author:
CERCONE, Judge:
      ROWLEY, President Judge,

text:
    665 A.2d 1252
    Rhonda MILLER, on Behalf of the Minor Children, Joshua WALKER and Crystal Walker v. Lawrence WALKER, Sr., Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted June 27, 1995.
    Filed Oct. 3, 1995.

      James W. Zerillo, Pottstown, for appellant.
    Rhonda Miller, pro se, appellee.
    Before ROWLEY, President Judge, and HUDOCK and CERCONE, JJ.
   CERCONE, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court granting appellee’s petition for protection from abuse filed on behalf of her minor children. We affirm.

Appellee filed a petition for protection from abuse on behalf of her minor children, Crystal and Joshua Walker, on November 14,1994. She alleged that the children’s father (appellant) had spanked Joshua with a board causing bruises on the child’s leg. Joshua also had a bruise on his upper arm inflicted when his father grabbed him. Appellee alleged in her petition that appellant had gotten mad at Joshua when Joshua threw his shoe on the bathroom floor. She further contended that her daughter Crystal had seen and heard her father hit Joshua, and had heard Joshua crying. Crystal was afraid if she said anything about what was going on that she too would be hit.

Appellee alleged that the incident involving the paddle occurred on November 12, 1994. The children were at their father’s home at the time. The next day, when the children were at home with their mother (appellee), she noticed the bruises on Joshua’s leg and arm. When she asked him about it, he told her about the spanking incident. Appellee took pictures of the bruises. The next day, November 14, 1994, appellee filed the instant petition. The trial court granted a temporary protection from abuse order on that date under which appellant was not to have any contact with appellee or the children, prohibited appellant from entering the premises of appellee’s home, and awarded temporary legal custody of the children to appellee.

By order of court, appellant was allowed visitation with the children on November 24, 25, 26 and 27, 1994. On December 1, 1994, the trial court issued an order allowing appellant to visit the children on December 3, 5, and 9-11, 1994. The trial court conducted a hearing on the protection from abuse petition on December 15, 1994, after which it entered a final protection from abuse order. The final order granted the request for relief and directed that appellant refrain from abusing, harassing or threatening appellee or her children in any place, and awarding appellee legal custody of the minor children. At the hearing, the court ordered that appellant be allowed supervised visitation with the children. N.T., December 15,1994, at 69.

Appellant filed a petition for reconsideration of the December 15, 1994 order which the lower court denied. Appellant then filed a timely appeal of the December 15, 1994 order in which he raises the following issues:

1. Whether abuse to the minor child, Joshua Walker, was established within the meaning of the Protection from Abuse Act by a preponderance of the evidence?
2. Whether the abuse, if established was an allowable exercise of reasonable corporal punishment pursuant to Pennsylvania law?
3. Whether the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, evidence of prior acts of abuse by the appellant which were not temporally related to the alleged abuse in question, relevant, or pleaded in appellee’s petition for protection from abuse?
4. Whether a protection from abuse order is a final order subject to appeal as of right?

We will first address whether the order appealed from is a final one permitting an appeal as of right.

With certain exceptions, an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a lower court. Pa.R.A.P., Rule 341(a), 42 Pa.C.S.A. A final order is any order that:

(1) disposes of all claims or of all parties; or
(2) any order that is expressly defined as a final order by statute; or
(3) any order entered as a final order pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule.
(c) When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim or when multiple parties are involved, the trial court or other governmental unit may enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution of the entire case. Such an order becomes appealable when entered. In the absence of such a determination and entry of a final order, any order or other form of decision that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or parties shall not constitute a final order.

Id,., Rule 341(b) and (c).

In the instant case, appellee brought an action seeking a protection from abuse order against appellant. Her claim consisted of the allegations that appellant had inflicted physical abuse on her son Joshua and that her daughter Crystal harbored fear of abuse as a result of seeing and hearing the abuse inflicted on her brother. The lower court issued a temporary, and then a final order granting appellee’s petition, directing that appellant refrain from the abuse, and granting legal custody of the children to appellee. This was a full adjudication of the claim before the lower court on the basis of the petition before it. Thus, the order was a final one under Rule 341(b). After the lower court’s adjudication, there remained no further claims or issues to decide pursuant to appellee’s petition for protection from abuse. Although the record indicates that the parties may also be involved in a custody action concerning the same two children, that action, as evidenced by the record in that case, is completely separate and distinct from the present protection from abuse action. As Rule 341(c) indicates, it is in situations that involve multiple parties or more than one claim for relief in a particular action that an adjudication of one of those claims or as to one of those parties may not constitute a final order disposing of the entire case. This case involves a discrete protection from abuse action in which the only claim presented to the lower court was adjudicated by it. Thus, the order appealed from was a final one from which appellant properly appealed as of right.

Appellant’s next contention is that appellee did not establish that abuse of Joshua had occurred within the meaning of the Protection from Abuse Act. When a claim is presented on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to support an order of protection from abuse, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner and granting her the benefit of all reasonable inferences, determine whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence. Snyder v. Snyder, 427 Pa.Super. 494, 629 A.2d 977 (1993). On appeal, this court defers to the credibility determinations of the lower court as to witnesses who appeared before it. Alfred v. Braxton, 442 Pa.Super. 381, 659 A.2d 1040 (1995).

“Abuse” under the Protection From Abuse Act is defined as follows:

The occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members, sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood:
(1) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, rape, spousal sexual assault or involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with or without a deadly weapon.
(2) Placing another in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
(4) Physically or sexually abusing minor children, including such terms as defined in Chapter 63 (relating to child protective services).
(5) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, ... under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The definition of this paragraph applies only to proceedings commenced under this title----

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a). Family and household members, under the Protection from Abuse Act, include “parents and children.” Id.

At the hearing in the instant case, the trial court heard evidence from appellee, Joshua, Crystal, appellant, and a social worker from Children and Youth Services. The court also reviewed five photographs of the bruises which appellee alleged that Joshua had incurred as a result of the alleged abuse. The court found the testimony of appellee and the children convincing. He found that appellant was not a credible witness. He further found that the social worker had not applied a proper standard in her determination that she did not find abuse present. The trial court also noted that the CYS worker did not see Joshua until November 16, approximately four days after the alleged abuse occurred. On this basis, the trial court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support a conclusion that abuse of Joshua had occurred under section (1) of the “abuse” definition. Specifically, the trial court determined that “bodily injury” to Joshua had been inflicted under that subsection.

Appellant contends first that “bodily injury” was not established by the evidence elicited at the hearing. Appellant recognizes that the trial court is empowered to assess the credibility of witnesses at trial. He argues, however, that the “credible” evidence did not establish “bodily injury” within the meaning of the Protection from Abuse Act.

We find no merit to this contention. Viewing the evidence under our standard of review, we find it more than sufficient to establish the existence of bodily injury. Joshua’s testimony established that his father struck him with a board on the leg, and that he (Joshua) experienced pain and developed a bruise from this. Further, Joshua testified as to his father’s gripping him on the arm, resulting in bruising in that area. Joshua also testified that he was afraid that his father might do these things to him again. The testimony of Crystal established that she heard Joshua crying after their father took a board into the room with Joshua. Appellee testified that she had observed bruising of her children on prior occasions and that appellant had a history of difficulty in controlling his temper. Photographs allegedly taken the day after the “board” incident and submitted to the court showed the presence of bruises on Joshua’s arm and leg.

This evidence was clearly sufficient to establish the existence of bodily injury by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant gives various reasons why the trial court should have refused to find the above evidence credible; however, each of those arguments itself involves a credibility determination. The trial court clearly acted properly in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, and the evidence supports the trial court’s finding.

