School files suit in yearslong dispute with state agency

A Catholic academy in Mt. Lebanon this week filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that a state agency is waging a “religiously and politically motivated attack” based on a yearslong dispute over who gets to regulate a before- and after-school program.

The South Hills Catholic Academy filed the lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and several people within that agency after the dispute escalated last month.

At the time, department officials “acted without due process of law and without authority,” the suit reads, when on April 9 they appeared on school property to search the facility and the school’s Guardian Angel program, which allows parents and guardians to drop their children off in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon after the end of regularly scheduled classes.

The search — which the suit claims happened after the department obtained a search warrant by “misrepresenting the situation and further violating the School’s rights” — was to determine whether the Guardian Angels program was a child care center. To operate a child care center, South Hills would have to have a certificate, which the school does not currently possess, and cooperate with DHS oversight.

But South Hills officials claimed in a statement that “as a religious educational institution, its supervised extended-school day enrichment program does not constitute a childcare facility.”

The Department of Human Services in a statement addressed the lawsuit, stating that “DHS believes the allegations in the suit are wholly without merit and will defend the matter. We cannot comment further as the matter is in litigation.”

Now, the K-8 school, which is independent of the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, is attempting “to halt what it considers an egregious case of government overreach,” its statement reads.

According to the lawsuit, the dispute first started in February 2022 when department officials appeared unannounced at the school to conduct a warrantless search of the Guardian Angels program, which allows students to be dropped off up to 45 minutes before the first class each morning and allows them to remain up to 90 minutes after the last class of the day.

A month after the inspection, the department issued a cease-and-desist order, demanding that the school stop operating the “uncertified child care facility” where children were left unsupervised and where there were not a sufficient number of staff, the letter reads. The letter, which was included in the suit, also stated that DHS has supervisory authority over a nonprofit facility in which seven or more children unrelated to the operator are cared for and noted that the school needs to obtain a

certificate of compliance from the state authority.

The school in the statement countered those allegations, stating that “no complaints or findings at any time by the Academy or the state have found that there is any threat to the health and safety of our students or community.”

Shortly after the ceaseanddesist order was received, South Hills appealed on grounds that the department does not have jurisdiction over the program because it is part of a “religious facility and not a childcare facility.”

As part of the appeal process, the school also filed a motion to dismiss the order. That motion was denied by an administrative law judge.

South Hills officials then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

But in January, the Commonwealth Court issued an opinion stating “we reject Private School’s arguments that the law provides with certainty the Department cannot regulate the program,” adding that DHS must prove before the administrative Bureau of Hearings and Appeals that the school’s program qualifies as child care.

The school in February appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

And despite the school saying in the lawsuit that the case had been stayed while they waited on the appeal, inspections have continued, the suit states.

The first took place Feb. 27 when inspectors conducted a warrantless inspection without the school’s consent, the suit states. The inspection included counting the number of students playing on the turf field, “interrogating” the school security guard and entering the building to watch one teacher and “a few children coloring.”

At the time, DHS officials told Harmony Stewart, the head of school, “you will see us on a monthly basis for the foreseeable future,” the suit reads.

Inspectors then attempted another search on March 20, but were met by Ms. Stewart, who informed them that a stay had been entered and they were not permitted to go into the school.

Following that incident inspectors on April 8 went to Magisterial District Judge Hilary Wheatly’s office to obtain a search warrant that the lawsuit said had “all of the appearances of a criminal search warrant.” The reason for the warrant, the suit states, was “to determine whether conditions at this (current) unlicensed facility pose a threat to the health and safety of children” and “to search for files and records at this (current) unlicensed facility that pertain to how many children are in care and information regarding their care.”

After receiving the warrant, two inspectors arrived at the school on April 9 around 3:40 p.m. “dressed in full law enforcement garb” and started to “search and disrupt” the school.

While they were on school property, department officials allegedly “harassed and intimidated” teachers, causing them to get “visibly upset as teachers were attempting to care for the students in their charge and continue with their duties,” the suit reads.

And parents who came to pick up their children during that time asked “what was going on and was ‘everything okay’” after seeing department officials dressed in clothes “similar to a police uniform,” the suit states.

The investigation lasted an hour and caused students to be “visibly scared.”

The suit is now claiming several constitutional violations and unreasonable search and seizure.

Officials are also seeking a permanent injunction against DHS to keep their agents from searching and inspecting the school during ongoing litigation and from using department laws, regulations and policies to “harass and/ or retaliate against” the school, among others.