KAYDEN’S LAW
ENHANCED PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN
Kayden’s Law became the law in Pennsylvania on April 15, 2024, when Josh Shapiro
signed the bill into law. The purpose of the law is to develop a procedure for custody
proceedings in Pennsylvania that ensures greater protection for children.
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2018, Kayden Mancuso, a seven-year-old Bucks County resident, was
murdered by her biological father, Jeffrey Mancuso, during court-ordered visitation. Kayden’s
mother and father had been embroiled in a lengthy custody battle for several years. Two (2)
years prior to the murder, Kayden’s mother obtained a Protection from Abuse Order directing
that he have no contact with her because of violence directed at Kayden’s mother and
grandmother. However, the Court granted the father partial custody of Kayden with alternate
weekends. Subsequently, in May 2018, custody was modified to alternate Saturdays and
Sundays.
On August 5, 2018, Kayden’s father did not return her from a scheduled visit. Kayden’s
mother contacted the police but when no one answered the door at the father’s residence, they
refused to go further as they had no reason to break into the father’s home. On August 6, 20218,
Kayden’s grandfather and stepfather returned to the father’s residence and found the rear door of
the home open. Tragically, Kayden’s body was found inside. She had died of blunt force trauma
when her father hit her several times with a dumbbell. Her official cause of death was blunt
force trauma. Her father killed himself leaving a note that “the family got what they deserved”.
The father had a long history of legal trouble. In 2010, he pleaded guilty to simple
assault. In 2012, he was charged with aggravated assault when he partially bit the ear off of a
man he was involved with a physical altercation. He was sentenced to 11 1⁄2 to 23 months
incarceration. Kayden had also witnessed her father punching the family dog and then punching
himself in the face. He has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder
and has been identified as having narcissistic and antisocial personality traits. He has been
banned from Kayden’s school because he has been aggressive in his correspondence with
teachers and online left life-threatening comments. Kayden’s mother, who also underwent a
psychiatric evaluation as part of the custody proceedings was found to not have any
psychological issues.
The Judge expressed that he had “serious concerns” about Mancuso’s ability to control
his behavior. Despite this, and the long history of psychological problems and violence, granted
father visitation rights. Kayden had expressed to a custody evaluator that she did not want to
spend as many days with her father. Kayden also witnessed her father hit her grandmother and
punch himself in the face.
PURPOSE OF KAYDEN’S LAW
Kayden’s law enhances and strengthens factors that must be considered when
determining custody and visitation rights in child custody proceedings in Pennsylvania. Custody
Laws in Pennsylvania, which are found at 23 Pa.C.S. 5300 et seq. were therefore amended. The
law already had in place factors that must be considered in making custody decisions. However,
the new law makes it clear that the most important issue is the protection of the child. The Court
must ensure that if there is a finding of a history of abuse or an ongoing risk of abuse, any
Custody Order includes safety conditions and restrictions necessary to protect the child. The law
also encourages the implementation of annual education and training programs for Judges and
other Court personnel on child abuse, adverse childhood experiences, domestic violence and its
impact on children.
KAYDEN’S LAW PROTECTIONS
Kayden’s law does much to protect children who are the subject of a custody dispute
where there is an ongoing risk of abuse. When there is a finding of abuse, the Court now has
significant powers to protect a child.
CHALLENGE YOUR PENNSYLVANIA DUI
The Pennsylvania Drunk Driving Laws underwent significant changes several years ago. However an experienced criminal attorney will carefully analyze your specific situation and may recommend several ways to challenge the charge.
1. CHALLENGE THE REASON FOR THE INITIAL STOP BY THE POLICE
In Pennsylvania a Police officer must have a reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic offense or other criminal activity has occurred before making a traffic stop. In other words a driver must be speeding, failed to stop for a traffic-controlled device or otherwise driving recklessly, etc. for a police officer to have reasonable suspicion to stop your car. Challenging the stop could result in the charges being dismissed.
2. IN PENNSYLVANIA THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY MUST ESTABLISH THAT YOU WERE IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE
If your vehicle was stopped prior to the police arrival you may be able to challenge this element of the charges. The prosecutor must prove that you were in actual physical control of your vehicle. This does not necessarily mean that the vehicle was moving.
3. CHALLENGE THE FIELD SOBRIETY TEST
Typically the Police officer uses several tests after the stop to determine sobriety. These are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, “walk and turn” and “one leg stand”. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration has concluded that at a blood alcohol content of .10 the accuracy of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is 77%, the walk and turn test is 8% and the one leg stand is 65%. These differences leave considerable room to challenge the field sobriety test.
4. THE POLICE OFFICER’S OBSERVATIONS
Part of the criminal charges will often be based on what the police officer observed about the individual at the time of arrest. These may include an odor of alcohol or that the individual was not steady when standing or walking. These are the police officer’s personal observations that he will rely on when formulating the criminal charges against the individual. The officer’s observations are an area that can be full of inaccuracy. Many local police departments have video tape recorders in their patrol cars, which may provide evidence of the events. Additionally, there may be independent witnesses to testify as to the observations made at the scene.
5. BREATH OR BLOOD TEST RESULTS
Machines that are used to test the blood alcohol content by means of an individual’s breath are not perfect and are subject to providing unreliable results. All of these machines must be calibrated frequently. The lack of calibration or other interference with the machine may contribute to an unreliable test and give rise to challenging the arrest.
6. PROCEDURES
In Pennsylvania, all licensed drivers impliedly consent to the testing of their blood breath or urine. The failure to consent to the test may result in an automatic license suspension. The police must advise you of your rights and the consequences of the refusal. Additionally, after an arrest the police officer must inform the individual of their “Miranda Rights”. The failure to properly provide these warnings at the appropriate time may provide an additional challenge to the criminal charges.
To schedule a free consultation for a DUI arrest in Montgomery or neighboring county, please call the Law Office of Robert A. Saraceni, Jr. at 610-292-8600.