, Representative Delozier acknowledged that establishing a pathway back to restore parenthood involves a great deal of “devil in the details” legislative work.

At that meeting, lawmakers were informed that while the legislation was supported by Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, Children First, Philly Voice for Change, Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children and the Support Center for Child Advocates, two key stakeholders - the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators (PCYA) and the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP) - were opposed.

Further navigating the details is now the task for the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. Central to that effort will be maintaining an appropriate balance between providing former parents with a meaningful opportunity for a second chance and ensuring that the lived experiences, safety, and voices of children remain at the forefront of the decisions.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Bessent’s remarks drew upon the legacy of America’s first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton. The Secretary reflected on how Hamilton was “an orphan, sustained by little more than a belief that his origins need not define his fate.” The Secretary also cited how Hamilton’s wife, like First Lady Trump, “committed to the cause of foster children” with Hamilton opening America’s “first private orphanage.”

The announced initiative is intended to give state agencies, who are responsible for foster care and serve as the “legal guardian of an eligible child who has a Social Security Number,” to open an initial Trump Account for that child.” States will be able to submit the form (4547) that activate the child’s account.

The June 11th Fostering the Future Accounts noted they will be powered by the Trump Accounts.

As a reminder, the previously announced Trump Accounts will be available to any child under the age of 18. However, only a child born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028 will be eligible for the $1,000 federal deposit into the account. Parents, family or guardians (or their employers) can annually contribute up to $5,000 into the child’s account. The Dell Family has pledged $6.25 billion to make a $250 deposit into the accounts of the “first 25 million American children aged 10 and under living in zip codes with median incomes below $150,000”.

The June 11^th Trump Administration event did not identify any direct federal investment in the Fostering the Future accounts. Instead, the stage is set for states to leverage the authority to open a Trump Account for children in their care so that every foster child has a designated account in their name. It also appears that the state will not be able to draw down the $1,000 federal investment for the children born between 2025 and 2028. That will remain an action and decision by the child’s parent (or another designated party like a foster parent).

Nearly two dozen (all Republican) Governors have committed that they will work to open a Fostering the Future Account for youth: Kay Ivey (Alabama), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Arkansas), Ron DeSantis (Florida), Brian Kemp (Georgia), Brad Little (Idaho), Mike Braun (Indiana), Kim Reynolds (Iowa), Jeff Landry (Louisiana), Tate Reeves (Mississippi), Mike Kehoe (Missouri), Greg Gianforte (Montana), Jim Pillen (Nebraska), Joe Lombardo (Nevada), Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire), Kelly Armstrong (North Dakota), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma), Henry McMaster (South Carolina), Larry Rhoden (South Dakota), Bill Lee (Tennessee), Greg Abbott (Texas), Spencer Cox (Utah), and Patrick Morrisey (West Virginia).

Added clarification will be needed for states like Pennsylvania that currently have a child savings account (CSA) program (sometimes called child development accounts).

In 2018, Pennsylvania lawmakers created Keystone Scholars, which provides a $100 account for every child born after January 1, 2019. Pennsylvania’s universal at birth child savings account is framed as an early “scholarship” that can be added to and grown throughout childhood to be used for post-secondary education (technical or vocational or higher education).

Children, who have been adopted after January 1, 2019, are also eligible for a Keystone Scholars account. As of June 30, 2025, nearly 800,000 children (about 11% who are eligible) are reported to have claimed their Keystone Scholar account. Fewer children (about 8%) in rural communities have claimed compared to nearly 12% in urban areas.

Currently, Pennsylvania’s Treasury Office, which administers the accounts, does not get access to which children are in foster care.

More details will emerge in the days ahead to clarify how states will implement Fostering the Future Accounts for children and youth in foster care. Beyond the mechanics of opening the accounts, a foundational question will be whether states, private funders and others will make direct investment in the accounts of children who, by the nature of their lived experience, lack the traditional pathways through which assets and savings are accumulated. Additionally, it will be important to connect these youth with survivor benefits they are eligible for through Social Security or even Veterans benefits for children of disabled or deceased veterans.

Simply opening the accounts, absent intentional investment in them, will not achieve the goal articulated by the First Lady of providing foster children with the “chance for asset ownership and long-term wealth building” in order to “strengthen America’s workforce, communities, and economic future.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

This overwhelming support to make the Office of Youth Ombudsperson (OYO) a permanent office in Philadelphia was made possible because of incredible advocacy by youth themselves - the persistent power of their voices, the frustration of their lived experiences - finally became too hard for City leaders and voters to ignore.

Youth are regularly supported in the hard moments and now in this moment of pure joy by capable independent advocates from Children First, Juvenile Law Center, Support Center for Child Advocates, Defender Association of Philadelphia and so many others.

The existing OYO, which was created in 2022 by an executive order (EO) of the Mayor, has been so well led by Tracie Johnson, Esq. and a team of folks ensuring that the voters had an example and track record to look to as they weighed a yes or no vote.

OYO’s 2024 report on the safety and quality of youth placements identified concerns about the lack of information sharing and cooperation between local and state agencies called in to respond to concerns about a child’s safety urging that “investigative bodies should collaborate and improve information sharing in order to catch systemic or otherwise concealed issues within facilities.”

Johnson and her team have proven this isn't more bureaucracy, it's a necessary check up with a unique lens into systems that are so consequential - in terms of public dollars spent and lives impacted.

Now all eyes turn to Harrisburg to see if and legislative leaders are ready to model the bold actions and commitment of City leaders like Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.

Pennsylvania has long struggled to establish a permanent independent Office of Child Advocate (OCA).

The City of Philadelphia's children and youth - unlike youth in the other 66 PA counties - have access to an independent mechanism assuring their safety and well-being safeguarded and to issue spot challenges that may, on the surface, look like an anomaly, but in fact is a pattern of concern with impact for the collective community of children and youth.

Philadelphia - in less than 5 years - shifted from an EO to a direct ask of the voters to make the office permanent. Now City leaders will fully implement the voters will with any needed legislation and in annual budgets.

Contrast that timeline and commitment with this reality check - it's been 25 years in which Governors and bipartisan PA lawmakers have said they support an independent OCA (read the March 30th Check Up - The Fox, the Henhouse and Pennsylvania’s Children), but just never get it done.

Yesterday, Philadelphia leaders and voters chose not to ignore the voices and lived experience of children and youth.

It’s not too late for Pennsylvania leaders to do the same.

2026 should be the year Harrisburg finally stands up for the one constituency that has no power, but whose access to the basics of childhood -safety, education, and nurturing connections with family and other caring adults - will profoundly shape the strength, security and fiscal stability of our great Commonwealth.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The legislator - current Pennsylvania state representative Chris Rabb, who is also a candidate for Congress, suggests his no votes were informed by expressed principles and a desire to improve the bills. For example, in justifying his no vote, on a bill crafted to increase criminal penalties for those who engage in trafficking infants, wrote:

Digging deeper on Rabb’s votes is reasonable and fair game.

Still, it also feels like important context is missing. Also that there is not a similar scrutiny of all policymakers in Harrisburg and the job they are doing well (or not so well) on behalf of vulnerable and victimized children.

Escaping any media coverage is how so many other legislators, who serve on the consequential PA House Judiciary Committee, didn’t ask one question, didn’t look up from their hand held devices or if they did speak often expressed concerns the bills were not crafted as they needed to be and that work was still needed. Lawmakers, who seemed distracted and those invested in speaking up and identifying shortcomings, all did the same thing - voted bills out of committee with a promise it would all get worked out eventually and somewhere else.

Once bills, which many acknowledged still needed work, moved out of the PA House Judiciary Committee, the press releases were instantly flowing. These press releases told a story about how legislators voted to help victimized kids. They did not tell the public the likelihood (or not) that these bills ever make it to becoming law or how they may well need some serious amendment before they land on the governor’s desk. And few weighed any unintended consequences that could be on the horizon.

Harrisburg policymakers are increasingly engaged in troubling procedures that are not good for kids or democracy - pass bills (often bills unread by legislators), issue press releases, get a moment of the public’s attention and appreciation and then move on. Even if bills become law, standing committees of the General Assembly and lawmakers as a whole rarely check in on how the law is implemented and with what effect - intended and unintended.

Few policymakers or the process itself would earn passing grades if this were school related work.

Folks can judge and in a democracy we always should be asking questions and holding folks to account.

Still, the House Judiciary Committee meeting on Monday is worthy of its own scrutiny, including surrounding a hastily created bill requiring that when minors make AI generated deepfake nude images it gets reported to authorities (something current law does not require). PA’s lack of required reporting had an impact for 60 female students connected to the Lancaster Country Day School.

Years after these female students were victimized, legislators are still struggling to send a clear signal - child sexual abuse material (child pornography) created by minors should be reported to authorities. Here’s another reality check, that AI deepfake reporting bill (House Bill 2474) acted on in House Judiciary this week is a whole lot like another bill (Senate Bill 1050). SB 1050 is a bill that the House Judiciary leaders kept bottled up for nearly 6 months despite the bill having passed the Senate 46-0, was cosponsored by 44% of Pennsylvania’s state senators and was crafted by Republicans but later amended with important language from a Democrat.

The House Judiciary Committee’s action on Monday guaranteed added delays in closing a reporting loophole all parties agree must be closed. And the House’s bill acquiesced to the demands of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) that it get a full year to implement what is largely a minor, yet consequential, change to Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting law.

As for the funding bill for children’s advocacy centers (CACs), it’s curious because Rabb seems to get it based on his issued statement.

Rabb acknowledged that this isn’t about whether a child-centered, trauma-informed and multidisciplinary response to reports of child abuse should happen and be funded. Instead his vote appears to reflect a reasonable point about the source and stability of the funding being recommended (added fines and fees on criminal defendants).

The Commonwealth legally requires many individuals to report suspected child abuse or neglect or face civil and criminal penalties. The Commonwealth also has laws about investigating maltreatment of children - a process that has great impact on the child and the person that stands accused of the abuse.

In other words, this isn’t inconsequential stuff, yet the PA House Judiciary Committee meeting was short on discussion and within minutes after votes were cast press releases were flying with lawmakers stressing how they were all about and for safeguarding children and funding CACs.

Unexplored in the committee meeting was the comprehensive findings and recommendations from the Keystone Child Abuse Medical Forum that, at the request of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) and the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS), issued a strategic plan in 2023.

Pennsylvania has yet to fully address these findings and recommendations. Additionally, Governor , legislative leaders and DHS () have not committed to an easily identified, stable funding source for children’s advocacy centers (CACs). As a result there is great variation across the Commonwealth in whether a child receives a forensic interview, is connected to expert medical care and other services and supports to help them heal. Beyond the funding issue, the Commonwealth has yet to set forth the appropriate statutory expectations regarding when a child must go to a CAC.

Also not explored was the interplay between cases referred to the CACs and reports filed by county child welfare agencies, to what degree data from CACs is included is in the Commonwealth’s annual Protective Services reports issued by PA DHS, or which counties request and receive state funding through the Needs Based Plan and Budget process (aka as the county child welfare line item in the Commonwealth Budget, page 242 of this publication) to support CACs. Included below is a chart reflecting 2023 funding obtained by the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) as part of a Right to Know Law (RTKL) request. It invites questions worthy of discussion.

So it’s ironic that one of the legislators who seemed to, at a minimum, have reviewed and evaluated the promoted child protection bills prior to casting his votes is the only one getting the heat.

Look any vote or action by a public official should be scrutinized, but not solely for political shenanigans.

What’s concerning is not the critique of Representative Rabb’s votes, but the absence of any outrage that over and over Harrisburg policymakers - individually and collectively - shortchange victimized kids.

Victimized children desperately need intentional, research-informed and robust debates and strategies, not hastily or poorly crafted legislation born out of political calculations followed by a plethora of performative press releases.

Buried under the stacks of bills and the chorus of press releases are very vulnerable children whose lived experiences have not changed. Until child protection policies reflects that truth—with rigor, humility, and accountability—the system will continue to prioritize adult interests over keeping kids safe.

#ForKidsNotKidding

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Two individuals have been charged with aggravated cruelty to animals, neglect of animals, abandonment of a dog and other related charges. One of the defendants apparently is also involved in the courts related to truancy.

