Janet D. v. Carros (1976)

By Vanessa Pimentel

Overview

Janet D. v. Carros (1976) was a case heard by the Pennsylvania Superior Court that explored the rights to treatment of a juvenile. The case centered around Janet D., who was under the care of Allegheny County Child Welfare Services and said to be a “deprived child.” Thomas Carros was the CWS Director who allegedly failed to provide adequate care to Janet D. This case addressed two central issues: the first being whether a “deprived child” under a child welfare agency has the right to treatment. The second issue is whether, if the former is true, the agency’s director who failed to provide treatment can be held in contempt for this failure. 

Summary

By the juvenile court, Janet D was declared a “deprived child”, signifying she lacked care needed for her emotional, mental, and physical health, such as a guardian (US Legal). She appeared to have mental health issues that impacted her emotions and had a history of running. Janet also had a low IQ score, which resulted in her being labeled as developmentally disabled.  During one of her runaways, she found herself being placed in Allegheny County Juvenile Detention home despite a statute claiming that deprived children are prohibited from being placed there. An exception was made, considering this would be temporary, as CWS prepares for an appropriate long-term placement. On June 15, 1973, CWS was required by the lower court to file a petition that entailed Janet being given appropriate shelter that would get her out of the detention home and into a placement where she would not run away. CWS proceeded with the filing of the petition, and Janet was placed in Mclntyre shelter. However, over six weeks while in the shelter, Janet ran away five times. 

The lower court found that Thomas Carros, director of CWS, and CWS as a whole did not follow the order of ensuring that Janet would not run away and be provided with careful supervision and counseling. After her multiple runaways, Janet was placed on a seven-day restriction, which entailed her having to wear a robe with pajamas. The court found this was against regulations, as it is required for her to have well-fitting clothing. Carros claimed he had given instructions for Janet to receive special counseling and supervision. Yet, no evidence was shown of a plan catering to a better Janet’s future, and she did not receive any of the mandated educational programs, intake studies, or caseworker relationships. The court found no plan for a treatment for her that would help her with her behavior. Due to these concerns, Janet’s counsel petitioned for Carros to be held in contempt. As a result, the lower court’s hearing found Carros in contempt of the order from June 15 and imposed a $100 fine.

Carros responded by appealing, and the case was carried into the Superior Court, where an issue was raised whether the case reached a moot point since Janet was now eighteen and no longer under the supervision of CWS during this process. The court found the case was, in fact, not moot and proceeded. The court went on to establish that deprived children, such as Janet, who were under the care of CWS or any agency as such, do have a legally enforceable right to treatment. Minimum requirements for treatment were outlined by the court, which consisted of dignified discipline, analysis of needs, periodic re-evaluation, individualized program development, etc. These outlined requirements that were set by the court were found in CWS’s care of Janet to have run short. 

Although the court acknowledged a right to treatment was violated, the Superior Court ultimately reversed the lower court’s contempt order against Carros. The Superior Court found that the contempt power of the lower court was not properly exercised. The first reason is procedural irregularity. To explain, the June 15 order was merely preliminary, and a more complete hearing was needed to issue a final individualized disposition order. Secondly, another reason was that the June 15 order was ambiguous due to the phrases “suitable shelter” and “suitable arrangements to see that said child does not run away.” The Superior Court explained this ambiguity left CWS to interpret these requirements within their discretion without any sufficient guidance from the lower court. Thirdly, it was found that the lower court had issued an improper contempt order. The order only imposed a fine but did not specify how Carros could purge himself by taking actions to comply with the original order. 

Impact

The case Janet D. v. Carros is significant because it established that a “deprived child” who is committed to a child welfare agency does have a legal entitlement to treatment. This went on to be granted by the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act as well as the Department of Public Welfare (Juvenile Law Center). Also, the court detailed minimum requirements that child welfare agencies must abide by when it comes to the correct form of treatment for a child. All and all, this case showed that it is essential to have proper individualized treatment for children in child welfare agencies. 

Court Documents

Janet D. v. Carros (1976)

Citations

Juvenile Law Center. “Act 91 FAQs: Extension of Care Past Age 18 | Juvenile Law Center.” Juvenile Law Center, 2024, jlc.org/fostering-connections-success-act-older-youth-extensions-pennsylvania/act-80-and-act-91-faqs. Accessed 13 June 2025.

Legal, US. “Deprived Child Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.” Uslegal.com, 2025, definitions.uslegal.com/d/deprived-child/. Accessed 17 June 2025.