Appellant next argues that even if bodily injury did occur, that he caused such injury in the exercise of allowable corporal punishment under Pennsylvania law. Appellant cites 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 509 which provides:

The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable if:
(1) The actor is the parent or guardian or other person similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of a minor or a person acting at the request of such parent, guardian or other responsible person and:
(i) the force is used for the propose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the preventing or punishment of his misconduct; and
(ii) the force used is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress or gross degradation.

Id. We do not find this argument persuasive. Section 509, supra, sets forth various defenses to criminal actions under the Crimes Code. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 101 et seq. To that extent, section 509 permits a parent to inflict corporal punishment which accords with the purposes of subsection (1) and does not rise to level of subsection (2), without being charged or convicted of a criminal offense. The Protection from Abuse Act addresses a different problem, i.e., the prevention of abuse (including “bodily injury”) inflicted by members of one’s family or household. The remedies provided by the Protection from Abuse Act allow the removal of the abusing family member from the household so that additional injury to the victim does not occur. Obviously, the intent is to allow persons to reside peaceably and without fear of injury within their own families or residences. See Weir v. Weir, 428 Pa.Super. 515, 524, 631 A.2d 650, 654 (1993) (purpose of Protection from Abuse Act is to “provide spouses, household members, intimate partners and children with immediate temporary protection from abuse”); Lee v. Carney, 435 Pa.Super. 405, 406, 645 A.2d 1363, 1364 (1986) (purpose of Protection From Abuse Act is to protect victims of domestic violence from the perpetrators of such abuse); Eichenlaub v. Eichenlaub, 340 Pa.Super. 552, 560, 490 A.2d 918, 922 (1985) (purpose of Protection from Abuse Act is advance protection of physical and sexual abuse). Thus, appellant’s argument that his conduct did not rise to the level of criminal culpability does not defeat the trial court’s protection from abuse order.

Appellant also contends that the inclusion of subsection (4) within the definition of abuse in section 6102(a) of the Protection from Abuse Act indicates the legislature’s intention to exclude corporal punishment of a child from the purview of the Act. Subsection (4), supra, indicates that physical or sexual abuse of minor children, including that defined under the Child Protective Services Law, falls within the definition of abuse under the Protection from Abuse Act. The Child Protective Services Law, defines the term “child abuse” as follows:

(i) Any recent act or failure to act by a perpetrator which causes nonaccidental serious physical injury to a child under 18 years of age.
(ii) An act or failure to act by a perpetrator which causes nonaccidental serious mental injury to or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age.
(iii) Any recent act, failure to act or series of such acts or failures to act by a perpetrator which creates an imminent risk of serious physical injury to or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age.
(iv) Serious physical neglect by a perpetrator constituting prolonged or repeated lack of supervision or the failure to provide essentials of life, including adequate medical care, which endangers a child’s life or development or impairs the child’s functioning.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b). “Serious physical injury” is defined under the Child Protective Services Act as an injury that: “(1) causes a child severe pain; or (2) significantly impairs a child’s physical functioning, either temporarily or permanently.” Id., § 6303(a). Appellant contends that the presence of subsection (4) in the definition of abuse under the Protection from Abuse Act indicates that the legislature intended only for serious physical injury to a child under the Protective Services Act to be included within the definition of abuse under the Protection from Abuse Act. We disagree.

In construing statutes, the object of all such interpretations is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a). “Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Id. “Statutes in pari materia shall be construed together, if possible, as one statute.” Id., § 1932(a).

The purpose of the Child Protective Services Law is, inter alia, “to establish in each county protective services for the purpose of investigating reports [of suspected child abuse] swiftly and competently, provid[e] protection for children from further abuse and provid[e] rehabilitative services for children and parents involved so as to ensure the child’s well-being and to preserve, stabilize and protect the integrity of family life wherever appropriate.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(a). Under the Child Protective Services Law, a child may be taken into protective custody where immediately necessary to protect the child. Id. § 6315. Thus, a child may be taken from its home and kept in protective custody in order to protect the child from further child abuse as defined in section 6303.

The Protection from Abuse Act, on the other hand, authorizes the court to enter protective orders directing a defendant from abusing a petitioner or minor children. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108(a). A protection from abuse plaintiff may have a defendant excluded from her household by court order or may be awarded temporary custody of minor children. Id. The court may also order a protection from abuse defendant to refrain from any contact with a petitioner or minor children. Id. Other orders and remedies are authorized under the act for abuse of family and household members under the act. Violation of a protection from abuse order is punishable by imprisonment or fine. Id. § 6114. It is clear that the legislature, by enacting the Protection from Abuse Act, desired to give victims of abuse within the home various legal remedies to control and stop the abuse.

The inclusion of subsection (4) within the definition of abuse under the Protection from Abuse Act, section 6102(a), supra, evidences the legislature’s intent to make available to victims of child abuse as defined under the Child Protective Services Act the legal remedies of the Protection from Abuse Act. The remedy for child abuse under the Child Protective Services Act is the removal of the child from the home and placement of the child in protective custody. 23 Pa.C.S.A § 6315. Under the Protection from Abuse Act, a parent, guardian, or adult household member may seek the legal remedies available under that Act, i.e., a protective order prohibiting contact between an abuser and a victim or exclusion of the abuser from the victim’s residence, for a victim of child abuse.

However, it is clear that the definition of abuse under the Protection from Abuse Act is broader than the definition of child abuse under the Child Protective Services Act. Under the Protection from Abuse Act, “bodily injury” caused “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” to a family or household member is included within the definition of abuse, as well as “serious bodily injury.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a). As we have previously indicated, “family or household members” under the Protection from Abuse Act include “parents and children.” Id.

The General Assembly’s purpose in including a broader definition of abuse than found in the Child Protective Services Law is undoubtedly related to the purposes of the Protection from Abuse Act. The goal of the Protection from Abuse Act is to provide an immediate remedy to victims of domestic abuse, thereby seeking to prevent further instances of abuse from occurring. See Weir v. Weir, supra; Eichenlaub v. Eichenlaub, supra. Thus, for a remedy to be available under the Protection from Abuse Act, it is not necessary that the physical harm to the child be as serious as that which is required for a child to be removed from his home and placed in protective custody. The goal of the Protection from Abuse Act is protection and the prevention of further abuse by removing the perpetrator of the abuse from the household and/or from the victim for a period of time. Viewing the purposes of the Acts in this light, the General Assembly’s purpose in defining abuse more broadly in the Protection from Abuse Act is clear.

In the instant case, the evidence supported the lower court’s conclusion that abuse had occurred to Joshua by virtue of the bodily injuries he received. The protection from abuse order entered by the lower court was consistent with the purposes of the act to remove a perpetrator of abuse from the victim for a limited period of time. The Protection from Abuse Act does not outlaw corporal punishment by a parent. However, the Act will permit a remedy for bodily injury to a family or household member which is inflicted intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. 28 Pa.C.S.A. § 6102(a).

It is well known by most parents that corporal punishment properly inflicted will not produce bodily injury in a child. However, “corporal punishment” inflicted recklessly or in an enraged manner may result in bodily injury. Here, the lower court received testimony and photographs of bodily injuries to a child allegedly inflicted for purposes of “punishment.” The lower court also heard testimony that the children had returned from their father’s home on prior occasions with bruises on their bodies, and that their father had difficulty controlling his temper. Both children indicated fear of their father’s potential infliction of “punishment.” This was all substantial evidence justifying the lower court’s protection from abuse order.