In response to Aimee’s death, Pennsylvania state senator Dan Laughlin (R-Erie), who is a Republican, proposed legislation to “establish a publicly accessible registry of individuals convicted of felony animal abuse offenses.” On April 28, 2026, Senate Bill 1311 was referred to the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee. The bipartisan bill has 9 cosponsors, including two Democrats (Lisa Boscola and James Malone).

Prior to Laughlin’s decision to introduce legislation, bipartisan lawmakers in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives announced they would introduce an animal abuse registry bill.

Senate Bill 1311 would require that the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) “shall maintain and post a registry on a publicly accessible Internet website that includes individuals convicted on or after the effective date of this subsection of an animal abuse offense.” The registry would have to include a photograph of the individual convicted of an animal abuse offense as well as the individual’s full legal name “and any other identifying data” determined by PSP to be necessary “to properly identify the individual and to exclude innocent individuals.” PSP would receive the information from the clerk of courts “within 60 calendar days of the date of the judgment.”

Individuals would remain on the animal abuse registry for two years and then removed if there were no additional animal abuse convictions. A subsequent conviction would include the person on the registry for five years. The bill would permit a judge, “based on the severity of the animal abuse,” to keep the individual on the registry longer than five years and to impose a “lifetime ban on the ownership of an animal.”

Individuals, who are engaged in selling, transferring, or facilitating the adoption of an animal, would be required to “verify that the prospective owner is not listed on the registry.”

While the Cruelty to Animals section of Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code is more extensive (Title 42, §5531 - §5561), Senate Bill 1311 limits placement on the registry to a conviction related to aggravated animal cruelty (§5534) defined as when a person “intentionally or knowingly”:

1. Tortures an animal.

2. Engages in neglect or cruelty that causes serious bodily injury to the animal or the death of an animal.

Violation of §5534 is a felony of the third degree.

Current statute defines torture as any of the following “acts” (unless done by a licensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine within the “normal scope of practice”):

1. Breaking, severing or severely impairing limbs.

2. Inflicting severe and prolonged pain from burning, crushing or wounding.

3. Causing or allowing severe and prolonged pain through prolonged deprivation of food or sustenance without veterinary care.

Given that the offense of aggravated animal cruelty links back to cruelty of animal and neglect of animal, it is important to understand those statutory provisions.

Neglect of animal is when a person “fails to provide for the basic needs of each animal to which the person has a duty of care, whether belonging to himself or otherwise”, including any of the following:

1. Necessary sustenance and potable water.

2. Access to clean and sanitary shelter and protection from the weather. The shelter must be sufficient to permit the animal to retain body heat and keep the animal dry.

3. Necessary veterinary care.

Cruelty to animal is defined as when a person “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly illtreats, overloads, beats, abandons or abuses an animal.”

Tennessee created the first statewide animal abuse registry

In 2016, Tennessee enacted legislation creating the first statewide Animal Abuser Registry. The registry remains operational today. Individuals convicted of aggravated cruelty to animals, animal fighting and sexual contact with an animal are included in the registry. The registry includes a person’s full legal name, a photograph and other identifying information (excluding driver’s license, Social Security number or other state or federal identification numbers).

Tennessee’s law drew critique from an animal welfare advocate in August 2025:

Florida creates a registry and quickly works to recalibrate it

In May 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 255 into law requiring that Florida’s Department of Law Enforcement publicly post the names of individuals convicted of aggravated animal cruelty. Deemed Dexter’s Law, the statute requires that individuals remain on the registry for a period of either three, five or ten years connected to the severity of the offense and if it is a first or subsequent conviction. Prior to establishment of a state statute, approximately 10 percent of Florida’s 67 counties operated animal abuse registries.

In 2025, the Florida Bar Association (FBA) gave an award to Representative Lynda Chaney, who championed Dexter’s law. FBA praised the representative for understanding “that providing safety for animals provides safety for people and communities.”

Concerns have surfaced from local animal shelters and animal control officers as well as law enforcement about Florida’s new law. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office called the database only “marginally helpful” since it only includes the person’s first and last name.

Responding to those concerns, this year bipartisan lawmakers (in the House and Senate) supported legislation to rework the registry so, going forward, it would include the offender’s name, but also “all aliases, the date of birth, race, county of conviction, charge or charges, case number, disposition, description of any identifying marks and tattoos, and a photograph taken at the time of booking. The bill was approved unanimously by the Florida House and Senate and sent to Governor DeSantis. This new law also created a criminal offense involving animal cruelty witnessed by a child. Additionally, minors, who commit an act of animal cruelty, would be required “to undergo a psychological evaluation” and if recommended “receive counseling or treatment.”

Shared understanding and urgency regarding the link between animal cruelty and human maltreatment

Growing legislative efforts reflect growing understanding about the relationship between animal cruelty and other forms of violence.

In encouraging his senate colleagues to sponsor the Pennsylvania animal abuse registry bill, Senator Laughlan wrote, “There is evidence that a history of animal abuse can correlate with other violent behaviors, and a registry increases transparency and public safety.

A decade ago, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intentionally added animal cruelty to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This change allowed local jurisdictions to add data to NIBRS tracking criminal offenses related to: simple/gross neglect, organized abuse, intentional abuse and torture, or animal sexual abuse. NIBRS includes de-identified offender demographics, elements of the crime (e.g., location) and whether or not there were co-occurring crimes and whether an arrest was made. Data on animal cruelty has invited researchers and law enforcement to explore the degree to which crimes against animals co-occurs or precedes crimes against children or within the context of family violence.

The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) is leveraging the decade of data through its Center for the Study of NIBRS Animal Cruelty Data toward informing “more effective intervention and prevention strategies.” AWI reports that one of the two “most prominent forms of violence against family members (excluding spouses) associated with animal cruelty” was sibling violence. AWI also reports that 20 percent of intentional animal abuse cases involved other crimes, including “assault, sexual assault, and robbery.” After reviewing data related to offenses committed by individuals 25 or younger, AWI wrote:

In 2019, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court issued guidance to judges to have judges onsider animal abuse in court decisions affecting children and families.

ASPCA cautions registries may do “little to protect animals or people”

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has issued an official position statement on such registries. ASPCA acknowledges that registries result from “a genuine motivation to take animal cruelty seriously.” Still, the ASPCA caution registries may ultimately do “little to protect animals or people and can have unintended consequences.” Instead, the ASPCA advocates for interventions that include: well-enforced no contact orders, mandated psychological assessment and inclusion of pets in orders of protection.

With its position statement, a leading voice and champion for animal protection invites policymakers and the public to tackle a hard question: are registries, while visible, politically compelling and touted as protective, the most effective way to keep animals and the people connected to them safe?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

As required by Act 33 (2008), the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) has now released her child fatality report. In describing her condition that day, DHS cites findings from the Coroner’s Office:

In July 2024, Malinda’s father, Rendell Hoagland and her “de facto” step-mother, Cindy Warren were each charged with Murder of the First Degree, Murder of the Second Degree, Murder of the Third Degree, Involuntary Servitude, and other additional charges.

On January 16, 2026, Hoagland pleaded guilty to a host of criminal offenses and was sentenced to life in prison. Warren’s criminal trial is slated to begin in June 2026.

Malinda’s Act 33 is short on details, big on black ink

When the General Assembly enacted Act 33, it was envisioned that the fatality review process would cultivate “objective expertise and transparency of the facts” so that communities can “learn from the cases and take immediate steps to prevent future harm to children.”

The quality of the reviews, the anemic nature of and follow up on recommendations, the lengthy delay between a child’s death and publicly released reports combined with pages of black ink demonstrate enacting laws has little value if implementation is fundamentally flawed.

Local Act 33 teams are expected to be “broadly representative” of the community. Act 33 reports provide no insight into who participates or leads the review.

These local teams are tasked with reviewing whether the child, who had died or nearly died, had history with any child welfare agency. By law, however, the review is to extend beyond child welfare involvement exploring any contact with or services delivered to the child, child’s family or the alleged perpetrator(s), including involvement with law enforcement, mental health, early intervention, school, health care, etc.

Malinda’s heavily redacted Act 33 report continues DHS’ pattern of obscuring core insight into the child’s lived experience and systems involvement. Her Act 33 report includes one sentence followed by two pages of black ink.

As DHS overtly redacts reports, many details of a child’s life are well documented in media reports, law enforcement documents or court records.

For example, in 2007, journalist, Andrew Scott, reporting for the Pocono Record detailed how Warren had lost custody of her children for the “second time”. The media report traced how Warren hoped a judge wouldn’t sever her parental rights after she pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of children. Scott also wrote, “Records of domestic misery, death and child abuse overflow the McKinley Warren family’s files at the Monroe County Courthouse.”

The Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) has reviewed a variety of sources discovering that Malinda was one of 8 children that would be born to or in the care and custody of Warren between 2000 and 2024:

1. JB (died in 2000, death ruled a homicide, criminal charges delayed until 2007).

2. MW III (noted as older brother of IW in media report, spent time in foster care).

3. BW (noted as older brother of IW in report, spent time in foster care).

4. Child born in 2001.

5. IW (born in 2003 and in 2007 substantiated victim of physical abuse with the child’s father, McKinley Warren and step-mother, Cindy Warren each pleading guilty to criminal charges). This incident leads law enforcement to further investigate JB’s 2000 homicide.

6. Younger sister (noted in media report).

7. Malinda Hoagland (died in 2024, 12 years old).

8. Son of Cindy Warren (noted as 9 years old in 2024 media reports, father not reported).

Malinda’s Act 33 report reveals none of this detail. It also does not document Malinda’s connection to health care, school, or any other normal childhood experience.

Yet, an affidavit of probable cause filed by law enforcement within a few days of Malinda’s May 2024 death reveals that Malinda and her family moved to Chester County from the Poconos in 2022 and that Malinda “had not seen a doctor” while living in Chester County. That same document indicates that Malinda was part of a cyber school experience.

Media reports also reveal that Malinda’s father and biological mother, who still lived in Monroe County, had been before a court related to custody of Malinda. As part of that custody agreement, Warren was reportedly not to be alone with or directly caring for Malinda.

ChildLine failed to identify Warren as a previous perpetrator of child abuse

The Act 33 report notes that Pennsylvania’s 67 county children and youth services agencies (CYS) continue to use different case management systems. Therefore, the “most reliable source of information is ChildLine as the central repository for child abuse history information.”

The redactions hamper the ability to definitively say, but it appears reasonable that, in 2023 and 2024, Cindy Warren could be discovered within the Child Welfare Information System (CWIS) operated by DHS’ ChildLine. It’s likely that, at a minimum, Warren was listed as a named perpetrator of a substantiated child abuse report connected to her 2007 guilty plea to endangering the welfare of children (EWOC) and being sentenced to serve 3 to 7 years in prison.

Since Malinda’s death, C4CJ has asked DHS about whether ChildLine had flagged Warren’s child abuse history before dispatching any reports made about Malinda’s safety to Chester County. DHS was unresponsive. The Act 33 report reveals:

Review of ChildLine’s Hotline Manual (both the 2022 and 2025 versions) reveals this instruction for ChildLine staff:

The local Act 33 team offered this as a recommendation for change at the state or local level toward “reducing the likelihood of future child fatalities”:

A challenge with Act 33 is that the review of “strengths” and “weaknesses” can be limited to county child welfare agencies actions or inactions. Act 33 doesn’t lend itself to identifying and addressing weaknesses linked to PA DHS itself.

Before Malinda died, mandated reporters apparently contacted ChildLine. ChildLine passed those reports onto the county, but failed to alert the county agency of any prior child welfare history.

PA DHS Secretary, Valerie Arkoosh, has been speaking at events in April, which is recognized as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, encouraging support for Governor Josh Shapiro’s budget request to add 20 staff to ChildLine. Shapiro is seeking $902,000 ($658,000 in state funds). A few years ago, Shapiro asked for 10 additional ChildLine staff and at that time he sought $1.146 million. It’s unclear why in 2026-2027 the dollar figure is lower, but the number of additional ChildLine staff is higher.

In 2023, DHS told CBS21 that ChildLine operated with 80 caseworkers, 12 supervisors and 2 managers. As part of a 2016 Audit report from the Pennsylvania Auditor General, it was reported there were 60 caseworker positions filled with 12 vacancies as of June 30, 2016 (“17 percent of the approved complement unfilled”). In 2026, it is unclear the total number of ChildLine caseworkers, supervisors or managers based on DHS’ 2026-2027 budget book.

