SUBCHAPTER E
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec.
6381. Evidence in court proceedings.
6382. Guardian ad litem for child in court proceedings (Repealed).
6383. Education and training.
6384. Legislative oversight.
6385. Reimbursement to county agencies.
6386. Notification to department and development of plan of safe care for children under
one year of age.
6387. Pandemic of 2020.
6388. Task Force on Child Pornography.
§ 6381. Evidence in court proceedings.
(a) General rule.--In addition to the rules of evidence provided under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 (relating to
juvenile matters), the rules of evidence in this section shall govern in child abuse
proceedings in court or in any department administrative hearing pursuant to section
6341 (relating to amendment or expunction of information).
(b) Reports of unavailable persons.--Whenever a person required to report under this chapter is unavailable due to death
or removal from the jurisdiction of the court, the written report of that person shall
be admissible in evidence in any proceedings arising out of child abuse other than
proceedings under Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses). Any hearsay contained
in the reports shall be given such weight, if any, as the court determines to be appropriate
under all of the circumstances. However, any hearsay contained in a written report
shall not of itself be sufficient to support an adjudication based on abuse.
(c) Privileged communications.--Except for privileged communications between a lawyer and a client and between a minister
and a penitent, a privilege of confidential communication between husband and wife
or between any professional person, including, but not limited to, physicians, psychologists,
counselors, employees of hospitals, clinics, day-care centers and schools and their
patients or clients, shall not constitute grounds for excluding evidence at any proceeding
regarding child abuse or the cause of child abuse.
(d) Prima facie evidence of abuse.--Evidence that a child has suffered child abuse of such a nature as would ordinarily
not be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the parent
or other person responsible for the welfare of the child shall be prima facie evidence
of child abuse by the parent or other person responsible for the welfare of the child.
(e) Child victims and witnesses.--In addition to the provisions of this section, any consideration afforded to a child
victim or witness pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 59 Subch. D (relating to child victims
and witnesses) in any prosecution or adjudication shall be afforded to a child in
child abuse proceedings in court or in any department administrative hearing pursuant
to section 6341.
(Dec. 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, eff. July 1, 1995; Dec. 18, 2013, P.L.1170, No.108,
eff. Dec. 31, 2014)
2013 Amendment. Act 108 added subsec. (e).
1994 Amendment. Act 151 amended subsecs. (a) and (d).
Notes of Decisions
In the Matter of: L.Z., Appeal of: L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015).
· cites it 10× “” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(a). The "rules of evidence in this section” necessarily include subsection (d)’s provision relating to prima facie evidence.”
E.M. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 191 A.3d 44 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 17× “Section 6381(d) of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6381(d), relating to prima facie evidence of abuse in court proceedings, provides: Evidence that a child has suffered child abuse of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained or exist except by the reason of the acts or…”
In the Int. of: La.-Ra. W., Appeal of: C.W., 266 A.3d 1071 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 8× “In cases where there is no direct evidence to identify the perpetrator of abuse, but the injured child was in a particular responsible party’s care when the abuse occurred, Pennsylvania courts rely upon the evidentiary presumption set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d). Section…”
T.H. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 145 A.3d 1191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 5× “1 On appeal, Mother argues the Bureau erred in finding that the County Children and Youth Services (CYS) met its burden of proving that she was a perpetrator of child abuse based on the presumption set forth in Section 6381(d) of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6381(d), and, even if it…”
In the Int. of: A.C., Appeal of: D.C., 237 A.3d 553 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion by applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d) to presume Mother responsible for [Child’s] injury in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that [Child’s] injury was child abuse as defined in 23 Pa.”
In the Interest of: S.L., a Minor Appeal of: J.B., 202 A.3d 723 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 2× “23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d). With regard to the application of the rebuttable presumption provided for by the statute, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed: the Legislature balanced the presumption of Section 6381(d) by making it rebuttable as it merely establishes "prima facie…”
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Taylor, 841 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2004).
· cites it 2× “, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(c) ("a privilege of confidential communication between husband and wife or between any professional person .”
J. B. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 898 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 6× “The presumption created in this provision applies equally to administrative expunction proceedings as well as court proceedings under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(a), which provides: General rule.”
In the Interest of: J.M., a Minor, 166 A.3d 408 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
“No such statute exists, and we are confident that Mother intended to refer to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d), a provision of the Juvenile Act dealing with proof in child abuse cases.”
United States v. Banks, 556 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “040 ("the husband-wife privilege, shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child's abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding"); 23 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 6381 (2006) (eliminating privilege in child abuse cases); R.”
J.W. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 9 A.3d 270 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 4× “23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d). The ALJ reasoned as follows: While there is very little case law on this point, it would appear that the purpose of 23 Pa.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6381(a) — 7 cases
In the Matter of: L.Z., Appeal of: L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(a). The "rules of evidence in this section” necessarily include subsection (d)’s provision relating to prima facie evidence.”
J. B. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 898 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
“The presumption created in this provision applies equally to administrative expunction proceedings as well as court proceedings under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(a), which provides: General rule.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6381(b) — 1 case
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6381(c) — 7 cases
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Taylor, 841 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2004).
“, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(c) ("a privilege of confidential communication between husband and wife or between any professional person .”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6381(d) — 76 cases
In the Matter of: L.Z., Appeal of: L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015).
“” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(a). The "rules of evidence in this section” necessarily include subsection (d)’s provision relating to prima facie evidence.”
E.M. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 191 A.3d 44 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
“Section 6381(d) of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6381(d), relating to prima facie evidence of abuse in court proceedings, provides: Evidence that a child has suffered child abuse of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained or exist except by the reason of the acts or…”
In the Int. of: La.-Ra. W., Appeal of: C.W., 266 A.3d 1071 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
“In cases where there is no direct evidence to identify the perpetrator of abuse, but the injured child was in a particular responsible party’s care when the abuse occurred, Pennsylvania courts rely upon the evidentiary presumption set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d). Section…”
T.H. v. Dep't of Human Servs., 145 A.3d 1191 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
“1 On appeal, Mother argues the Bureau erred in finding that the County Children and Youth Services (CYS) met its burden of proving that she was a perpetrator of child abuse based on the presumption set forth in Section 6381(d) of the CPSL, 23 Pa. C.S. § 6381(d), and, even if it…”
In the Int. of: A.C., Appeal of: D.C., 237 A.3d 553 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
“Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion by applying 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d) to presume Mother responsible for [Child’s] injury in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that [Child’s] injury was child abuse as defined in 23 Pa.”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6381(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.