Appellant contends that a protection from abuse order in a case such as this, where the intention was corporal punishment and not abuse, is unfair in that it prevents him from contact with his children. The record belies appellant’s contention. During the time the temporary protection from abuse order was in force, appellant was granted several instances of visitation with his children. In addition, the final protection from abuse order does not prohibit appellant from any contact with his children. Appellant is simply directed to refrain from abusing the children in any place where they may be found. Further, the trial court indicated at the hearing on the petition that supervised visitation of appellant with the children would be permitted. Thus, appellant’s suggestion that the protection from abuse order has precluded him from any contact with his children for a period of nine months is utterly devoid of any merit.

Finally, appellant contends that the trial court improperly admitted testimony concerning prior instances of alleged abuse. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing appellee to testify about incidents which occurred in 1988, six years prior to the incident at issue in this case. Specifically, appellant objected to the following testimony:

Q. [BY THE COURT]: Okay. Other than the bruises that you saw on your son, is there anything you observed that you think is relevant to this?
A. He’s been abusive with our children in the past, during our marriage.
MR. ZERILLO: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: On what basis?
MR. ZERILLO: Your Honor, the marriage ended over four years ago. And I don’t believe it’s relevant to this particular—
THE COURT: All right. That objection is overruled.
Q. [BY THE COURT]: You may tell me about the abuse during the marriage that you observed.
A. At one time, Joshua was under a year old and Crystal was not quite three yet — or just turned two. I can’t quite remember. I went to borrow a vacuum cleaner from a friend. I came back home. My son was burned up with bleach. My daughter, apparently, had gotten a hold of bleach, poured it all over her. And he — I ran — I had some friends that lived down the street, one who worked at the hospital, and stuff. And, you know, they put my son in, like — you know, they knew not to put him in cold water, and stuff. I wasn’t sure how to handle it. His leg was all burned up from bleach.

N.T., December 15,1994, at 5-6.

Questions concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court and may be reversed on appeal only when a clear abuse of discretion was present. Soda v. Baird, 411 Pa.Super. 80, 600 A.2d 1274 (1991). In Snyder v. Snyder, supra, the court held that a person filing a protection from abuse petition will not be “rigorously limited to the specific allegations of abuse found in the Petition.” 427 Pa.Super. at 502, 629 A.2d at 981. The court further held that in light of the purpose of the Act to “prevent imminent harm to abused person(s),” some flexibility must be allowed in the admission of evidence relating to past acts of abuse. Id. at 503-04, 629 A.2d at 982.

In this case, the trial court permitted the testimony of appellee as to past incidents of abuse of the children which appellee had observed during her marriage to appellant. At the time of the hearing, the children were seven and eight years old. The incident testified to by appellee occurred when the children were one and two years old. Despite a time period of six years, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hear evidence related to prior abuse of the children. In light of the protective purposes of the act, it was within the trial court’s discretion to hear any relevant evidence that would assist it in its obligation to assess the appellee’s entitlement to and need for a protection from abuse order. If the trial court found the testimony to involve events too distant in time to possess great relevance to the case, it could certainly have assigned less weight to the testimony. However, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to hear the evidence. Past abusive conduct on the appellant’s part was a crucial inquiry necessary for entry of a proper order.

In addition, appellant’s contention has no merit because the testimony given by appellee did not specifically implicate appellant in the incident. It appears from the testimony that appellee’s daughter may have caused the bleach to spill onto her brother’s leg. It is not clear from the testimony whether or not appellant was left in charge of the children. Thus, there was negligible harm incurred to appellant by the trial court’s hearing of this testimony.

Having found no merit to any of the issues raised by appellant, we will affirm the order of the lower court.

Order affirmed.

ROWLEY, President Judge, files a concurring statement.

ROWLEY, President Judge,

concurring.

I concur in the result. I would affirm the trial court’s order in this disturbingly close case only because the deference we must afford a trial court under the required standard of appellate review, coupled with appellant’s admission that the incident occurred, constrains me to do so.

      . "Statutes or parts of statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same persons or things or to the same class of persons or things.” Id. § 1932(a).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: KELLY, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    665 A.2d 1260
    In the Matter of T.R., J.M., C.R. and C.R., Appellees. Appeal of A.W., Appellant.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted July 17, 1995.
    Filed Oct. 5, 1995.

      Edward Michael Flannery, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Donella Shaffer, Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellees.
    Yernette Dow, Assistant City Solicitor, for Department of Human Services, participating party.
    Thomas H. Purl, III, Philadelphia, for C.R., participating party.
    William E. Gibbons, Philadelphia, for Community Legal Services, Amicus Curiae.

      Samuel H. Isreal & Frank P. Cervone, Philadelphia, for Support Center for Child Advocates, Amicus Curiae.
    Before KELLY, JOHNSON, and CERCONE, JJ.
   KELLY, Judge:

In this opinion, we are called on to determine whether the trial court, in the context of performing a juvenile dependency dispositional review, may order the mother of adjudicated dependents to undergo a psychological evaluation against her wishes and disclose the results of the evaluation to interested parties. We hold that such an order is consistent with the' purposes of the Juvenile Act and does not violate the mother’s constitutional right to privacy. Accordingly, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. This case involves appellant’s two-year-old son, T.R., who was injured by rough horseplay by his nine and five-year-old siblings, J.M. and C.R. T.R. was born on June 16, 1991. The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) became aware of T.R.’s family in June of 1986 when DHS received a Child Protective Services (“CPS”) report alleging that T.R.’s older brother, J.M., had suffered a spiral fracture while in appellant’s care. On two occasions in April of 1992, T.R., at that time ten months old, was treated at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for eye injuries caused by a blunt object like a finger or cigarette.

On April 16, 1992, the Honorable Nicholas A. Cipriani issued a restraining order for T.R. at the request of DHS. As a result, T.R. was temporarily .committed to DHS. On May 17, 1993, the Honorable Thomas A. Dempsey adjudicated T.R. dependent with DHS supervision in appellant's home.

Renee Johnson, employed by Bethanna Social Service Agency, made weekly visits to appellant’s home beginning in October of 1993. (N.T. 5/13/94 at 54-55). One of Ms. Johnson’s duties was to discuss parenting with appellant. (Id. at 58). Another duty was to discuss with appellant appropriate disciplinary strategies for appellant’s children. (Id.). Ms. Johnson testified that appellant failed to cooperate with respect to the parenting classes; appellant was asked to attend parenting classes but failed to do so. (Id.). Additionally, Ms. Johnson testified that she and a supervisor informed appellant about the inappropriate use of extensive time-out for the younger children; nevertheless, appellant did not comply with the proper way of using the time-out disciplinary technique. (Id. at 59). For example, during some of Ms. Johnson’s visits to appellant’s home, Ms. Johnson witnessed appellant inappropriately disciplining her children by sitting them still in the hallway for extended periods of time, even the entire time of Ms. Johnson’s visit. Id.

On April 19,1994, at a hearing before the Court of Common Pleas, evidence was presented that raised serious concerns for the trial court as to appellant’s mental health status and her ability to care for and protect her children. The evidence presented included the testimony of Mr. Nelson Hairston, a DHS social worker who testified that T.R. had suffered many bodily injuries, including four fractured ribs, at the hands of his two older brothers and that appellant failed to protect T.R. Additionally, Mr. Hairston testified that T.R. had previously suffered the aforementioned eye injuries that were caused by some kind of blunt object.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court ordered appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation. Appellant objected to the psychological evaluation and the disclosure of its results; additionally, appellant requested that the trial court review the evaluation in camera. As a result, the trial court ordered the parties to submit memoranda of law on or before the next hearing date of May 12, 1994 on the issue of whether the trial court had the authority to review the evaluation in camera without disclosing the results of the evaluation to the interested parties.