CYS agencies: reviewing criminal history is “difficult and time-consuming”

The Act 33 report also notes that Chester County’s child welfare agency “does have access to” CWIS.

Yet no search of CWIS was conducted in this case. Also noted is how county CYS agencies can conduct criminal history checks on individuals named in a child abuse report or a general protective services (non abuse) report but the Act 33 report underscored it can be “difficult and time-consuming.”

DHS flagged how the county agency “failed to do a thorough check” and recommended:

50% plus of General protective services (GPS) referrals screened out

An added complication in Malinda’s case relates to Pennsylvania’s child protection strategies having a differential approach to what is received at ChildLine.

ChildLine receives a call or processes a report made on the online portal from a mandated reporter and then either registers and numbers the report as suspected child abuse or neglect (known as child protective services report) or codes it as a GPS referral. Unlike CPS reports, which cannot be screened out and must be timely investigated, county CYS agencies can screen out GPS (known as non abuse) referrals. Types of concern that are categorized as GPS include (are not limited to):

• truancy/educational neglect

• caregiver substance use

• inappropriate discipline

• domestic violence

• homelessness

• isolation

In 2024, Pennsylvania recorded 176,496 GPS referrals. Over 53 percent (n=94,935) of these GPS referrals were screened out by a county CYS agency. Chester County, where Malinda died in 2024, screened out more than 61% (n= 2,397) of its GPS reports.

It appears there was discussion among the Act 33 team as to whether a county should be able to screen out a GPS report if a search of CWIS has not been done. Apparently some Act 33 Team members believed GPS screen outs should not require a search, while others believed “it should be a requirement.”

A noted concern was how “difficult and time-consuming” it can be for county CYS agencies to conduct criminal history checks on referrals. It was suggested that legislation “regarding the sharing of criminal history information with child protective services could help improve the flow of information.”

Three years before Malinda died, a Pennsylvania House of Representatives Standing Committee held a hearing calling for greater collaboration to protect children. At that hearing, Montgomery County Assistant District Attorney, Ed McCann testified:

The General Assembly would go on to enact Act 42 of 2021. The legislation amended the Crimes Code permitting criminal justice agencies to provide information “relating to an allegation or instance of child abuse” to CYS agencies or children’s advocacy centers (CACs). This promoted information sharing is linked to investigating suspected child abuse, not triaging or assessing GPS referrals.

Mismatch between expectations of mandated reporters and how the system responds

In the wake of Malinda’s death, the Chester County District Attorney offered this reminder:

Herein lies an inherent tension and frustration noted by the public and mandated reporters. Reports are made, but then the system seems to not respond as the public expects.

The Act 33 report acknowledges the tension.

Shortly after her death, media reported that the Coatesville School District, where Malinda had been a student until December 2023, said school staff “diligently reported concerns about her welfare to the state agency that receives and manages concerns.” The school statement suggests that it was after those concerns were relayed to ChildLine that Malinda was “withdrawn from our schools” and enrolled in a cyber charter school.

The Act 33 team said a “deficiency” in protecting Malinda was her “minimal contact with mandated reporters.” It may be true that once she was enrolled within the cyber charter school starting in January 2024, reports were not made, but it appears before her life became so threatened, public school staff did speak up.

The Act 33 team also recognized the limitations in what can be relayed to a mandated reporter after a report is made.

Under current Pennsylvania law (Title 23, § 6340. Release of information in confidential reports), the mandated reporter can be told whether the child abuse report was substantiated (indicated or founded) or unfounded. Also they can be informed about “any services provided, arranged for or to be provided by the county agency to protect the child.” This language doesn’t well capture child welfare’s ability to inform the mandated reporter in matters that get categorized as GPS and are deemed invalid and/or screened out.

Another section of Title 23 (§ 6340.1. Exchange of information) requires a county agency to communicate information to certain certified medical practitioners if the medical provider makes a request. Sharing of information is limited to the “child’s primary care physician or a certified medical practitioner who is providing medical care to the child.” The county agency is able to share information related to:

• The status and outcome of any investigation and assessment for general protective services.

• Information from an unfounded report of child abuse.

• If the child or family was accepted for services and what services were arranged for or provided.

• The identity of any other certified medical practitioner providing medical care to the child.

Act 33 reviews still far from “objective”

At the time of Malinda’s fatality review, Pennsylvania employed a Child Advocate within Governor Josh Shapiro’s office. The Advocate resigned in January 2025, citing the absence of a state law defining the scope of work, access to records, and even basic operational support (e.g., phone number and website).

Even if the Commonwealth were still employing a Child Advocate, there is no legal requirement to include the Advocate in Act 33 reviews. Still, prior to the Shapiro Administration, DHS supported inclusion.

The Child Advocate, operating out of the Governor’s office in the summer of 2024, pushed to be included in Malinda’s review. This reportedly didn’t sit well with everyone in the county, nor was it embraced by DHS.

Similar to C4CJ, the Advocate was asking questions about the role of ChildLine in checking on prior child welfare involvement of Malinda’s father and defacto stepmother.

With the release of the Act 33 report, it is clear that these were reasonable and pivotal questions.

Prior to agreeing to Governor Shapiro’s request for more funding for ChildLine, lawmakers should dig deeper determining whether the same failures that preceded Malinda’s death can still occur today, with or without 20 additional staff.

And lawmakers should hold themselves to account—not only for the persistent refusal to establish a permanent independent Office of Child Advocate, but for how often children like Malinda slip through the cracks with little urgency in protecting the next child.

A system that urges the public and mandated reporters to speak up—while remaining underprepared or unwilling to respond effectively—is more than flawed. It is negligent.

In May 2024, Malinda paid the price for that negligence.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In that role, Alyssa Wright, was responsible for the direct “oversight of” special education services, gifted education programs and all students served under Chapter 15 of Pennsylvania Code Title 22, which establishes protections for students with disabilities. Wright supervised the District’s Supervisor of Special Education, and it was that employee, who in October 2024, informed Wright that a student in a special education classroom within the Jamison Elementary School “was naked during instruction time.”

Within a month, a staff nurse raised additional concerns about “the treatment of students” in the same classroom. These included restricting “students’ bodily movements”, students acting out sexually, and a “student regularly hit other students.” Additional concerns about staff “mocking students” and “depriving students of access to water” and “physically restraining multiple students in their workspace” had been relayed. Wright directed another staff member to then observe the classroom. No report was made to ChildLine – the Commonwealth’s suspected child abuse and neglect reporting hotline or portal operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS).

On November 20, 2024, the District’s Superintendent contacted ChildLine.

By June 2025, the School Board had “issued a Statement of Charges to Wright charging her with violations of the Code of Professional Conduct for Educators, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Child Protective Services Law.” Wright was also “charged with incompetency, persistent negligence in the performance of duties, willful neglect of duties, and persistent and willful violation of or failure to comply with the school laws of the Commonwealth.”

While Rowe’s decision focused on whether Wright’s termination was valid, it also revealed something broader: a chain of mandated reporters who did not initially – or promptly – report any suspected abuse or neglect in the classroom. PDE’s decision traces the involvement and actions of individuals that included the District Supervisor of Special Education, the staff nurse, the Director of Human Resources, and others who were aware and involved in observing behaviors and/or directed to investigate if there was abuse or neglect in a special education classroom. Apparently none filed a report with ChildLine.

PDE’s decision echoes a April 2025 finding from Disability Rights PA in which they wrote, “Several mandated reporters at Jamison and the District failed to file a ChildLine report.” The organization would also conclude that even when a ChildLine report was filed “on behalf of the District” it was “incomplete, and misleading.”

PDE’s decision that the case involved a “serious failure to file a ChildLine report” despite the Appellant holding a position that “involved supervision over students with disabilities; a population vulnerable to abuse and neglect” should be received as a call-to-action.

Disability Rights PA identified the need for “robust and regular” training for staff both on the use and restrictions on restraints and related to “responsibilities” under Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (CPSL). PDE’s decision reinforces that need, while also leaning into a deeper issue: training alone is not enough without well-defined statute and policies alongside meaningful accountability.

Questions about whether Pennsylvania has the right tools, both for prevention and accountability, surfaced at a late February 2026 hearing on the budget request for the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. DHS directs public dollars to fund (at least) three contracts to train mandated reporters. DHS has also approved dozens of curriculums from a variety of entities providing their own training, including some that are jointly reviewed and then approved with PDE.

Yet concerns persist about whether these training efforts translate into timely and high-quality reports.

Routinely, mandated reporters describe mixed messaging about when and why to report and report that training leaves them with one main message - the more reports the better. At the same time, county and state child welfare officials continue to warn that too many reports are filed and that has overwhelmed an already under-resourced ChildLine and county agencies. Child welfare officials also regularly screen out approximately half of a big bucket of reports that are made.

This tension regarding concerns about over reporting and equally compelling evidence of underreporting reveals a system in need of calibration. Volume, in an of itself, is not the metric that should gain our attention versus the clarity and consistency in applying and enforcing the law and measuring the impacts of the law itself.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has called for more money for ChidlLine in his 2026-2027 Commonwealth Budget. The ChildLine funding increase surfaced at the Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee reviewing the DHS Budget. During that hearing, Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman, Scott Martin highlighted “topics” requiring deeper review and conversation:

1. Strengthen protections for children with special needs and should it be a more clarifying questions - “to dig deeper” - understanding that the child may not be able to communicate what happened to them.

2. Update reporting standards including if there are any conflict of interests that could impact whether a report is made.

3. Awareness with parents about how to prevent and report abuse outside their home, what they can and should do if their child is abused.

4. In cases where the minor is the subject of a report filed by a school, should parents be able to know that and see the report.

5. Accountability - some mechanism for “confirmation” that a report to ChildLine was made (and made timely).

He underscored that “having justice” when a child is harmed “should always be at the forefront” and he told the DHS Secretary he “welcomed more conversations on all of this.”

Martin’s concerns are not theoretical. His Lancaster County district has been at the heart of an incident in which two male students at the Lancaster Country Day School used artificial intelligence (AI) to create child sexual abuse materials (child pornography) involving dozens of their female classmates. The boys have recently been adjudicated in juvenile court. Meanwhile, the adults at the school, who were informed about the AI generated child pornography involving students did not initially make a report to authorities. A delayed decision that expanded the pool of young female victims. In that case, the Lancaster County District Attorney didn’t charge the adult school officials citing a loophole in the CPSL that allows mandated reporters to forgo making a report when all involved parties are minors unless what unfolded falls into one of a handful of specific crimes.

Bipartisan Pennsylvania Senators have led the way to close the loophole and the Pennsylvania Senate voted unanimously in October on legislation (Senate Bill 1050). Yet, this well-identified statutory loophole remains because Pennsylvania House leaders and the Shapiro Administration have pushed back making the legislation’s future uncertain.

In another case law enforcement in Lancaster County did not pursue charges against a teacher reported to have restrained a 5-year-old child with autism “in a small, enclosed area” for over an hour. Staff that observed the incident were said to have provided statements that “contradicted” each other and “multiple other witnesses refused to speak with police.”

From Central Bucks to Lancaster to Bedford to Western Pennsylvania, a pattern has emerged: uncertainty and inconsistency – in both understanding, application and enforcement of Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting law.

The CPSL’s gaps, especially surrounding child-on-child contact and the role and use of restraints in specialized care settings or classrooms, has been known for years. Yet meaningful statutory review and reform have not emerged.

Recently, a state representative has called on the Office of Attorney General to review incidents of sexual harm involving school students that apparently went unreported.

In October 2024, the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) worked with journalists to ensure that there was a question woven into the debate for Attorney General specific to mandatory reporting. Specifically, WGAL journalist Brian Roche asked:

It will not require hard work on the part of AG Dave Sunday, the Shapiro Administration and others to identify what needs changed. They can start from a list identified by diverse stakeholders in September 2024 submitted a list to DHS and PDE (no response from either state agency). They can also lean into those outlined by Senator Martin in February 2026.

Pennsylvania does not lack awareness—it suffers from a lack of will.

And it is long past time to act. When the system sends mixed signals about reporting—too much, too little, too late—the consequences are not abstract. They are measured in harm to children.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

In advancing the legislation, Howerton asked her colleagues:

She noted that more than 40,000 names appear in a database used for employment screening that has had “little legislative review” even as placement on the registry carries “real, lasting consequences for employment and reputation, despite never being tested in an evidentiary process.”

