Click here to subscribe today or Login.
WILKES-BARRE — Luzerne County Children and Youth Services can keep private the records of a dead toddler and his surviving siblings in a federal lawsuit filed by the boy’s parents, according to a judge’s ruling issued Thursday.
Anthony Puscavage died in January 2015 of head trauma two months after the 21-month-old and his brother were placed under the custody of their maternal grandmother, Brenda Wilkes, and her husband, Kenneth Wilkes, by way of a court order filed by Children and Youth.
Children and Youth officials said the agency had dealt with the boy’s parents, Wilkes-Barre residents Nichole Puscavage and Anthony Cook, for years stemming from complaints that ranged from neglect to overcrowding and excess partying at their home.
Following Puscavage’s death, questions emerged over who was responsible.
One state report, penned by the Department of Human Services Office of Children, Youth and Families, concluded Puscavage died as a result of physical abuse and determined Brenda Wilkes, who also had custody of Nichole Puscavage’s three other children, was the “perpetrator.”
The toddler’s death was ruled accidental, but led to the downgrading of Children and Youth’s license to provisional status last fall, with the state citing “serious concerns” and “regulatory violations” discovered through inspections.
“An autopsy was performed, and the final manner of death was ruled an accident,” Luzerne County Coroner Bill Lisman said in October. “As far as the coroner ’s office is aware, the case is closed.”
No charges have been filed in the death.
The boy’s parents allege in a lawsuit filed in January that Children and Youth “failed to obtain background clearances for Brenda Wilkes or members of her household” before placing the children in their home.
The agency sought a confidentiality order May 20, saying it was trying to protect Nichole Puscavage’s four other children — who have all come under Children and Youth’s care — from “having their behavioral and mental and physical health information publicly disseminated,” according to court records.
“The Puscavage children have the right to be free from the invasion into their home life by the public,” Children and Youth officials argued in the motion. “It would be tremendously unfair to these minors to reveal to the public all the family problems each of these children have faced and continue to face.”
Children and Youth officials maintained in court documents they sought the order not to “protect its own privacy interests, but that of the four surviving minor children.”
The parents’ response, filed by Wilkes-Barre attorney Jonathan S. Comitz, argues Children and Youth’s order is made on behalf of children it no longer has ties to. He further contended whether the information, if publicized, would harm the children in the future.
“(Children and Youth) appears to believe that there are ‘endless possibilities of ridicule and embarrassment into the future by peers, their community, the press, future co-workers and the general public.’ It is a stretch to assume that years into the future these children’s co-workers will inquire about discovery in a case from the past,” he argues.
U.S. District Judge Richard A. Conaboy wrote in a memorandum that he sided with the defendants’ argument.
“Plaintiffs do not articulate a single specific reason why it is important to disclose to the public the information the defendant seeks to keep confidential,” Conaboy wrote. “Rather, plaintiffs argue in generalities.”
The judge added: “Whether this may be true isn’t the court’s concern here. The court’s concern is the interests of the minor children. A specific order that certain information be kept confidential is the best way to protect those interests.”