DHS arranged for appellant to be evaluated on May 12, 1994 at the Family Court Building in Philadelphia by licensed clinical psychologist, Sol Barenbaum, Ph.D., because she missed a prior appointment with a psychologist. After the psychological evaluation was performed, appellant’s counsel again objected, questioning the court’s authority to compel the evaluation. As a result of this objection, the trial court ordered Dr. Barenbaum to prepare a written report pursuant to said evaluation and to deliver it directly to the trial court in a sealed envelope. In addition, the trial court again ordered counsel for the interested parties to submit memoranda of law on the issues of whether the trial court had the authority to compel appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation and, if so, whether a report made pursuant to said psychological evaluation may be released to the interested parties.

At the hearing on May 12, 1994, after the psychological evaluation issue was heard, DHS requested that the trial court grant a restraining order for all four of appellant’s children. Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court found that T.R.’s continuation in appellant’s home would be contrary to the welfare of T.R. and his siblings and that DHS made appropriate, reasonable efforts to prevent placement, and thus granted a restraining order for the children who were temporarily committed to DHS.

On September 29, 1994, the trial court held in part that it had the authority to compel appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation and that the psychological report prepared pursuant to the psychological evaluation could be released to the interested parties. (N.T. 9/29/94 at 3). At appellant’s request, the trial court stayed the order for thirty days to permit the parties to appeal. {Id. at 13). This appeal ensued.

Appellant presents the following issues on appeal:

1. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RULING THAT AT A DISPOSITIONAL REVIEW HEARING UNDER THE JUVENILE ACT, THE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL A PARENT TO SUBMIT TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION?
2. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN RULING THAT AT A DISPOSITIONAL REVIEW HEARING UNDER THE JUVENILE ACT, THE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL A PARENT TO SUBMIT TO A PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND RELEASE THE TESTING, EVALUATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES?

Appellant’s Brief at 6.

Before we address appellant’s issues, we will discuss whether this Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal. An order that is separable from and collateral to a cause of action may become appealable under certain circumstances. Hutchison by Hutchison v. Luddy, 417 Pa.Super. 93, 107, 611 A.2d 1280, 1287 (1992) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949)). The three prongs of the Cohen test must be satisfied in order for this order to be appealable. First, the order appealed must be separable from and collateral to the main cause of action. Second, the right involved must be too important to be denied review. Third, the question presented must be that if review is postponed until a final judgment is rendered in the case, the claimed right will be irreparably lost. Id. (citing Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 394 A.2d 542 (1978); Kronz v. Kronz, 393 Pa.Super. 227, 574 A.2d 91 (1990); Beasley v. Beasley, 348 Pa.Super. 124, 501 A.2d 679 (1985)).

Instantly, the order of the trial court that the psychological evaluation for appellant is appropriate and that the report made pursuant to the psychological evaluation may be released to interested parties is separable and collateral to the main cause of action, namely the disposition of T.R. Therefore, the first prong has been satisfied. Second, the right that appellant asserts, i.e. her right to privacy with respect to her reputation, is too important to be denied review. See Article 1, § 1 of Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, the second prong has been satisfied. Finally, if review is postponed until after a final judgment rendered on the question of the disposition of T.R,., the opportunity to prevent disclosure of appellant’s personal information obtained from the psychological evaluation to interested parties will have disappeared. Therefore, the third prong has been satisfied. Thus, appellant’s appeal to this Court is entirely proper.

The first issue raised by appellant is whether the trial court erred in ruling that at a dispositional review hearing under the Juvenile Act, the trial court had the statutory authority to compel appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation. In order to resolve this issue, we must interpret the language of the Juvenile Act with respect to the express purposes of the Act.

The purposes of the Juvenile Act are set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b), which provides in relevant part as follows:

(b) Purpose. — This chapter shall be interpreted and construed as to effectuate the following purposes:
(1) To preserve the unity of the family whenever possible and to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming -within the provisions of the chapter.
* * í¡c íH *
(3) To achieve the foregoing purposes in a family environment whenever possible, separating the child from parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety.

The scope of the provisions of the Juvenile Act covers “proceedings in which a child is alleged to be delinquent or dependent.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a)(1). A dependent child, for the purposes of this appeal, is defined by the Juvenile Act as a child who “is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. All four children in the instant appeal, T.R., J.M., C.R., and C.R. were adjudicated dependent.

Section 6351 of the Juvenile Act governs the court’s disposition of a dependent child. The pertinent portions of Section 6351 read as follows:

(a) General rule. — If the child is found to be a dependent child the court may make any of the following orders of disposition best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child:
(1) Permit the child to remain with his parents, guardian, or other custodian, subject to conditions and limitations as the court prescribes, including supervision as directed by the court for the protection of the child.
(2) Subject to conditions and limitations as the court prescribes transfer temporary legal custody to any of the following:
(i) Any individual resident within or without this Commonwealth who, after study by the probation officer or other person or agency designated by the court, is found by the court to be qualified to receive and care for the child.
(ii) An agency or other private organization licensed or otherwise authorized by law to receive and provide care for the child.
(iii) A public agency authorized by law to receive and provide care for the child.

Finally, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6339 focuses on investigations and reports in writing, concerning the child’s family, that may be made and given to the court. Section 6339(a) permits the court to direct that social studies and reports be made of the child, his family, environment, and all matters relevant to disposition of the case.

To interpret the aforementioned statutory provisions, we are guided by the well-established principles of statutory construction. See Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1501 et seq. In particular, we must keep in mind that the Juvenile Act, a statute which is protective in nature and which addresses diverse types of conduct by both children and their parents alike, is by necessity drawn broadly. Commonwealth v. Marlin, 452 Pa. 380, 386, 305 A.2d 14, 18 (1973). Appropriately, the Juvenile Act falls into that category of legislation that must be construed liberally to effect its objectives and to promote justice; thus, it does not lend itself to strict construction. See 1 Pa.C.S.A § 1928(a), (b). Therefore, individual provisions of the Juvenile Act should not be read in the abstract; each provision must be construed with a view to its place in the entire legislative structure of the Act. In Interest of M.L.E., 429 Pa.Super. 248, 250, 632 A.2d 329, 330 (1993); see also In Interest of Jones, 286 Pa.Super. 574, 429 A.2d 671 (1981) (in construing statute, sections must be read with reference to entire statute and not alone).