Courts, she observed, have not found such registries “unconstitutional on their face.” Still, courts have found “they do violate due process when people are listed before meaningful hearings, when standards of proof are too low for the consequences imposed, and when listings effectively bar employment.”

She criticized existing practice that allows placement on the registry absent due process outlining how a child welfare investigator “and possibly a supervisor” can determine that a report of abuse or neglect should be substantiated, and the person named as a perpetrator then placed on the registry. The evidentiary standard is clear and convincing evidence, and the new law doesn’t change that standard.

The Kansas Department of Children and Families previously reported that the agency processed 315,000 registry checks in 2022 and by 2024 there had been a “24% rise” with 389,000 checks completed. The state charges $10 for a check and is in the process of fully automating the system.

DCF testified in support of the legislation. The Children’s Alliance of Kansas, the statewide trade association for private providers of child welfare services, also supported the bill emphasizing the necessity for “clear standards, transparency, and uniform application across the state.” The Alliance concluded:

Kansas’ independent Office of Child Advocate was neutral on the bill expressing “support for the intent” of the legislation, while urging that it be more “carefully considered” given the consequences.

The Child Advocate also called for a “robust discussion” about the purpose and construct of a registry pointing to a July 2025 report from the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit released - Evaluating State Agencies’ Registries of Perpetrators of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. That review identified that a variety of state agencies (e.g., Department for Aging and Disability Services, the Department for Children and Families, and the Department of Health and Environment) as well as licensing board have some obligation to maintain “perpetrator registries or other related databases.” It was determined that the approach is fragmented assuring that there is no “comprehensive list” of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation (ANE) perpetrators. Even the individual registries were cited as likely to be incomplete because the overall process “is very complex” with “different interpretations of state law” resulting in different approaches “in how agencies investigated, documented or referred” these cases. The audit found times where “perpetrators of ANE might not have been added to registries, as they should have been.” The review team concluded thatregistries can be a “tool” to keep vulnerable populations safe. Still, their “usefulness is limited when they are incomplete or difficult for the public to navigate.”

Key provisions of Kansas’ new law

The newly signed law (House Bill 2601) requires:

• No placement on the registry “without providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing and any subsequent appeals.”

• An independent “Presiding Officer” (“shall not be the secretary for children and families or a person designated by the secretary”).

• Access to records “pertaining to the report of the alleged instance of abuse or neglect” and the ability of the individual to “waive the right to a hearing and not contest placement on the registry” without prejudice in other judicial or administrative proceedings.

• A Presiding Officer’s order determining that the abuse or neglect finding is supported by “clear and convincing evidence” before placement.

• The right to an appeal to district court following the Presiding Officer’s decision.

• Opportunity for expungement after three years. The DCF Secretary “may expunge” an individual from the registry if “three years have elapsed since the order was entered” and the Secretary has now considered:

  • “The nature and severity of the abuse or neglect case against the applicant;

  • The number of any other substantiated reports of abuse or neglect involving the applicant;

  • Circumstances that no longer contribute to the finding;

  • Whether the applicant was a juvenile at the time of the finding; and actions taken by the applicant to prevent the reoccurrence of abuse or neglect.”

• Review and possible expungement of the individual from the registry after 20 years.

The new law allows a county attorney or district attorney to file a petition with the DCF Secretary “alleging that an individual has committed a crime against a child or has abused or neglected a child” and at that point the Secretary “may investigate and place the individual on the registry”.

Additionally, a court “shall order” the DCF Secretary to place an individual on the registry if the individual is:

• Convicted of a crime against a child.

• Found to have abused or neglected a child.

The new law also requires that reports to DCF capture information regarding whether there is “any custody dispute involving the child”. Annually DCF would have to report to lawmakers about the number of reports received that involved a “known custody dispute” and whether the report:

• Was filed anonymously.

• Assigned for investigation.

• Resulted in a family needs assessment.

• Resulted in an unsubstantiated or substantiated finding.

• Led to an out-of-home placement.

The bill also stipulates that a person listed in the registry “shall not be prohibited from residing, working, or volunteering in a child care facility” unless the person had the opportunity to be interviewed and present information during the investigation and was given notice of the agency’s decision and the opportunity for an appeal.

Pennsylvania’s registry approach

In 2024, a total of 1,783 appeals were filed in Pennsylvania on behalf of individuals named as perpetrators in an indicated report of child abuse or neglect (CAN). An indicated finding follows an investigation by a Pennsylvania child welfare agency (county or regional) where the agency determines there was “substantial evidence” that abuse or neglect occurred “based on medical evidence, the child protective service investigation, or an admission by the perpetrator.”

An indicated report differs from a founded report, which requires court involvement—such as a judicial finding of abuse, the issuance of a final protection from abuse order, or participation in an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program.

Once determined by the child welfare agency to be a perpetrator of an indicated CAN report, the individual is immediately placed on Pennsylvania’s CAN registry. The individual has a right to file an appeal when named in an indicated report with this appeal required to be filed within 90 days of being notified that the individual has been named as a perpetrator of an indicated report. The individual will remain on the registry while their appeal is pending. Unless the individual successfully appeals the decision, they can be included on the CAN registry indefinitely.

The registry is regularly checked as a condition of employment or volunteering. The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) issues a Pennsylvania Child Abuse History Certification verifying whether the individual is “named in the Statewide database as the alleged perpetrator in a pending child abuse investigation or as the perpetrator of a founded report or indicated report.”

In 2024, nearly 900,000 applications for a Pennsylvania Child Abuse History Clearance were submitted to DHS. PA DHS “processed” 887,790 applications determining that 2,665 (less than 1%) of the individuals were “identified as substantiated or alleged perpetrators”. At the end of 2024, PA DHS statewide protective services database includes 178,568 substantiated child abuse and neglect (CAN) reports. Reports have been included in this database since 1975. Pennsylvania’s definition of perpetrator includes certain minors (14 years or older). PA DHS has been unable to provide data on how many are youth under the age of 18.

Highlights of the 2024 Hearings and Appeals data published by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services:

• 100% Of PA DHS Administrative Reviews Upheld The Child Welfare Decision^[i]

  Nearly half (49%, n=866) of individuals - named as a perpetrator of an indicated report of CAN - pursued an administrative review. These reviews involve a “panel of professionals” from the Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) within the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (PA DHS). 16.3% (n=141) of the filed appeals were dismissed. In each of the 714 reports in which the review panel issued a decision, the panel upheld retaining the named perpetrator within PA’s CAN registry.

• The Bureau of Hearings and Appeals Overturned 96.9% Of The Child Welfare Decisions

  Forty percent (n=724) of the individuals bypassed the Administrative Review opting for a direct hearing with PA DHS’ Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA). In the BHA hearing an administrative law judge (ALJ) considers testimony and evidence presented by the person named as a perpetrator and the investigating child welfare agency. Children can be called as witnesses in these hearings. More than three quarters (n=540) of the appeals filed with BHA remained pending at the end of 2024. Of the 159 appeals decided, 96.9% (n=154^[ii]) involved BHA overturning the decision of the child welfare agency. As a result, the person named as a perpetrator could be removed from the CAN registry and the records surrounding the investigation expunged.

• PA DHS’ Secretary Upheld 68% Of Child Welfare Decisions

  The Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) also allows an individual to seek a review by the DHS Secretary so that the Secretary might “amend or expunge any record in the statewide database”. The DHS Secretary can also be asked to reconsider a decision made by BHA. In 2024, just over 10% (n=193) of the total filed appeals (n=1,783) came before the DHS Secretary. Approximately 9% (n=17) of the requests were withdrawn. Of the 176 reviews undertaken by the DHS Secretary, 68% (n=121) were upheld.

• After A Second Level Appeal, BHA Overturned 99% of Decisions Made by OCYF or the DHS Secretary

  Following a decision by the OCYF Administrative Review Panel (e.g., dismissal or upheld) or Secretary Review (e.g., upheld), the investigating child welfare agency or the person named as a perpetrator “have the right to request a hearing” with BHA. In 2024, 976 such cases were eligible for this pathway and 42% (n=408) individuals pursued BHA intervention. Of those filed, 74% (n=302) were listed as pending. Of the 77 cases BHA decided, they overturned 99% (n=76) of the previous decision made by the OCYF Administrative Review Panel or PA DHS Secretary. The number of follow up appeals to BHA are growing. 408 were filed in 2024 – 53 more than 2023 and 316 more compared to 2020 data.

During a February 2026 state budget hearing in which DHS was presenting their 2026-2027 budget request, Senator Tim Kearney (D-Delaware County) cited his concerns about the lack of due process for individuals placed on Pennsylvania’s registry. He noted how individuals can be placed on the registry “before they can contest” the child welfare decision – “a decision that places them on the list for life regardless the type of accusation.” Kearney asked DHS Secretary Val Arkoosh what was needed by way of staffing and funding to provide individuals with pre-deprivation hearings.

Arkoosh noted that there is pending litigation limiting her ability to be responsive. She noted that, in response to an earlier court case requiring that individuals with a valid teaching certificate receive a pre-deprivation hearing before any registry placement, DHS predicts it “would be really quite difficult” for DHS to “manage” a similar due process approach for all those named as perpetrators.

In recent years, the Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Philadelphia Bar Association have called for reforms to the state’s registry. Model legislation has been crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

The Bottom Line

In a bipartisan spirit, Kansas acted to ensure that placement on a registry follows a meaningful process. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania continues with the status quo listing people on a registry before giving them the opportunity to be heard —despite convincing evidence that the initial decisions, made by child welfare, are frequently reversed.

The question isn’t whether reform is needed, it’s whether Pennsylvania will find the political will to act.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

^[i] Percent calculated based on removal of cases that were dismissed, withdrawn, or had a pending status as of the end of calendar year 2024.

^[ii] One case was cited as changed status and not included in the calculations.

By February 2024, one of the twins – just two years old –froze to death on a playground after wandering from the family apartment in the middle of the night. After she was reported missing the next day and later found deceased, both parents acknowledged drug use and tested positive for marijuana, methamphetamines, and amphetamines. Media reported that prosecutors revealed that the deceased child and her siblings also tested positive for methamphetamines. The home environment was described as “absolutely deplorable” and the children were said to have been locked in a bedroom at times that “had human feces smeared on the walls and door.”

An Erie County team reviewing the child’s death, along with officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, was legally tasked with identifying recommendations to prevent a similar tragedy. In the end, they pointed to a need for “public education efforts to inform parents of the danger of drug use while in a caretaking role.” It’s unclear if this team was aware the mother apparently had an earlier driving under the influence court case.

It is hard to reconcile these recommendations with the broader policy and practice of a system that too often lacks urgency and minimizes risks when young children are entirely dependent on caregivers, especially when those caregivers may be under the influence.

Acknowledging there are risks associated with substance use during caregiving should not be mistakenly portrayed as stigmatizing parents or deeming them unworthy of treatment and recovery supports. On the contrary, it points to the importance of compelling earlier, intentional and, when needed clinically appropriate treatment, that supports parents and children with the best chance of keeping the family safely intact.

Instead, Pennsylvania appears to be drifting toward a posture that avoids intervention – even when there is clear and present risk – leaning heavily on adult autonomy rather than measured, child-centered action. This approach reflects a troubling carelessness about childhood.

We have reached a point where reports to child welfare are regularly framed as punitive, and where mixed messages may well be discouraging not just reporting but tangibly connecting children and their parents to reasonable supports and services. While this framing may resonate with some politically, it undercuts a reality check on the lived experience of children who depend entirely on others for their safety, health, well-being, and permanency.

For one Pennsylvania family that lived experience looked like this:

• A two-year-old child froze to death in the middle of the night.

• Her twin tested positive for methamphetamine and parental rights have been terminated.

• A three-year-old sibling also tested positive for drugs and parental rights have also been terminated.

• A father will serve time in state prison.

• A mother will serve time in state prison.

Until we build alternative pathways and infrastructure and stop regularly relying on public service campaigns as the best solution to keep kids safe, we ignore the urgency these situations demand. Consequently, more children will remain unsafe and without intervention and some of those children will not survive.

One final note on urgency: the report issued today by DHS arrives two years after this child’s death and like all the others includes extensive redactions —underscoring how Pennsylvania’s Act 33 (2008) reviews have become more an exercise in compliance rather than a constructive tool to keep kids safe.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The editorial anchored the need for the Commonwealth’s children to have their own “watchdog” citing the 2025 killing of 9-year-old, Renesmay - “a little girl thrown away like trash in the Youghiogheny River.”

The case for an independent Office of Child Advocate (OCA), however, does not begin or end with child fatalities.

Recent experiences of other children provide additional context, exposing systemic concerns tied to both the design and implementation of laws and the lack of meaningful independent oversight of policies and practices.

Just last week, the publication reported on the arrest of 2 Laurel Highland teachers on separate assault charges involving harm to students.

Parents of students attending Laurel Highlands High School showed up in force at a recent school board meeting to address deep concerns about the recent sexual misconduct and corruption of minors criminal charges filed by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and announced by the Fayette County District Attorney.

Coverage from WTAE’s Felicity Taylor captured the intensity of concerns:

• “I’m outraged, this is bull, this is straight out bull.”

• A parent of a female freshman student stressed, “In the last two weeks, two of her teachers got taken out the front door in cuffs.”

• And one parent, stipulated “Our kids are not safe to come to school when we have teachers preying on them” as she asked, “Every teacher is a mandated reporter, are they not?”

These events are playing out in the same county that Renesmay was killed.

Her death has already prompted State Representative Charity Grimm Krupa - once a staunch opponent of any watchdog for children - to have a conversion. Her September call-to-action for an “independent watchdog” for children was powerfully persuasive. In recent state budget hearings she declared, “The fox cannot guard the henhouse” in an exchange with Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Secretary, Val Arkoosh.

And last week, Grimm Krupa again acknowledged the necessity of “independent” reviews for individual cases and broader systemic issues. Grimm Krupa asked Pennsylvania Attorney Dave Sunday to undertake an “independent review” following the arrest of adults affiliated with the Laurel Highlands School District. In a press release announcing her direct ask of the Attorney General she also cited that the recently surfaced concerns and criminal charges alleging inappropriate conduct appears related to earlier reports in 2023. Grimm Krupa wrote, “Taken together, these incidents raise serious questions about whether all allegations were properly reported, investigated and addressed - and whether any additional misconduct may have gone undetected.”

Grimm Krupa also asked the Attorney General to undertake a “review of compliance with Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting laws.” She underscored her direct requests should not be seen as stipulating that wrongdoing occurred but instead she seeks “to ensure that the laws meant to protect children are actually enforced and the public gets transparency and accountability.” Grimm Krupa specifically asked the OAG to examine:

• “Whether all school employees and administrators complied fully with Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting laws;

• Whether prior complaints, concerns, or indicators of misconduct were properly documented, reported and investigated;

• Whether any failures to report suspected abuse occurred; and

• Whether any additional incidents, patterns of conduct, or victims may exist that have not yet been identified.”

Grimm Krupa’s focus echoes a question posed during the October 2024 Attorney General debate, when WGAL’s Brian Roche - drawing on research materials from the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ), asked whether Pennsylvania’s laws requiring reporting of child abuse and investments in mandated reporter training are achieving the intended goal: stopping child abuse.

Sunday said he would look at how to collaborate with local district attorneys to “push training out”. DePasquale cited his 2016 special report, as the former Auditor General, into the system “that uncovered the problems.”

Roche followed up asking if what was needed was more money, to ensure that mandatory reporting is followed through.

Sunday said that you “can’t just throw money at everything and assume it will fix a problem.” He continued, “You need to conduct an assessment and find out exactly what is going on out there” and explore if “people are doing their jobs first.” DePasquale said he had already “done the assessment and the system is not working.”

The October 2024 debate question emerged following C4CJ’s frustration that a request C4CJ posed with other stakeholders to the Pennsylvania Departments of Education and Human Services for a check up on mandatory reporting generated no meeting or follow up.

In August 2024, C4CJ and other allies sought a meeting with PDE and DHS outlining a series of discussion points underscoring that it had been “a decade since many of the current statutes (and resulting practices) were put into place so it feels a good time to have a check up on mandatory reporting.” In addition to a general check up there had been very direct (and troubling) questions that had emerged, following reporting by LNP/LancasterOnline, about the approach to training and reporting when the child said to have experienced abuse was a member of the Amish community.

To date, DHS and PDE have declined to engage stakeholders or publicly assess Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting system—while the Shapiro Administration’s 20-person Child Safety and Stability Working Group, being convened by a private contractor (Deloitte), operates with little public visibility as to its scope of work, agendas or decisions being reached. A member of Attorney General’s staff is part of this Working Group.

Pennsylvania is long overdue in confronting a basic truth: repeatedly —whether the concern involves an individual child or patterns affecting the collective community of children —there is no designated individual or office, let alone one operating with independence, to drive fact-finding, accountability, and reform. At-risk, exploited, and abused children pay the price, while those with the power to change course keep their rose-colored glasses on, treating each harm and systemic failure as an isolated incident rather than evidence of deep and perennial systemic concerns.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

It was impossible to listen to a March 10, 2026 hearing where Pennsylvania’s Secretary for the Department of Aging (PDA) testified about the Department’s 2026-2027 budget request without wanting to shout the same: ‘make it make sense’.

Members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives referenced nearly two years of in-depth reporting by journalist Angela Couloumbis for Spotlight PA, examining the slow pace of investigations into abuse or exploitation of older Pennsylvanians, the number of older adults who die while a county Area Agency on Aging (AAA) has an open case, and persistent concerns about the role and effect of PDA’s oversight of AAAs.

The Child Protection Check Up often connects the dots between the vulnerability and lived experiences of older Pennsylvanians and the Commonwealth’s children and youth. The similarities are always striking, but there also is a consistent difference - lawmakers use their bully pulpit to ensure it is clear they prioritize older adults and are outraged by the lived experiences of this vulnerable population.

This year’s budget hearings were another example. During a two-hour budget hearing with PDA, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle elevated concerns about safety, exploitation, and “egregious” deaths of older adults. Meanwhile, across 10 hours of budget hearings with the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (PA DHS), there were few moments where any lawmaker or the DHS Secretary made sure the record reflected a prioritization of at-risk or abused children or the needed infrastructure and budget choices to prevent harm and keep kids safe.

Lawmakers are not alone in the lopsided commitment.

Governor Josh Shapiro’s budget is more than specific line items it is also charts the Governor’s policy priorities. To that end, Shapiro used his February 2026 budget address to call for “overdue” updates to Pennsylvania’s Older Adult Protective Services Act (OAPSA). He cited how reports of abuse have risen “sharply” and so there is a need for “reforms” that include expanded mandatory reporting and background check requirements and the creation of “older adult fatality review teams to identify gaps in the system in the event that abuse results in death.”

Secretary Jason Kavulich leads PDA after serving as Director of Lackawanna County’s AAA. Before he led the AAA (beginning in 2016), he served more than a decade working within the child welfare system.

During the March 10, 2026 budget hearing, he shared that part of his child welfare experience included leading Act 33 child fatality and near fatality reviews and writing the legally required reports.

Responding to some pointed questions from Northampton County State Representative Ann Flood about “serious and egregious” harm experienced by older adults, Kavulich emphasized that this was why the Shapiro administration is “asking for a fatality review process that is like Act 33 in the child welfare system.” He described how Act 33 reviews engage communities “to help with complex cases and to identify flaws in their policy and practice and improve them.” He concluded that OAPSA is flawed, in part, because it lacks a required fatality review process. He stipulated, “As someone who spent 17 years in child welfare having conducted Act 33 reviews and written the reports, not having that in aging is something we need to correct together.”

Evaluating Pennsylvania’s existing Act 33 process was a recommendation made in 2023 by the Keystone Child Abuse Medical Forum convened by DHS/OCYF and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

The December 5, 2025 Check Up more fully explored the call by state lawmakers for replicating Act 33 but for the constituency of older PAs, including the introduction of Senate Bill 1100 and House Bill 1611.

Since then, the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) obtained some records from the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) through a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request.

C4CJ received the records only after appealing to the Office of Open Records (OOR). C4CJ sought records related to DHS convening an Executive Branch Only Fatality and Near Fatality Working Group beginning in summer 2025.

DHS provided public records reveal that focus groups were held in September and October 2025 involving: DHS employees working in the Office of Children, Youth and Families (15), child abuse pediatricians (18), county child welfare staff (24) and 23 individuals representing multidisciplinary county-level perspective on Act 33 teams. The “insights” of these 80 individuals were compiled and presented to the Working Group in October 2025.

DHS tasked Deloitte with core duties surrounding this Working Group and the Fatality and Near Fatality work is connected to/feeding into DHS and Deloitte’s work related to a 20-member Intergovernmental Working Group on Child Safety and Stability that continues to operate off-the-radar.

Deloitte reported that 4 themes emerged from the Fatality/Near Fatality Focus Groups:

1. Quality of Reviews and Related Processes

2. Team Composition

3. Collaboration and Information Sharing

4. Public Disclosure

Recorded challenges included:

• Low quality reviews and “resulting recommendations are poor and lack in-depth analysis”.

• Key partners like mandated reporters are not present at reviews.

• There’s no accountability infrastructure to record and measure implementation of recommendations.

• Team composition varies and often lacks participation of those with “specialized knowledge” that is “essential” to inform decisions.

• ChildLine decisions, notably about how and why ChildLine staff made its initial classification, is often not known.

• Teams are asked to assess the compliance of county child welfare agencies with state laws and regulations, but the team often lacks the necessary “expertise” to do so.

• County and then state-level duties are “duplicative”.

• Recommendations extend beyond the capacity of child welfare requiring both a broader set of expertise at the review table and to translate the review findings into actionable policy and practice reform.

• “Incomplete prior history with child welfare agencies inhibits a thorough review”.

• The overall approach is too child welfare focused obscuring a “collective accountability”.

Returning to Lackawanna County, according to PA DHS’ website, 47 child fatalities or near fatalities (between December 2016 and July 2024) triggered an Act 33 review. Approximately 23 percent (n=11) today have no publicly posted Act 33 report.

On the day Kavulich was engaging with Representative Flood and other state representatives touting the importance of Act 33, media in Lackawanna County reported on how medical professionals affiliated with Geisinger Community Medical Center had filed a ChildLine report related to a non-verbal 17-year-old male who weighed 51 pounds and was diagnosed with failure to thrive. The teen was also reported to have “multiple open wounds and injuries”.

According to media reports, law enforcement officials criminally charged the teen’s mother tracing a child welfare history that spanned several Pennsylvania counties and New York state:

• 4-years-old (Dauphin County) “hospitalized for severe malnutrition and failure to thrive” placed into foster care. Returned to the mother’s care and “re-hospitalized” for failure to thrive.

• 8-years-old (Lehigh County) hospitalized for failure to thrive and severe malnutrition and placed in protective custody.

• 14-year-old (New York) the teen is in his mother’s care and New York State child welfare officials are said to have found her “negligent” and the boy was removed from her care and placed in a skilled nursing facility. In 2024, the teen is returned to her care apparently by NY officials.

• 17-years-old living in Lackawanna County as part of an “in-home trial phase” (apparently related to decisions of NY child welfare officials). Lackawanna County is reported to have been “unaware” of the teen’s child welfare experience or this in-home trial period.

When C4CJ inquired with DHS, as it does with each child fatality and near fatality that it learns of, about legally permitted initial disclosures under Act 33, the Department confirmed a report to ChildLine. DHS also indicated the teen’s condition did not qualify as a near fatality. In other words, it looks like there will be no county or DHS Act 33 review.

Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) defines a near fatality as – “A child’s serious or critical condition, as certified by a physician, where that child is a subject of the report of child abuse.”

Participants in the focus groups convened by DHS and Deloitte had already identified a challenge involving that the “certification” process for a near fatality “is unclear and difficult (both to certify cases and to decertify them).”

Bottom Line

The Shapiro Administration and lawmakers are working to replicate the child-centered Act 33 fatality review process, arguing it will improve outcomes for older adults. It’s hard to understand how they’ve collectively missed the clear signals that Act 33 has proven itself flawed and ineffective at keeping kids safe.

The push for replication directly conflicts with the Shapiro Administration’s decision to direct thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of public dollars) to Deloitte specifically to revamp Act 33.