The appellate courts of this Commonwealth have found that a trial court, acting pursuant to the Juvenile Act, has broad powers of discretion “guided by the overriding principle of acting to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions [of the Juvenile Act].” In re Frederick F., 400 Pa.Super. 542, 552, 588 A.2d 1248, 1253 (1990) (citing In re Lowry, 506 Pa. 121, 129-30, 484 A.2d 383, 388 (1984)); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b). In rendering the disposition “best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child,” our courts have emphasized that both the hearing and reviewing courts should take into consideration any and all factors that bear upon the welfare of the child and can aid the court’s inevitably imprecise prediction about the child’s future well-being. See In re Davis, 502 Pa. 110, 122, 465 A.2d 614, 620 (1983) (Larsen, Justice, with one Justice agreeing and four Justices concurring in result); In Interest of S.M.S., 284 Pa.Super. 9, 16-17, 424 A.2d 1365 (1981) (proper disposition requires comprehensive inquiry by hearing judge). “[T]he court should adduce the source of difficulties with appellant and whether [appellant’s] inability to maintain a secure home for her child is due to a lack of cooperation or a lack of understanding as to her duty to her son.” In re Frank W.D., 315 Pa.Super. 510, 519, 462 A.2d 708, 712 (1983) (citing In re Interest of Black, 273 Pa.Super. 536, 548, 417 A.2d 1178, 1184 (1980)). Further, this court has observed that,

[o]ne cannot pretend that it will be easy to determine how much vitality the family retains. It may be done, however, if the hearing judge will always bear in mind the reason our law requires him to try to preserve the family. It is not to preserve a mere social form, or a convention from the past, but to provide our children a place of shelter and love, so that they may grow in freedom and strength. The measure of a family’s vitality is its ability to perform this function. Some of the questions a hearing judge should ask have already been suggested. Stated more generally, his inquiry should be to determine the source of the difficulties of the family whose child is before him. Do the family’s difficulties come from within? Do the parents understand their “high duty” to their children? Can they be helped to understand? If they understand, do they have the personal resources to act upon their understanding? Or do the family's difficulties come from -without? Has the family been overwhelmed by sickness? By economic problems? What are the chances of helping the family overcome such difficulties?
By adopting such an approach, the hearing judge may reasonably expect some degree of success in his difficult task. In one case, the judge may find that the natural family retains enough vitality to require the attempt to preserve it, in another, that as the child’s personal history has evolved, it neither has nor can expect to have a natural family able to afford it the security and love it needs.

In the Interest of LaRue, 244 Pa.Super. 218, 231, 366 A.2d 1271, 1277-78, (1976) (Spaeth, J., with one judge concurring) (emphasis provided).

Appellant argues that the legislature neither explicitly empowered the court with the authority to compel appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation nor implicitly empowered the court with such authority. Specifically, appellant asserts that the legislature would not have enacted 42 Pa.C.S.A § 6339(b), if the authority were within the court’s inherent rights and powers. We disagree.

Appellant’s argument ignores the principle of construction that Section 6339 must be viewed in the context of the Juvenile Act as a whole. In particular, two of the clearly expressed purposes of the act — to provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children and to preserve the family unit where possible — must be considered when interpreting each provision of the Act. The trial court directly states that it “is concerned with the proper placement of the child and with the possibility of keeping families together.” (N.T. 9/29/94 at 3). In order for the trial court to enter a correct and proper disposition that is best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child, the trial court must have the appropriate information before it, specifically, information that will help determine if appellant is able to care for and protect T.R.

Instantly, the trial court’s ordering of a psychological evaluation for appellant was the most efficacious way to determine whether she understands her “high duty” to her child; alternative means, namely the parenting classes that appellant was asked to attend but failed to attend and the disciplinary techniques that appellant used inappropriately, were neither informative nor effective.

Moreover, the trial court properly exercised its broad discretionary powers under Section 6351 to further the purposes of the Juvenile Act as set forth in Section 6301. Because the Legislature and our courts have demanded that a searching inquiry be undertaken when determining the disposition of a dependent child, the trial court’s order directing a psychological examination of appellant is entirely consistent with the avowed purposes of the Juvenile Act. Thus, read in the context of the entire Juvenile Act and not erroneously considering Section 6339 in a vacuum, we hold that the Juvenile Act implicitly authorized the trial court to exercise its broad discretion and order the psychological examination of appellant.

Next, we must determine whether the trial court’s order compelling appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation violates appellant’s constitutional right to privacy under Art. 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In order to resolve this issue we must first determine the level of scrutiny with which we review this order.

The right to privacy is a well-settled part of this Commonwealth’s jurisprudential tradition. Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Center, 530 Pa. 426, 434, 609 A.2d 796, 800 (1992). Therefore, we avoid unjustified intrusions into the lives of our citizens. Id. In particular, protection of one’s reputation, a fundamental right that falls under the right to privacy, is provided for in Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Hatchard v. Westinghouse Broadcasting, 516 Pa. 184, 193, 532 A.2d 346, 350 (1987); Moyer v. Phillips, 462 Pa. 395, 400, 341 A.2d 441, 443 (1975). Nevertheless, the right to privacy, including the protection of one’s reputation, is not absolute and must be balanced against weighty competing private and state interests. Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Center, supra (citing Fabio v. Civil Service Commission of City of Philadelphia, 489 Pa. 309, 323, 414 A.2d 82, 89 (1980)).

There is no longer any question that the United States Constitution provides protection for an individual’s right of privacy. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 5 v. Philadelphia, 812 F.2d 105 (3d Cir.1987); United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir.1980). At least two distinct types of privacy interests have been recognized. “One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.” Whalen, 429 U.S. at 599-600, 97 S.Ct. at 876-877 (footnote omitted). This Court has recognized these same interests under the Pennsylvania Constitution. See In re June 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, 490 Pa. 143, 415 A.2d 73 (1980); In re “B”, 482 Pa. 471, 394 A.2d 419 (1979).

Id. at 434, 609 A.2d at 800.

Under the constitutional law of this Commonwealth, only a compelling state interest will force one’s privacy rights to give way. Id. at 437, 609 A.2d at 802. Whether or not a state’s “compelling governmental interest” justifies a given privacy intrusion depends in part upon whether that intrusion will effectuate its purpose. “[F]or if the intrusion does not effect the state’s purpose, it is a gratuitous intrusion, not a purposeful one.” Id. (quoting Denoncourt v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Commission, 504 Pa. 191, 200, 470 A.2d 945, 949 (1983) (plurality)).

Appellant argues that she has a right to be free in her thoughts from government intrusion, that she has a right not to have her thoughts made public by the government, and that she has a right to be free in thought from government compulsion. Therefore, appellant concludes that compelling her to submit involuntarily to a psychological evaluation to reveal her “innermost thoughts” violates all of these privacy rights and may impugn her reputation.

We agree that appellant possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in her “innermost thoughts,” which should be protected from unreasonable government intrusion. See e.g. Denoncourt v. Commonwealth, State Ethics Commission, supra at 197-98, 470 A.2d at 948 (plurality) (freedom from disclosure of personal matters is recognized privacy interest under Pennsylvania Constitution). However, the circumstances and the context in which the trial court compelled appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation must be considered when determining whether appellant’s right to privacy was violated. The context is that of a dispositional review hearing where the court, being guided by the best interests of T.R., must determine whether T.R. is able to safely remain with his mother, subject to such conditions and limitations as the court prescribes, or whether he should remain committed to DHS.

Keeping this context in mind, we will apply the compelling interest standard to appellant’s privacy argument to determine whether an intrusion into appellant’s privacy is justified. The compelling interest of the government as set forth in the Juvenile Act and reiterated by the trial court is T.R.’s future well-being and the possible reunification of his family. Additionally, the trial court does not want to separate T.R. from his mother unless it is “necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(3). In order for the trial court to render the disposition best suited to the protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of T.R., the trial court must consider any and all factors which bear upon T.R.’s welfare and can aid the court’s inevitably imprecise prediction about T.R.’s future well-being.

Absent the psychological evaluation, the only information about appellant’s ability to care for T.R. that the trial court would have before it would be the testimony of Mr. Hairston and Ms. Johnson. According to Mr. Hairston, appellant failed to protect T.R. and, thus, provide for his safety when she allowed T.R. to suffer many bodily injuries, including fractured ribs, at the hands of his two older brothers. According to Ms. Johnson, appellant failed to cooperate with respect to the parenting classes that she was supposed to attend but did not attend, and she failed to comply with the proper way of using the time-out disciplinary technique. Hence, the evaluation was needed for the trial court to conduct a thorough review of those factors affecting T.R.’s welfare, and to order a proper disposition. See e.g. In Interest of S.M.S., 284 Pa.Super. 9, 16-17, 424 A.2d 1365, 1369 (1981) (to ensure proper disposition hearing judge should conduct comprehensive inquiry by receiving evidence from both interested and disinterested parties).