Who will be bold enough to make it make sense—and ensure a research-informed approach, supported by reasonable infrastructure and follow through, that allows both vulnerable populations not just to be safe, but to thrive?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The hearing was short in its examination of the $2.1 billion county child welfare budget request.

The hearing did get interesting during an exchange between State Representative Charity Grimm Krupa (R-Fayette) and DHS Secretary Val Arkoosh that surfaced a deeper policy question: why does Pennsylvania lack an independent Office of Child Advocate (OCA) where children, families, and community members can raise concerns about the child welfare system?

Grimm Krupa asked DHS Secretary Val Arkoosh to explain what “truly independent avenue exists” for children, families and community members who want to file a complaint and/or raise concerns about the child welfare system.

Grimm Krupa said she believes Pennsylvania’s children need an independent Office of the Child Welfare Ombudsman or Child Advocate. She underscored that she didn’t “care what we call it as long as it is empowered to independently investigate complaints, publish reports and hold the system accountable.”

This budget hearing exchange with DHS Secretary Arkoosh follows Grimm Krupa’s September 2025 announcement that she would be introducing legislation to create a “true watchdog” for Pennsylvania’s children.

In September and again this week, the representative underscored that Fayette County has been “heartbroken” and “outraged” by the torture and killing of Renesmay Eutsey, the discovery of five children “locked in dungeonlike conditions” and yet another child, Star Lynn, found “in a cage in her own home.” She said these cases have “led to many questions” about how the “oversight of county children and youth systems actually work.” She was quick to say she was not indicting or implying any “wrongdoing” by Fayette County’s child welfare agency, but that the horrific nature and cascading number of incidents has her digging deeper. She observed that she has discovered that currently complaints about a county child welfare agency are “handled” by DHS.

She stipulated, “Madame Secretary the fox cannot guard the hen house” as she reinforced the need for an independent Ombuds/Advocate that has “the teeth of subpoena power.”

Secretary Arkoosh said nothing in response regarding her or Governor Shapiro’s position on an Advocate/Ombuds for children in Pennsylvania.

Instead, she shared her concern about the “heartbreaking cases” and how they serve as a reminder that “child welfare is everybody’s responsibility.” The Secretary noted that child welfare in Pennsylvania is county-administered and state-supervised and so it is “actually the county who should be directly accountable when you think about what is happening in any particular county.” She said that DHS works “closely” with counties and provides them support.

The exchange illustrates a structural tension in Pennsylvania’s system. While counties investigate abuse and neglect reports, manage cases, and contract with service providers, licensing of county agencies—and complaints about those same agencies—route back to DHS

Arkoosh spoke of how of the 50-60 child fatalities (substantiated as child abuse or neglect) annually in Pennsylvania, “typically only half” of those children and families were ever known to a child welfare agency. She reinforced:

Arkoosh then referenced how this metric has had DHS “pulling back and taking a holistic look at what can we do to keep kids safe.” She critiqued the view that making a call to child welfare is the only duty of individuals and then they can “kind of wash their hands and say OK I did my job.” She said there must be greater acknowledgement that “everybody in every community has to be responsible to keep kids safe”. She said that DHS has been working with stakeholders to determine how best to divert cases “that do not need to be in child welfare” instead some social service support is needed.

Grimm Krupa acknowledged that her first line of questioning had been driven by “horrific cases” as she noted that it isn’t just the high-profile deaths but the approach to complaints and concerns overall about the system. She spoke about the parent or foster parent or community member who genuinely believes a case is “being mishandled” and how these individuals will not today find an “independent avenue” to file a complaint and have the situation reviewed “outside of the department or the county agency involved.”

Arkoosh said that people “do reach out” to DHS and they can “conduct investigations” and where there are allegations of abuse, and a conflict exists, the regional DHS office will investigate.

The representative later pressed Arkoosh on what DHS is “doing to be transparent” and “really hold the county agencies to the fire” to demonstrate that everything is being done “in their power to protect our children.”

Here the Secretary pointed to the annual Child Protective Services report and how details every single county – if they completed timely investigations, what the results of the investigation were. She said it is publicly available and someday DHS hopes to have “dashboards that are much more real time.”

Neither the Secretary nor the state representative noted that a Child Advocate position technically exists—authorized by a 2019 executive order.

In 2023-2024, bipartisan lawmakers sought to move from the EO to statutorily creating OCA (House Bill 2175, Senate Bill 1036). House Bill 2175 was approved with bipartisan support in the PA House in July 2024, but never received consideration by the Pennsylvania Senate. The language that passed in July 2024 has been reintroduced in the PA House in 2025 (House Bill 1305) and bipartisan senators have indicated they too would introduce OCA legislation in the 2025-2026 legislative session. None of the lawmakers who publicly espouse support for OCA brought the issue up in budget hearings or have acted in the 2025-2026 legislative session to move independent oversight forward.

Since the resignation of the last Child Advocate in January 2025, the authorized position has remained vacant, leaving Pennsylvania without even a limited independent oversight structure.

The two individuals who have served as the state’s Child Advocate left the job citing the lack of a clear set of duties, staff, budget, and there being no public facing acknowledgement (e.g., website, telephone number) that the Advocate even existed.

Also unmentioned during the March 4 hearing was the DHS-convened Intergovernmental Working Group on Child Safety and Stability, which reportedly includes legislators among its roughly 20 members. The group—including legislators who publicly support OCA—apparently has moved away from recommending an independent Advocate or Ombudsman.

Questions about oversight are unfolding alongside broader concerns about transparency in how child welfare policy is currently being developed and how public dollars are being spent.

The lack of transparency surrounding this Intergovernmental Working Group has already drawn scrutiny. In February 2026, Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records (OOR) issued multiple determinations (Docket Nos. 2025-2779, 2025-3782 and 2025-3783) ordering DHS to re-search and produce records related to the Intergovernmental Working Group on Child Safety and Stability after finding the agency had improperly withheld documents. In response, the Center for Children’s Justice sent a letter to members of the General Assembly urging lawmakers to require greater transparency around the working groups and to reconsider the value of and need for independent oversight.

Bottom Line

The Family Justice Law Center, which is leading the litigation on behalf of the parents, argues that inclusion on SCR prior to a Fair Hearing, combined with excessive appeal delays, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. Inclusion on the registry absent due process is framed as creating “a serious risk of erroneous deprivation of Plaintiffs’ liberty interests.”

The case arrives as similar constitutional questions are unfolding in Pennsylvania, where individuals are also placed on the state’s registry before they have an opportunity to contest the finding. Ongoing litigation and recent legislative questioning suggest the same core issue is emerging: whether a person can be listed first and heard later.

Core elements of the NY lawsuit

The named defendants are the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), the Associate Commissioner responsible for the registry (the elements of the hotline as well as the administrative reviews of substantiated findings), and the Director of the Bureau of Special Hearings.

The Plaintiffs are:

• A “single Latino father,” who shares custody of his 7 and 10-year-old daughters with his ex-wife, was anonymously reported to the child welfare agency in 2023 regarding a “physical confrontation with his ex-wife in front of his children.” He asserts that he was never interviewed as part of the investigation nor notified he had been placed on the registry. He learned of his status when seeking employment as a medical caseworker.

• A Black mother raising two daughters (14 and 20-years-old) has been unable to “obtain paid work in her chosen field of child care.” She had been working in a daycare as an assistant teacher when one child “swung at another child.” When she attempted to intervene, the child fell to the ground.

• A Black mother of a six-year-old daughter, who is a 311 information specialist and attends schools to become a paralegal, left her daughter in the care of her boyfriend while she went to a local laundromat. At some point the boyfriend left the child unattended and at that time the mother’s probation officer stopped at the apartment and found the child unattended.

These parents “seek to represent a certified class” arguing the “members of the Class are too numerous to be joined into one action, and their joinder is impracticable.” The legal filing retraces that “more than 30,000 reports” of child abuse or neglect have been indicated over the last ten years and “over 8,000 people waited longer than a year for a decision at the administrative review stage” between 2020 and 2025. Consequently, individuals are “effectively barred” from certain employment and becoming kinship caregivers.

The court is being asked to certify the case as a class action, enter judgment against the defendants declaring that current policy and practices “deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment”, and to remedy the existing “unconstitutional policy, custom, and practice.”

Due process concerns in Pennsylvania

The constitutional tension raised in New York is not unfamiliar territory in Pennsylvania.

When the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) came before the Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee at the end of February 2026, Senator Tim Kearney (D-Delaware County) engaged DHS Secretary Arkoosh on this topic.

In Pennsylvania, following an investigation solely undertaken by a local county children and youth service (CYS) agency or staff from DHS’ regional Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF), the report is determined to be unfounded or indicated. An indicated report means the child welfare agency determined “substantial evidence of the alleged abuse by a perpetrator exists based on any of the following:

(i) Available medical evidence.

(ii) The child protective service investigation.

(iii) An admission of the acts of abuse by the perpetrator.”

Pennsylvania law requires that any “final determination that a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is indicated” be approved by CYS agency administrator (or designee) and “reviewed by” the agency solicitor. If the investigating entity is the regional office of PA DHS, then the decision requires approval of the Secretary (or their designee) and review by DHS legal counsel.

If a report is indicated, the named perpetrator is placed on the registry — information disclosed to potential employers. This lack of pre-deprivation due process is a regularly cited concern. The individual will remain on the registry unless the indicated finding is overturned on appeal.

Within 90 days of a person being notified that they have been named as a perpetrator of an indicated report of child abuse or neglect in PA, the named individual can request an:

• Administrative Review with this review conducted by a “panel of professionals” within the Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF) at PA DHS; or

• Appeal to PA DHS’ Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA) where the case will be reviewed by an administrative law judge (ALJ).

Also, the PA DHS Secretary is authorized to “amend or expunge any record in the statewide database” if “good cause” has been shown as to why the record should be amended or expunged and notice has been provided to the subjects of the report.

During the budget hearing, Kearney elevated how individuals “are placed on the registry before they can contest the CYS decision – a decision that places them on the list for life regardless the type of accusation.” He added concerns about “long wait times” when a person seeks a hearing to contest the finding. Kearney asked DHS about the current budget and staffing for the Bureau of Hearing and Appeals (BHA).

DHS Secretary Val Arkoosh reminded the senator that DHS is “involved in litigation” limiting her responses.

Arkoosh acknowledged that in response to another court decision, DHS has begun to provide pre-deprivation hearings for one class of individuals named in indicated reports – those with a teaching certificate. Based on that experience, she said should the courts require all individuals deserve a full merit hearing prior to being placed on the registry “it would increase the caseload at BHA by over 4,000 hearings a year and so that would be really quite difficult for us to manage, and we would probably have to look at some additional options for that.”

Kearney questioned whether the issue ultimately boils down to a budget and staffing decision. The senator has introduced a bipartisan bill to bring a tiered approach to PA’s registry (Senate Bill 642)

On the broader constitutionality case pending in Pennsylvania, in April 2025 Commonwealth Court directed Petitioners and DHS to engage “in discovery in preparation for further proceedings.”

Different states, similar registry concerns

Not surprisingly, themes woven into the NY court filing are similar to what underlie legal filings challenging the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s own registry:

• The need for prompt review is undeniable.

• The high rate of indicated findings that are overturned “reflects a substantial risk of error” underscoring the need for “urgency”.

• Many individuals never receive the Notice of Indication remaining unaware they are on the registry.

• “Widespread delays” in the appeal process.

• Child welfare officials often do not file any petition in family court that seek to remove the child or “take any measures to protect the children in the home.”

• Black and Latino and low-income parents “shoulder a disproportionate share” of the harms and delays associated with SCR inclusion.

NY legal filing tackles front-end child welfare decisions

The NY class action filing points to earlier decision points in the child welfare system, including framing reports to a hotline as often being “weaponized.”

The plaintiffs cite how the state’s reporting hotline receives more than 100,000 reports and how “no evidence whatsoever is required to make an allegation that initiates an investigation.” According to the legal filing, those investigations are conducted by “under-resourced and under-supervised county” child welfare caseworkers who too often approach such reports “with a presumption of wrongdoing.” High caseloads are cited as cause for concern and resulting in “erroneous” decisions. The quality of interviews and whether they occur at all also noted in the filing.

The plaintiffs assert that supervisory review of an indicated finding is most often “rubberstamped” due to “institutional risk aversion.”

The plaintiffs argue that weaknesses in front-end reporting and investigation allow an untested allegation to mature into a registry listing without a meaningful opportunity to contest either the allegation or the investigation.

In June 2026, New York amended its social services statute related to mandatory reporting requiring that a caller to the SCR be asked for their name and contact information. SCR “may not transmit a report to a local child protective service for investigation if the caller’s name and contact information are not provided.” The staff answering the calls can forward the report on if they “reasonably believe the caller is a child under the age of eighteen.”

If a caller does not wish to provide their name and contact information, the SCR staff are to connect the caller with a supervisor so that the supervisor can speak with the person and provide context as to how child welfare protects a caller’s confidentiality. The supervisor is also to engage the caller to inform them both of “preventive and supportive services that might be available “to assist in addressing concerns relative to the care and well-being of a child” and referrals for such services and that “knowingly reporting false or baseless allegations” is against the law.

NY registry procedures: 90-day window, Fair Hearings and R&R Reviews

Currently a person included within New York’s SCR has 90 days from the Notice of Indication (required to be mailed to the person within 7 days of the finding) to appeal the decision of the child welfare investigators. A 90-day window also can be available if the person discovers, because of a background check, that they are included in the registry.

An initial review (administrative in nature) is done by the NY OCFS toward determining if a “fair preponderance of the evidence” supports the allegation and then whether those allegations are “relevant or reasonably related” to employment in a child-centered field or to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. This initial review is to happen in 90 days. OCFS can seal the record if it is determined the allegations are not supported or if the allegation is supported by the evidence but are not determined to be “relevant and reasonably related” (R&R Review) to employment with children.

If OCFS upholds the allegations and determines the evidence supports, the indicated finding then the matter is referred to the Bureau of Special Hearings for a Fair Hearing. If OCFS doesn’t meet its 90-day legal timeline for an initial hearing the person is automatically eligible for the Fair Hearing. A Fair Hearing allows for witnesses to be called, evidence to be presented by the child welfare agency and the person seeking to not be named in the registry. At the Fair Hearing it is the child welfare agency that has the burden to prove its case by “a fair preponderance of the evidence.” An Administrative Law Judge can use the hearing to make any of the following determinations:

1. The evidence does not support the child welfare agency’s finding of abuse or neglect and so the report is unfounded.

2. The evidence supports the indicated finding but the conduct is not relevant to employment with children leading the report to be sealed and not disclosed as part of an employment screen.

3. The evidence supports the indicated finding and that the conduct is relevant to consideration for employment leaving the persons’ record not amended or sealed.

As part of the R&R Review done by either OCFS or as part of the Fair Hearing, officials consider factors such as the severity of the incident, the age of the child, the time elapsed since the report, and evidence of rehabilitation.

In a separate March 3, 2026 legal filing, the Family Justice Law Center sought the intervention of the Supreme Court of the State of New York “to compel” OCFS “produce basic information about delays” connected to the registry.

Over the course of two years, The Center filed numerous Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests with OCFS. In response to these filings, OCFS was cited as delaying its response or withholding requested records.

Prior to 2026, New York lawmakers enacted changes to the registry

In April 2020 New York lawmakers successfully included changes to the registry within the state’s budget bill. This changed the standard of evidence to indicate a case from “some credible evidence” to “fair preponderance of the evidence” – aligning the standard with the family courts.

Lawmakers also tiered the time a person remains on the registry. An indicated finding of neglect will have a person’s information disclosed to potential employers for 8 years versus the traditional 28 years for other types of abuse.

The change also deferred the Fair Hearing process pending the outcome of any family court action.

The statutory change was supported by The New York City Administration for Children’s Services citing it as “progressive reform.”

Bottom line

Recent reforms in New York and ongoing litigation in both New York and Pennsylvania show that states are regularly asked to confront the same constitutional dilemma. For courts, lawmakers, and child welfare officials alike, the question remains: does protecting children justify listing individuals first and allowing them to contest allegations later, or does justice demand timely review before livelihood and liberty might be deprived?

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

While this high profile (and politically charged) debate is playing out, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) cited a separate far less visible emergency in its effort to spend nearly $1 million to train persons with a legal duty to report suspected child abuse or neglect (CAN).

In October 2025, DHS officials cited a “threat to public health, welfare, or safety” in an Emergency Procurement (EP) request (#40437).

PA’s procurement statute allows emergency procurement when a state agency can demonstrate a “threat to public health, welfare, or safety or circumstances outside the control of the agency create an urgency of need which does not permit the delay involved in using more formal competitive methods.” In other words, emergency procurement is intended for circumstances that are unforeseen and beyond an agency’s control.

DHS cited the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), which requires DHS and county children and youth service (CYS) agencies to “conduct an ongoing training and education program for local staff, persons required to make reports and other appropriate persons in order to familiarize those persons with the reporting and investigative procedures for cases of suspected child abuse and the rehabilitative services that are available to children and families.”

DHS noted that they currently meet this legal obligation through “contracts” and that one of those contracts was set to expire on December 31, 2025. They also referenced a pending (and related) request for proposal (RFP) that had been impacted by “some delays in posting the RFP, including changes to the scope of services, IT changes, and changes in the review process.” Those delays were all internal factors within DHS’ control.

DHS said that without the emergency approval, the state agency “would be out of compliance” with the CPSL and “mandated reporters might not receive the training they need.”

Review of public documents obtained by the Center for Children’s Justice (C4CJ) through a Right-to-Know (RTK) request revealed DHS’ pitch to bypass the traditional procurement process to keep funding flowing to one of DHS’ longstanding contractors -Pennsylvania Family Support Alliance (PFSA).

An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) DHS had with PFSA was set to expire on December 31, 2025. That IGA was worth $500,000 ($250,000 annually in 2024 and 2025).

In 2024, DHS executed the IGA to “increase the number of high-quality reports by mandated reporters, both professional and volunteer, from vulnerable and marginalized populations.” Those populations were identified as:

• Amish

• Older Mennonite

• Deaf and Hard of Hearing

• Law Enforcement

• Neglect specific training to aid those responding to “vulnerable populations of children where neglect is the presenting concern”

• Other “marginalized populations through enhanced awareness and understanding of issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

IGAs are to be reserved for contracts between governments “or its agencies, or with instrumentalities of the Commonwealth (boroughs, cities, counties, state-related institutions, etc.)”. IGAs are intended for agreements between governmental entities and are expressly prohibited from being used to circumvent competitive procurement.

Records provided to C4CJ as part of a RTK request, reveal DHS understood it had already been testing the limits with the IGA. DHS officials initially debated whether to allow PFSA to reallocate “remaining funds”. About $20,000 of the IGA funding had been earmarked for PFSA to train law enforcement, but PFSA did not yet have a curriculum that had been approved by DHS and the agency’s approval never came in the 2-year IGA period. DHS staff explored ways to safeguard against PFSA losing funding.

DHS staff also remind each other that there had been an understanding with PFSA that this funding was “a one-time occurrence.” DHS staff emails referenced PFSA’s separate and broader contract to train any type of mandated reporters. That contract (#6100047951) was also expiring in December 2025 and had been worth approximately $1 million per year. DHS noted that there had been difficulties having that contract be a vehicle for reimbursing interpreters involved in the trainings for the deaf and hearing impaired. Still, DHS staff also acknowledged that the trainings related to neglect and Amish or even law enforcement “would be able to” be billed under PFSA’s contract to train all types of mandated reporters.

As part of the public records request, DHS provided invoices from PFSA related to the IGA. Between July 2024 and February 2025, PFSA trained 1,929 individuals (almost all of them virtually and most related to the neglect module) and billed DHS for approximately $300,000.

The 2024 IGA followed earlier funding provided to PFSA for some specialized scope of work. In 2022-2023, DHS directed funding to PFSA for the development and roll out of a curriculum focused on neglect (general protective services). This neglect-related work was budgeted at $250,000 while curriculum changes intended to address racial equity was slated for $30,000 and training for “vulnerable populations” that included the Amish and Deaf and Hearing Impaired was slated for $60,000.

PFSA is one part of a fragmented - and expensive - training ecosystem.

In a November 2024 email between DHS staff, it was noted that there was an expected “increase in MRT training” that would then “require an increase in the MRT budget for 2025-2026 beyond the existing MRT Vendor Budgets.” DHS identified the need for $10 million over five years. That amount appears to have included the costs of PFSA’s historical (broader) training contract as well as the IGA.

Documents were unclear as to whether that figure also included costs associated with DHS’ contract with the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (PAAAP). PAAAP’s Educating Physicians in their Community (EPIC) Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) training contract (4400008845) was valued at just under $900,000 for a period that covered December 1, 2022 through November 30, 2025. DHS recently extended PAAAP’s contract through November 2027.

Additionally, while not cited in the November 2024 email, approximately $400,000 supports an online training offered through the University of Pittsburgh’s Child Welfare Resource Center. DHS underwrites these costs with federal Title IV-B funding.

While not engaged as a contractor for training on DHS’ behalf, DHS did direct $379,164 in federal funding (secured as a result of federal dollars to address the effects of COVID-19) to execute a “research agreement” with Penn State’s iLookOut team. That research was focused on the intersections of child maltreatment, poverty, and structural racism. It is unclear how or if DHS connected its work with iLookOut to inform PFSA’s neglect curriculum.

Beyond directly funding the DHS contractors to train mandated reporters, DHS staff engage in extensive review and approval of curriculums submitted by individuals or entities. Presently, more than 70 have been approved.

Examples include the City of Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services, which has been approved to provide in person training (2- and 3-hour sessions) to mandated reporters who work with children and youth and “want to understand more about Philadelphia DHS”. Drexel University with a curriculum for “all Pennsylvania licensed health care providers.” Montgomery County’s children’s advocacy center, Mission Kids, has an approved in-person training. The National Association of Social Workers, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, Penn State College of Medicine iLookOut, the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect, and the Pennsylvania Dental Association also have approved curriculums.

Next week, DHS Secretary Val Arkoosh will appear before the Pennsylvania Senate Appropriations Committee to explain and defend Governor Shapiro’s 2026-2027 proposed budget and the significant spending within the DHS line items.

On page 242 of the DHS massive budget book, legislators will see a $1.012 million request for training mandated reporters supported with revenue realized through an existing $2.50 fee paid when a person obtains a certified copy of their Pennsylvania birth certificate.

The $1.012 million ask for 2026-2027 represents a $222,000 increase over what is listed as available in 2025-2026.

While this is a little line item in a very big budget, the funding level seems less important than addressing the hard work it takes to understand what Pennsylvania is spending – and through what funding streams – to train mandated reporters.

Also, worthy of explanation would be how frequently and why DHS awards funding through processes that are not just lacking transparency, but also, at times, competition.

Then there is the question about how effective any of the training really is. There are different contractors, dozens of approved curriculums, and little to no research or documented outcomes. There are too few safeguards or metrics to document whether children in need of a safety intervention are being appropriately reported. At the same time, there are reasonable concerns that families who have not abused or neglected their children—but may still be facing serious challenges—are being drawn into a system that too often invites trauma and has yet to earn the public’s trust.

When reports are made, there is a need for calls or online reports to be triaged and referred for assessment or investigation or just recorded as more supplemental or information only.

In the early pages of DHS’ 2026-2027 budget book, lawmakers will find a pitch to add 20 new staff at DHS’ ChildLine – the state’s 24/7/365 central hub that receives and triages reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. DHS hopes to secure a $658,000 increase in state funding and match it with $244,000 in federal funding. As the Child Protection Check Up wrote about on February 6, 2026, this isn’t the first time that the Shapiro Administration has requested funding to add staff at ChildLine.

ChildLine staffing has been a perennial challenge.

As Ed Rendell was ending his time as Pennsylvania’s Governor in 2010, he prepared a transition document for the next governor flagging concerns raised by child advocates regarding ChildLine’s abandoned and dropped call rate. Earlier in Rendell’s term, child advocates urged him to “review the procedures and staffing.” The York Daily Record’s Editorial Board would observe on January 5, 2011:

In 2015, child advocates would again turn to Pennsylvania’s Governor and state legislators observing that without improvements at ChildLine, it was likely the public’s trust would erode. Within a year, Pennsylvania’s Auditor General would release the findings of ChildLine performance audit that addressed “Unanswered calls, failure to track calls, and scant monitoring of calls.”