Furthermore, the psychological evaluation was the least restrictive means to obtain information about appellant’s caretaMng ability because the other methods of obtaining such information were either limited or failed to provide the necessary information. Additionally, Dr. Barenbaum’s written report pursuant to the psychological evaluation was delivered directly to the trial court in a sealed envelope; therefore, appellant’s reputation is not in jeopardy in this context. Thus, we conclude that the trial court’s order compelling appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation does not violate appellant’s constitutional right to privacy under Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The final issue we must address is whether the trial court erred in ruling that, at a dispositional review hearing under the Juvenile Act, the court has the authority to release the testing, evaluation, and psychological report of appellant to the interested parties or whether this release violates appellant’s constitutional right to privacy under Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In order to resolve this issue, we will apply the same level of scrutiny we used to determine whether the trial court’s order compelling appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation was constitutional.

Appellant asserts that no state interest has been given to justify the intrusion of privacy into appellant’s mental state of health, and, thus, this intrusion does not effect the state’s purpose. Additionally, appellant argues that the harm caused her reputation by non-consensual disclosure of innermost embarrassing thoughts could destroy, not protect, her constitutionally protected reputation. Finally, appellant contends that the trial court failed to consider whether there was an alternative reasonable method of lesser intrusion than the release of appellant’s evaluation to the parties.

The two compelling state interests that justify disclosure of appellant’s mental state of health are to provide for the protection of T.R. and to increase the likelihood of familial reunification. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(1). Both of these state interests must be weighed against appellant’s constitutional right to privacy in her reputation. However, appellant’s constitutional right to privacy in her reputation is not being impinged upon because the information was placed under seal and is restricted to interested parties. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6307. Because disclosure of the report is restricted by the Juvenile Act to the court, parties, and legitimately interested parties, the scales of justice tip in favor of the state’s compelling interest.

Finally, there was no alternative reasonable method of lesser intrusion than the release of appellant’s evaluation to the parties because the information obtained from the parenting and disciplinary strategy sessions was inadequate. The observations from these sessions or failure to attend these sessions would not be of any assistance in determining whether appellant understood her parental duty; hence, they would not aid the agency in developing a family service plan to accomplish the primary goal of reunification.

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court possesses the authority in this matter to compel appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation and to permit the release of a report prepared pursuant to the psychological evaluation to the interested parties. The trial court properly used its broad discretionary powers implicitly provided for under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351 to further the purposes of the Juvenile Act as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301. We further hold that the trial court’s order compelling appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation did not violate appellant’s constitutional right to privacy under Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the state’s compelling interest of protecting T.R.’s future well-being and familial reunification outweighed appellant’s privacy intrusion. Finally, we hold that the trial court may properly disclose the results of the psychological evaluation to the interested parties without violating appellant’s constitutional right to privacy under Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because the information is necessary for the interested parties to carry out the purposes of the act and no alternative reasonable method of lesser intrusion exists to permit the interested parties to do so. Therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

      . Time-out is a form of parental discipline whereby the child is asked to stop what he/she is doing for a while and to take a break. (N.T. 5/13/94 at 59).

      . On July 22, 1994, T.R. was fully recommitted to DHS. On July 27, 1994, J.M., C.R., and C.R., T.R.’s siblings, were adjudicated dependent and fully recommitted to DHS.

      . Article 1, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: “All men are bom equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasibly rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.” (Emphasis provided).

      . We note that this appeal arises solely from the trial court’s collateral orders as to disposition and does not challenge the propriety of the underlying dependency adjudications. As such, our role here is limited to reviewing the trial court’s actions in the context of the dispositional review hearing.

      . Section 6339(a) reads as follows:
      (a) General rule. — If the allegations of a petition are admitted by a party or notice of hearing under section 6355 (relating to transfer to criminal proceedings) had been given, the court, prior to the hearing on need for treatment or disposition, may direct that a social study and report in writing to the court be made by an officer of the court or other persons designated by the court, concerning the child, his family, his environment, and other matters relevant to disposition of the case. If the allegations of the petition are not admitted and notice of a hearing under section 6355 has not been given, the court shall not direct the making of the study and report until after the court has held a hearing on the petition upon notice of hearing given pursuant to this chapter and the court has found that the child committed a delinquent act or is a dependent child.

      . 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6339(b) reads as follows:
      (b) Physical and mental examinations and treatment. — During the pendency of any proceeding the court may order the child to be examined at a suitable place by a physician or psychologist and may also order medical or surgical treatment of a child who is suffering from a serious physical condition or illness which in the opinion of á licensed physician requires prompt treatment, even if the parent, guardian, or other custodian has not been given notice of a hearing, is not available, or without good cause informs the court of his refusal to consent to the treatment.

      . "It is acknowledged that court orders which compel, restrict or prohibit discovery constitute state action which is subject to constitutional limitations.” Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Center, 530 Pa. 426, 435 n. 8, 609 A.2d 796, 801 n. 8 (1992) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984)).

      . Section 6307 provides as follows:
      All files and records of the court in a proceeding under this chapter are open to inspection only by:
      (1) the judges, offers and professional staff of the court.
      (2) The parties to the proceeding and their counsel and representatives, but the persons in this category shall not be permitted to see reports revealing the names of confidential sources of information contained in social reports, except at the discretion of the court.
      (3) A public or private agency or institution providing supervision or having custody of the child under order of the court.

        (4) A court and its probation and other officials or professional staff and the attorney for the defendant for use in preparing a presentence report in a criminal case in which the defendant is convicted and who prior thereto had been a party to a proceeding under this chapter.
      (5) The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.
      (6) With leave of court, any other person or agency institution having a legitimate interest in the proceedings or in the work of the unified judicial system.


author: WIEAND, Judge:

text:
    665 A.2d 1269
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert Mark GOMMER, Appellee.
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued April 20, 1995.
    Filed Oct. 5, 1995.

      Iva C. Dougherty, Assistant District Attorney, Reading, for Commonwealth, appellant.
    Peter D. Maynard, Reading, for appellee.
    Before WIEAND, BECK and HOFFMAN, JJ.
   WIEAND, Judge:

Robert Mark Gommer was arrested and subsequently bound over for court on charges of driving while under the influence of alcohol, moving from one traffic lane to another without giving an appropriate signal, careless driving and reckless driving. Gommer filed a motion to suppress evidence on grounds that he had been illegally arrested by a member of the Pennsylvania State Police, who was off duty and out of uniform at the time of the purported arrest, and, therefore, without legal authority to make an arrest. The trial court agreed and ordered all evidence obtained as a result of Gommer’s arrest to be suppressed. The Commonwealth has appealed from this ruling. After careful review, we reverse.

In reviewing the ruling of a suppression court, “[a]n appellate court must first ascertain whether the record supports the factual findings of the suppression court, and then determine the reasonableness of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn therefrom.” Commonwealth v. Nester, 443 Pa.Super. 156, 160, 661 A.2d 3, 4 (1995), citing Commonwealth v. Oglialoro, 377 Pa.Super. 317, 318, 547 A.2d 387, 387 (1988), aff'd, 525 Pa. 250, 579 A.2d 1288 (1990). This Court’s “scope of appellate review is limited primarily to questions of law.” Commonwealth v. Stine, 372 Pa.Super. 312, 314, 539 A.2d 454, 455 (1988), citing Commonwealth v. White, 358 Pa.Super. 120, 123, 516 A.2d 1211, 1212 (1986). “ ‘If the evidence supports the [suppression] court’s factual findings, we are bound by such findings and may only reverse if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.’ ” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 438 Pa.Super. 119, 123, 651 A.2d 1121, 1123 (1994), quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 396 Pa.Super. 6, 8, 577 A.2d 1387, 1388 (1990).

Instantly, the trial court’s factual findings were based upon stipulations of counsel and may be summarized as follows. On August 18,1993, at or about 11:10 p.m., Corporal Lisa Damore of the Pennsylvania State Police, who was off duty and not in uniform at the time, observed appellee operating a maroon Nissan Maxima automobile in a reckless manner in the City of Reading, Berks County. Appellee made a wide left turn from Kenhurst Boulevard onto Lancaster Avenue and then began swerving back and forth between the left and right lanes for northbound traffic. At one point, as he continued changing lanes, appellee was forced to swerve his vehicle to avoid striking two pedestrians standing beside a parked vehicle. He then drove onto the center line of the highway, forcing Corporal Damore to swerve her vehicle to avoid colliding with him. Thereafter, appellee drove into the drive-thru line at a McDonald’s restaurant on Lancaster Avenue. When he subsequently pulled away from the drive-thru window, Corporal Damore signaled for appellee to pull over. Damore, who had already called State Police headquarters to request assistance, identified herself to appellee and asked him to await the arrival of other troopers to the scene. She informed appellee that she believed him to be driving under the influence, and, then, took possession of the keys of appellee’s vehicle.

Troopers Smith and Wenger were dispatched to the McDonald’s parking lot where appellee’s vehicle had been stopped. Upon their arrival, Smith and Wenger were informed by Corporal Damore about her observations of appellee’s erratic driving. Trooper Wenger requested appellee to produce his driver’s license and registration card, but appellee was unable to find them. He initially refused a command to exit his vehicle, and, when he ultimately complied and got out of his vehicle, he exhibited a strong odor of alcohol. His eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. He experienced difficulty standing, walked with a staggering gait and had to lean against a wall for support. Appellee continued to be uncooperative with police, refusing to identify himself or to perform field sobriety tests. He was transported to a hospital, but there he refused to submit to blood alcohol testing after being informed of his rights under the implied consent law. Upon refusal, appellee was taken to district court for arraignment.

In suppressing all evidence obtained after the stop of appellee’s vehicle, the suppression court reasoned that Corporal Damore by stopping appellee’s vehicle and taking his car keys had, in fact, placed appellee under arrest. The court concluded that, because Damore was off duty and out of uniform, she was not acting within the scope of her employment as a police officer and, thus, lacked legal authority to make an arrest. The Commonwealth argues, however, that the trial court erred by determining that Corporal Damore had arrested appellee. Instead, it asserts, Damore had made an investigative traffic stop of appellee’s vehicle and had merely detained him until the other troopers arrived to conduct further investigation. Furthermore, the Commonwealth urges, the subsequent arrest of appellee by Troopers Smith and Wenger was supported by probable cause, based upon information obtained independently of Corporal Damore’s stopping of appellee’s vehicle.

Section 6304 of the Vehicle Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 75 Pa.C.S. § 6304(a) and (c). The effect of subsection (c) of this statute is to incorporate by reference into the Vehicle Code other “existing statutes which bestow[ ] powers of arrest upon police officers.” Commonwealth v. Neufer, 264 Pa.Super. 553, 558, 400 A.2d 596, 599 (1979). See also: Commonwealth v. Streater, 422 Pa.Super. 502, 619 A.2d 1070 (1993) (en banc). Section 6308(b) of the Vehicle Code provides that:

§ 6304. Authority to arrest without warrant
(a) Pennsylvania State Police. — A member of the Pennsylvania State Police who is in uniform may arrest without a warrant any person who violates any provision of this title in the presence of the police officer making the arrest.
(c) Other powers preserved. — The powers of arrest conferred by this section are in addition to any other powers of arrest conferred by law.
(b) Authority of police officer. — Whenever a police officer ... has articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of this title, he may stop a vehicle, upon request or signal, for the purpose of checking the vehicle’s registration, proof of financial responsibility, vehicle identification number or engine number or the driver’s license, or to secure such other information as the officer may reasonably believe to be necessary to enforce the provisions of this title.

75 Pa.C.S. § 6308(b). With respect to arrests for drunk driving, the Vehicle Code specifically states:

(c) Certain arrests authorized. — In addition to any other powers of arrest, a police officer is hereby authorized to arrest without a warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section, regardless of whether the alleged violation was committed in the presence of such officer. This authority to arrest extends to any hospital or other medical treatment facility, located beyond the territorial limits of the police officer’s political subdivision at which the person to be arrested is found or was taken or removed to for purposes of emergency treatment examination or evaluation provided there is probable cause to believe that the violation of this section occurred within the police officer’s political subdivision.

75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(c).

The authority of members of the State Police to make warrantless arrests is delineated in section 712(a) of the Administrative Code, which provides:

The various members of the Pennsylvania State Police are hereby authorized and empowered:
(a) To make arrests, without warrant, for all violations of the law, including laws regulating the use of the highways, which they may witness, and to serve and execute warrants issued by the proper local authorities. They shall have all the powers and prerogatives conferred by law upon members of the police force of cities of the first class, and upon constables of the Commonwealth.

Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, art. VII, § 712(a), as amended, 71 P.S. § 252(a). Additionally, the Act of June 4, 1897, P.L. 121, § 1, 13 P.S. § 45, which defines the arrest powers of constables, confers upon the State Police the power to:

in addition to the powers already conferred upon them, ... without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of a breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous or disorderly conduct or drunkenness, or [who] may be engaged in the commission of any unlawful act tending to imperil the personal security or endanger the property of the citizens____

13 P.S. § 45.

Upon careful reading of the statutes, we find no explicit limitation of the authority of a state police officer to make a traffic stop or arrest only when the officer is on duty and/or in uniform. In Commonwealth v. Hurst, 367 Pa.Super. 214, 532 A.2d 865 (1987), the Superior Court rejected a claim that a traffic citation, issued by an off duty state trooper, was invalid because the trooper was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the defendant’s commission of the offense of reckless driving. With respect to the actions of an off duty police officer, the Hurst Court observed as follows:

In Commonwealth v. Eshelman, 477 Pa. 93, 383 A.2d 838 (1978), our Supreme Court considered the validity of certain actions taken by an off-duty police officer. In that case, an off-duty policeman was running his dogs across the appelIant’s grandmother’s property without permission. Near the edge of a wooded area the officer noticed an old automobile. He peered through its windows and observed what he suspected to be packages of marijuana being dried. The officer reached inside of the car, extracted one of the unopened packages, and took it to the police station. The parcel was opened and its contents examined; the package indeed contained marijuana. Based on this discovery, a warrant was obtained to search the automobile. During a suppression hearing, it was determined that the off-duty policeman was not acting under the direction of any sovereign or police authority. Therefore, the officer’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search and seizure conducted under unlawful authority. The suppression hearing judge held that the officer’s search and seizure might have been characterized as a civil trespass by a private citizen. Id. at 383 A.2d at 839-840.
Our Supreme Court disagreed and found that the officer, despite being off-duty, was “acting as a police officer when he removed the package and turned it over to the police.” Further, it was held that the policeman’s conduct was totally inconsistent with the theory that he was merely a private citizen. Id. at 383 A.2d at 842. Thus, our Supreme Court refused to analyze the supression [sic] issues from the perspective that the search and seizure was performed by a private citizen. See People v. Martin, 225 Cal.App.2d 91, 36 CaL.Rptr. 924 (1964) (“police officers outside their jurisdiction, though technically private citizens, regarded as agents of the state on the basis of their conduct”). See also State v. Brothers, 4 Or.App. 253, 478 P.2d 442 (1970) (“off-duty police chief who came to home as ambulance operator, returned later that night to search, held a police officer at time of search”). Id. at 383 A.2d at 842.
Although the facts in Eshelman dealt with suppression issues, we find its holding to be applicable to the case at bar. Presently, Appellant was directed to stop his rig along an interstate highway, which was within the trooper’s jurisdiction while on-duty. The record reflects that Trooper Mory was in uniform, with the exceptions of his tie, hat, and service revolver. Likewise, it is undisputed that the trooper conducted himself in an official manner while interviewing Appellant. Later, after speaking to his superior about this occurrence, the officer chose to file a citation with the district magistrate’s office himself, rather than transfer the case to another officer based on information received.
We find from these facts that Trooper Mory was acting as a police officer, not as a private citizen, when he stopped Appellant’s tractor trailer. Despite Appellant’s position to the contrary, the fact that the officer was off-duty does not mean that the trooper’s power to conduct official police business automatically ceased. The circumstances attendant to Appellant’s delay clearly illustrate that the safeguards which attach to a driver being pulled over by an on-duty police officer were present at all times. Therefore, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that the issued citation was null.

Id. at 220-221, 532 A.2d at 868-869. But cf. Commonwealth v. Price, 406 Pa.Super. 166, 593 A.2d 1288 (1991), allocatur granted, 529 Pa. 663, 604 A.2d 1030 (1992) (F.B.I. agent had no legal authority to stop vehicle for suspected Vehicle Code violation and to make arrest for driving under the influence).

In the instant case, Corporal Damore, even though off duty, was not without power to conduct official police business. Upon observing appellee driving in an erratic and dangerous manner, Damore possessed at least a reasonable, articulable basis for stopping appellee’s vehicle. See: Commonwealth v. Hamme, 400 Pa.Super. 537, 540, 583 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1990) (“[E]rratic driving provides a sufficient, reasonable basis to support an investigatory stop.”). Indeed, the Superi- or Court has observed that the “[o]bservation of erratic driving has been recognized as providing the basis for probable cause to arrest for reckless driving.” Commonwealth v. Lymph, 372 Pa.Super. 97, 100-101, 538 A.2d 1368, 1370 (1988), citing Commonwealth v. Barkley, 234 Pa.Super. 503, 341 A.2d 192 (1975) and Commonwealth v. Mathious, 237 Pa.Super. 522, 352 A.2d 172 (1975). Moreover, upon signaling for appellee to pull over, Damore identified herself as a member of the State Police; instructed appellee to remain at the scene until other troopers arrived; informed appellee of the basis for the stop — Damore’s belief that he was driving under the influence; and took possession of appellee’s car keys to ensure that he would not drive away. Under these circumstances, even though Corporal Damore was off duty and not in uniform, she conducted herself in an official manner and was acting as a police officer when she pulled over appellee’s vehicle. Therefore, we conclude that Corporal Damore was acting within the scope of her employment as a member of the State Police when she stopped appellee’s vehicle for suspicion of drunk driving. Further, because Damore had a legal basis to stop appellee’s vehicle, there was no violation of his constitutional rights.

In addition, it seems clear that Corporal Damore’s actions in stopping appellee’s vehicle did not rise to the level of an arrest, as found by the suppression court, but, rather, were in the nature of a brief investigative detention. In this regard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently observed:

[W]e note that Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has led to the development of three categories of interactions between citizens and the police. The first of these is a “mere encounter” (or request for information) which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to respond. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). The second, an “investigative detention” must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Finally, an arrest or “custodial detention” must be supported by probable cause. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979); Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 532 Pa. 62, 614 A.2d 1378 (1992).

Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 294, 662 A.2d 1043, 1047 (1995) (footnote omitted). The Superior Court has observed further that:

[TJraffic stops, like Terry stops,' constitute investigative rather than custodial detentions, unless under the totality of circumstances the conditions and duration of the detention become the functional equivalent of an arrest.
Among the factors generally considered in determining whether a detention is investigative or custodial are: the basis for the detention (the crime suspected and the grounds for suspicion); the duration of the detention; the location of the detention (public or private); whether the suspect was transported against his will (how far, why); the method of detention; the show, threat, or use of force; and, the investigative methods used to confirm or dispel suspicions. See generally S LaFave, Search and Seizure, supra; LaFave, Classifying Detentions, supra; McGinley, Characterizing Police Encounters, supra.

Commonwealth v. Douglass, 372 Pa.Super. 227, 244-245, 539 A.2d 412, 421 (1988) (plurality opinion). See also: Commonwealth v. Ellis, 379 Pa.Super. 337, 353-357, 549 A.2d 1323, 1331-1332 (1988).

Corporal Damore observed appellee driving in an erratic and dangerous manner and suspected that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. Damore then stopped appellee’s vehicle and briefly detained him until the arrival of on duty state troopers who would be properly equipped to investigate and determine whether appellee was, in fact, intoxicated and, if necessary, to take him into custody. Damore did not attempt to interrogate appellee, she did not threaten or use force, but did take possession of his car keys. Under these circumstances, we hold that Corporal Damore’s detention of appellee was not sufficiently coercive to rise to the level of a custodial detention or arrest. Therefore, we agree with the Commonwealth’s contention that appellee was not actually arrested until after Troopers Smith and Wenger arrived on the scene, were informed by Corporal Damore of appellee’s erratic driving and observed appellee exhibit objective signs of intoxication. In similar situations involving arrests for drunk driving, “officers who have not witnessed first-hand erratic driving or accidents, but have received information from other officers or citizen witnesses and later personally observed the accused, were held to have sufficient probable cause to make an arrest.” Commonwealth v. Hamme, supra at 540-541, 583 A.2d at 1247, citing Commonwealth v. Levesque, 469 Pa. 118, 364 A.2d 932 (1976); Commonwealth v. Guerry, 469 Pa. 20, 364 A.2d 700 (1976); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(c). Cf. Commonwealth v. Galloway, 525 Pa. 12, 19-20, 574 A.2d 1045, 1048-1049 (1990) (plurality opinion).

Having concluded that Corporal Damore had the legal authority to stop appellee’s vehicle pursuant to her reasonable suspicion that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and that Troopers Smith and Wenger subsequently made a lawful arrest of appellee based upon information provided by Corporal Damore and their own observations of appellee’s conduct, we hold that the trial court erred when it suppressed all evidence obtained as a result of appellee’s arrest. The order suppressing evidence, therefore, must be reversed.

Order reversed and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. Jurisdiction is not retained.

      . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(1).

      . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3334(a).

      . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3714.

      . 75 Pa.C.S. § 3736.

      . The Commonwealth has included in its notice of appeal a certification that the suppression order will terminate or substantially handicap its prosecution of Gommer. This appeal, therefore, is proper. See: Commonwealth v. Dugger, 506 Pa. 537, 486 A.2d 382 (1985).

      . The Rules of Criminal Procedure define a police officer as “any person who is by law given the power to arrest when acting within the scope of the person’s employment.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 3(n).