In June 2025, during a hearing about requiring school-based age-appropriate child abuse education, Dr. Benjamin Levi, part of a team that created the iLookOut training for mandatory reporters, testified to the need to increase the capacity and quality of ChildLine to respond to reports.

Levi also encouraged House lawmakers to dig deeper on key questions as he observed, “Even though significant public dollars and workforce time are spent on these trainings, do they really improve people’s understanding or change their attitudes about child maltreatment and its reporting?”.

Too much is at stake – human and financial – for DHS to rely on opaque and under-evaluated decision-making, or for state lawmakers to remain unaware of how key choices are made and public dollars spent under Pennsylvania’s Keep Kids Safe agenda.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Digesting those reports - and the jury’s determination that the evidence met the high bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - was difficult to reconcile with what the Commonwealth’s child fatality review process suggested might be learned from the child’s life and death to keep other children safe. The recommendations issued by the Chester County Act 33 Child Fatality team and the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) are strikingly anemic when set against the facts reviewed by the team and the evidence a jury ultimately found sufficient to convict.

Last May, the Child Protection Check Up examined the history of Act 33, enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2008. The law established a requirement for county and state-level reviews when a child dies or nearly dies and child abuse or neglect is suspected or substantiated. About Act 33, we wrote:

The Act 33 report posted on DHS’ website notes that the child’s toxicology report “came back for the victim child and cocaine, morphine, and fentanyl were found in the child’s system. The morphine could be a metabolite of heroin.” The media reported:

And at the time of the arrest of the parents in June 2024, the Chester County District Attorney’s stated on Facebook:

DHS’ Act 33 report confirmed prior child welfare involvement:

• April 2019 – Chester County Children and Youth Services (CYS) “received a referral regarding [redacted] due to concerns for substance use by [redacted]. There were also concerns regarding inappropriate supervision for the victim child.” The child was 4-year-old.

• September 2020 – The child welfare case opened in April 2019 was closed after CYS addressed the “referral concerns as well as some additional concerns.”

• May 2022 – CYS received a referral that the “victim child had eloped from the home.” The child was 7-years-old. The Act 33 report indicates the parents said they had taken steps to keep the child from eloping from the home, “but he had recently learned how to unlock the additional lock that had been added to the door.” CYS addressed “ways to keep the child from leaving the home alone” and provided “medication lock boxes” as well as information on “community resources.” It appears the family “declined” services and the “case was closed on 07/01/2022.”

The Act 33 report, along with other publicly available documents, identifies additional points of intervention prior to the child’s death:

• December 2016: Medical staff at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia noted longstanding language delays and behavioral problems.

• 2017: Chester County Department of Mental Health/Intellectual Developmental Disabilities staff attempted to engage the family in services; the file was closed after parents did not respond.

• 2018: The child’s physician expressed concerns about developmental delays and urged the parents to seek intervention.

• March 2019: A maternal aunt reportedly contacted Coatesville police to report that the mother had experienced an overdose in March and was revived with Narcan.

• May 2019: Child welfare is reported to have started an “investigation” related to parents’ drug use investigating “two incidents” in which the 4-year-old child “injured” as a result of lack of supervision. A May 2019 examination at A.I. duPont Hospital found no evidence of acute fractures but health care staff indicated they “suspected child abuse.”

• June 2019: The child is reportedly placed in the care of the maternal aunt, who regularly took him for medical care and other services. He was registered with the Octorara School District. There are reports that The maternal aunt is directed to give custody of the child to the paternal grandfather and at some point the child returns to the care of his parents.

• 2021 and 2022: Police find the child outside “wearing only underwear, unaccounted for by his parents, who claimed that he had wandered out of the home.” The parents reportedly did not call 911 to report him missing.

• Easter 2023: Maternal relatives last reported seeing the child. After his death, the maternal grandmother would tell police that the boy disclosed he did not want to return to this parents and that his father “kept hitting him on his head”.

Despite repeated contact with child welfare, medical providers, law enforcement, and family members, the child died at age eight.

Yet the Act 33 Team’s recommendations focused narrowly on generalized prevention messaging. The team suggested “state sponsored media campaigns” about “safe storage of all drugs/medications in order to protect children.” Also, the campaign should “teach parents about harm reduction and the consequences to using substances with children in the home.”

The recommendation is difficult to square with what the review team, by law, should have known: CYS had already provided the family with “medication lock boxes” and Naloxone was reportedly present in the home - an intervention that had it been used, could have constituted an active form of harm reduction.

Meanwhile, DHS indicated it “would like to have a discussion” about launching a “public health” campaign called “Up, Up and Away.” DHS writes this campaign “targets the safe storage of medications out of the reach of children.”

It’s hard not to feel profound frustration.

In fairness, perhaps the local Act 33 team and DHS were unaware that the death scene was described as “littered with drug paraphernalia” including heroin and “hundreds of small glassine bags that each contained blue fentanyl/heroin bags that were either empty or contained residue.” But that possibility raises troubling questions about what information is gathered, shared, and meaningfully analyzed in a process intended to prevent the next child’s death.

A child is dead.

A jury held two parents criminally accountable for this child’s death.

The systems that encountered him repeatedly over eight years—charged by law with learning from tragedy to prevent the next one—have yet to demonstrate a comparable reckoning. Until child fatality reviews grapple honestly with what went wrong, accountability and prevention will remain elusive.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Law enforcement alleged that the adult manager had provided juveniles with “alcohol, medical marijuana cartridges, nicotine cigarettes, and his prescribed Adderall medication.” The adult was charged with corruption of minors, indecent assault, and drug-related charges.

A year earlier, in Mercer County, criminal charges against a pastor, who had been conducting “therapy” sessions with a young teen, were dropped by the district attorney. The teen’s mother had found notes in her daughter’s bible and contacted law enforcement. Criminal charges initially filed – later dropped - included a felony count of corruption of minors, criminal solicitation, and unlawful contact with a minor.

Following the district attorney’s decision, the teen’s mother expressed frustration with the decision.

Wyant launched a petition urging Pennsylvania lawmakers to address “a glaring gap in our legal system”. She wrote that the absence of any “specific laws that target child grooming” have left Pennsylvania children “vulnerable and unprotected.”

Kentucky House of Representatives Votes to Criminalize “Dangerous and Predatory Behavior”

Wyant may want to seek advice from families and advocates in Kentucky.

On February 4, 2025, by a unanimous vote, the Kentucky House of Representatives approved legislation clearly “defining and criminalizing the dangerous and predatory behavior, commonly known as grooming.”

In urging support for the bill, the prime sponsor, Representative Marianne Proctor, said Kentucky was ready to recognize grooming for what it is – “a calculated, manipulative, deceptive process in which a predator intentionally builds a relationship with a vulnerable individual, most often a child, in order to gain trust, access and ultimately to exploit or abuse the victim.”

Proctor advanced the legislation in direct response to a “real and painful experience” involving a young Kentuckian. The representative noted the family did what the “system encourages” they went to law enforcement and prosecutors “seeking help and accountability.” What the family then discovered was that, despite the behavior being “alarming, intentional and deeply harmful,” the state’s legal tools “did not match the seriousness of the threat.”

Proctor underscored that grooming is not “harmless” or “accidental behavior.”

The legislation establishes criminal penalties depending on the age of the victim and the “authority of the offender.” The latter was incorporated to reflect the “heightened danger” when a perpetrator “holds a position of authority” The state representative emphasized, “These distinctions matter because betrayal of trust compounds the harm and deepens the trauma.” Existing Kentucky law defines individuals who are in a “position of authority”.

The bill now heads to the Kentucky Senate. Kentucky is a red state, but its governor, Democrat Andy Beshear -- like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro - is often mentioned as a potential 2028 presidential contender.

Arkansas: The First State to Criminalize Grooming

In 2013, Arkansas was the first state to enact a grooming statute (Act 1114). The criminal offense involves a person exposing a child, 13 years of age or younger, to “sexually explicit conduct with the purpose to entice, induce, or groom the child” to engage in sexual behaviors.

Between 2020 and 2022, Arkansas’ Administrative Office of the Courts reported that there were 23 felony convictions, and 13 individuals were incarcerated for a violation of the grooming statute.

In 2023, there was an attempt to update Arkansas’ law to apply the grooming statute to youth 16 years of age or younger. Also, to include a course of conduct where a person would offer or agree to give a child “money, anything of value, or any other benefit” toward inducing the child to not “disclose information regarding certain sexual offenses committed against the child.”

This change was pursued by Arkansas State Representative Deann Vaught, herself a survivor of child sexual abuse. In an interview, Vaught spoke about how “everybody liked” the man who abused her citing he was a “church going, well-liked person”. She has spoken about the ongoing struggle for communities to openly confront the scope of child sexual abuse noting, “Because we keep avoiding it, we keep having predators.”

“Strong Anti-Grooming” Statutes Cited as Necessary Protection Tool

In its 2025 Out-of-the-Shadows Index Report, the World Childhood Foundation USA emphasized that to prevent in-person and online child abuse sexual abuse and exploitation (CSAE), states must pass “strong anti-grooming legislation”. The report acknowledges that states have passed grooming laws that recognize behavior like exposing a child to child sexual abuse material or that define acts of “inviting” or “luring” a minor to engage in sexual activity. The authors faulted states for failing to address the “broader trust-building behaviors that characterize sexual grooming.”

At the time of publication, the Report gave high marks to five states for tackling trust-building behaviors in statute (Delaware, Georgia, Nebraska, Utah, and Vermont).

It was 2020 when Nebraska’s Governor signed legislation specific to school teacher or interns as if they build “trust with a student and individuals close to the student” toward gaining access to and time alone with the student. The legislation recognizes this grooming is undertaken “with the ultimate goal” of engaging in sexual contact with the student “regardless of when in the student’s life” such contact would take place.

Delaware’s statute was enacted in 2022 creating the criminal offense of Enticement for Purposes of Sexual Contact. A person who is 18 years or older who “knowingly engages in a course of conduct to persuade, induce, entice or coerce that involves or results in the person gaining access to and time alone with that child, with the intent of building trust with that child for the purpose of ultimately engaging in sexual contact.” Delaware’s statute defines a course of conduct as “three or more separate incidents that a reasonable person would find inappropriate, in isolation or collectively, given the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the child.” Included within the definition is:

• Exposing the child to “sexually explicit language or jokes” or sexually explicit materials.

• Asking a child to watch an adult change clothes or the adult walking in on the child changing his or her clothes.

• “Wrestling” the child in underwear or while nude.

• Tickling.

• “Buying the child gifts that are not in celebration of a holiday or birthday.”

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed House Bill 993 into law in April 2024. The law addressed grooming when a person over the age of 18 who is “no less than 48 months older than the alleged victim” engages in grooming of a minor when the adult

Also in 2024, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed legislation to prohibit the “manipulating” of a child for sexual contact. Vermont’s law stipulated that grooming “is a tactic in which someone methodically builds a trusting relationship with a child or young adult, the child’s or young adult’s family, and the child’s or young adult’s community with intent to manipulate, coerce, or force the child or young adult to engage in sexual activities.” Within the law grooming behaviors include:

• Boundary violations involving touching the child.

• Exposing the perpetrator’s naked body to the child or observing the child undressing.

• Sharing “obscene or indecent materials” to the child.

• Physically or emotionally separating or isolating the child “from peers, family, or other support systems.”

• Providing the child with alcohol or drugs.

• Providing “excessive or inappropriate” attention, affection, rewards, privileges, or gifts.

Additional states are considering or have enacted a grooming statute in the last year, including Mississippi. The law defines grooming and provides for enhanced consequences when the criminally charged person is in a “position of trust or authority” that includes, but is not limited to:

A child's teacher, counselor, physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, minister, priest, physical therapist, chiropractor, legal guardian, parent, stepparent, aunt, uncle, scout leader, or coach.

Corruption of Minors and Grooming Are Related—but Not the Same

Grooming is not a single bad act; it is a deliberate strategy that exploits trust, authority, and access over time. When statutes collapse grooming into corruption, they weaken prevention, obscure warning signs, and reward predators who know how to stay just inside legal blind spots. Naming grooming as a criminal offense recognizes a hard truth: by the time corruption is provable beyond a reasonable doubt, the grooming has already worked. Pennsylvania’s recent cases show the cost of continuing to pretend otherwise.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment