J-A12020-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.B., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: A.B., MOTHER : No. 2001 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered November 12, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County, Juvenile Division at No. CP-40-DP-0000318-2014
IN THE INTEREST OF: E.T., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: A.B., MOTHER : No. 2002 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered November 12, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County, Juvenile Division at No. CP-40-DP-0000319-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, DONOHUE and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED MAY 08, 2015
Appellant, A.B. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered on
November 12, 2014 by the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas
regarding her minor children, K.B. and E.T. (collectively, “the Children”).
After careful review of the record, we affirm.
A summary of the relevant facts and procedural history is as follows.
Mother is the biological mother of K.B. and E.T., who have different
biological fathers. K.B.’s biological father, A.C., is incarcerated. At all
relevant times, Mother and E.T.’s biological father, L.T., had shared legal J-A12020-15
custody of E.T. pursuant to a custody order. Under the custody order,
Mother had primary physical custody and L.T. had partial physical custody.
Mother and L.T. also had an informal arrangement such that when L.T. had
E.T. in his custody, K.B. was also in his custody. The Children both call L.T.,
“dad.”
On June 19, 2014, Mother left her home that she shared with her
father (“Maternal Grandfather”) and twenty-four-year-old brother (“Maternal
Uncle”) at approximately 8:00 p.m. to run errands, leaving K.B. and E.T. in
the care of Maternal Grandfather. After Mother left the house, Maternal
Grandfather, Maternal Uncle, K.B., and E.T. went to the garage to build a
bench. At some point, Maternal Grandfather left the garage. Following
Maternal Grandfather’s departure, Maternal Uncle allegedly sexually
assaulted E.T and further physically assaulted K.B. in an attempt to keep her
from telling anyone about what she saw. Both K.B. and E.T. ran to Maternal
Grandfather and told him what occurred in the garage. Maternal
Grandfather immediately called the Pennsylvania State Police. The following
morning, Maternal Uncle was arrested based on these allegations.1
1 Maternal Uncle fled the home when the state police officers arrived. N.T., 6/23/14, at 25. He returned to the home on June 20, 2014, at approximately 6:30 a.m., at which time, Maternal Grandfather notified the police. Id. at 26. The police instructed Maternal Grandfather to hold him at the residence and wait for them to come get him. Id. At approximately 5:00 p.m., the police arrived and arrested Maternal Uncle. Id.
-2- J-A12020-15
On the night of the assaults, E.T. was transported to the hospital by
ambulance for an examination. Mother met E.T. at the hospital. Following
the hospital examination, Mother transported E.T. to the Child Advocacy
Center (“CAC”) in Scranton for a forensic interview. Mother remained with
E.T. at the hospital and at the CAC until she had to go to work, at which
time, Mother made arrangements for the Children to stay with her sister.2
On June 20, 2014, Luzerne County Children and Youth Services
(“CYS”) filed a temporary shelter care petition for the Children based on the
allegations regarding Maternal Uncle. The trial court granted the petition
and transferred temporary legal and physical custody of the Children to CYS.
CYS placed the Children in kinship care with L.T. and his girlfriend, B.B. On
June 23, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the continuation of shelter
care. The trial court ordered the continued temporary legal and physical
custody of the Children with CYS and granted Mother a minimum of eight
hours of unsupervised visits with the Children per week. The trial court
decided that the Children would remain in L.T. and B.B.’s home for the time
being.
2 Mother testified that since Maternal Uncle had absconded, the police did not want the Children to return home and asked if the Children could stay somewhere else until Maternal Uncle was found. N.T., 6/23/14, at 42. Mother agreed, arranging for her sister to care for the Children. Id. At some point, however, for reasons unknown to this Court, the Children were transferred to L.T.’s girlfriend, B.B. Id. at 42-43.
-3- J-A12020-15
On June 27, 2014, CYS filed dependency petitions alleging that the
Children were without proper parental care and control. CYS claimed that
the Children were fearful of returning home and were in need of protection
and services. CYS filed amended dependency petitions for the Children on
July 29, 2014, further alleging that Mother failed to meet the Children’s
dental needs and failed to meet E.T.’s mental health needs. On August 4,
2014, the trial court held an adjudication hearing on the dependency
petitions, at the conclusion of which the trial court closed the case with
regard to E.T., transferring physical custody of E.T. to B.B. until the
completion of L.T.’s criminal background check. The trial court found K.B. to
be a dependent child and granted CYS temporary legal and physical custody
of the child. The court ordered K.B. to be placed in kinship care with B.B.,
as K.B. already had a kinship relationship with L.T. and B.B. and to prevent
separating K.B. from E.T.
On August 14, 2014, Mother filed a motion for reconsideration and a
petition for review of visitation. The trial court expressly granted Mother’s
motion for reconsideration and vacated the August 4, 2014 order. A hearing
was held on October 28, 2014, at which all testimony from the June 23,
2014 and August 4, 2014 hearing was incorporated.
On November 12, 2014, the trial court issued an order denying
reconsideration of its August 4, 2014 order. With regard to K.B., the trial
court found by clear and convincing evidence that K.B. was a dependent
-4- J-A12020-15
child and transferred custody to L.T. and B.B., with Mother receiving
supervised visitation rights. The trial court further found by clear and
convincing evidence that E.T. was not a dependent child and transferred
physical custody of her to L.T. The trial court granted Mother and Father
shared legal custody of E.T. and granted Mother supervised visitation rights.
On November 18, 2014, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding K.B. dependent in light of the undisputed fact that the concerns that led to the filing of shelter care, that removed the [C]hildren from the care of [] Mother, were remedied prior to the time of the adjudication hearing?
2. Whether the trial court erred in transferring custody of E.T. to [] Father in light of the undisputed fact that the concerns that led to the filing of shelter care, that removed the [C]hildren from the care of [] Mother, were remedied prior to the time of the adjudication hearing?
Mother’s Brief at 3.
For her first issue on appeal, Mother asserts that the trial court erred
in finding K.B. dependent. Mother’s Brief at 12. Mother specifically asserts
that the trial court erred because CYS admitted that the safety concerns
regarding Mother’s ability to protect K.B. that led to the filing of the shelter
care petition were remedied prior to the time of the adjudication hearing,
and because CYS admitted that Mother and Maternal Grandfather acted
appropriately. Id.
-5- J-A12020-15
In addressing this issue, we begin with our well-settled standard of
review for dependency cases:
[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion.
In re E.B., 83 A.3d 426, 430-31 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re R.J.T., 9
A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)).
Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a “dependent child,” in
relevant part, 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. A determination that there is a lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including evidence of the parent’s, guardian’s or other custodian’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).
Proper parental care is defined as “care which (1) is geared to the
particularized needs of the child and (2) at a minimum, is likely to prevent
serious injury to the child.” In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(quoting In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 845 (Pa. Super. 1997)). “The
question of whether a child is lacking proper parental care and control so as
-6- J-A12020-15
to be a dependent child encompasses two discrete questions: whether the
child presently is without proper care or control, and if so, whether such care
and control are immediately available.” In re C.P., 836 A.2d 984, 987 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (quoting In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 619 (Pa. Super. 2002)).
The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating by clear and
convincing evidence that the child meets the statutory definition of
dependency. In re J.J., 69 A.3d 724, 730 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re
J.C., 5 A.3d 284, 289 (Pa. Super. 2010)). “‘Clear and convincing’ evidence
has been defined as testimony that is ‘so clear, direct, weighty, and
convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction
without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’” In re A.B., 63
A.3d at 349 (citing In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d at 843).
In this case, the trial court determined that Mother could not provide
proper parental care and control to the Children. Trial Court Opinion,
12/18/14, at 7. The trial court found that “Mother should have insisted that
[Maternal Uncle] be on his medication before allowing him to be present
around [the C]hildren … [and] should have either required her brother to
move out or she should have moved out with the [C]hildren,” since Maternal
Uncle refused to do so. Id. at 9; N.T., 8/14/14, at 67, 75. The trial court
found that “[t]he scenario was a figurative ticking time-bomb,” and that
Mother jeopardized the safety of the Children by allowing Maternal Uncle to
have contact with them. Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 9.
-7- J-A12020-15
After reviewing the record, we conclude that there is no support in the
record for the trial court’s conclusions regarding the foreseeability of
Maternal Uncle’s conduct. To the contrary, both Maternal Grandfather and
Mother testified that Maternal Uncle never exhibited sexual behavior towards
the Children, became violent towards them,3 or acted inappropriately
towards them. N.T., 6/23/14, at 22, 39-40. They also testified that they did
not notice a change in Maternal Uncle’s behavior prior to the incident. Id. at
29, 40. Furthermore, Mother testified that when she left the Children at the
house, she always left the Children in the care of Maternal Grandfather, not
Maternal Uncle. Id. at 52. Both Maternal Grandfather and Mother testified
that the Children were rarely left alone with Maternal Uncle. Id. at 22, 52-
53. Finally, we note that CYS intake caseworker, Sabrina Pall (“Pall”),
testified that Mother and Maternal Grandfather acted appropriately during
the incident. Id. at 14.
We nevertheless find that the trial court’s error in this regard is of
minor significance as the trial court seemingly accepted Mother’s assertions
and CYS’ admission on cross-examination that Mother remedied the
concerns with regard to Maternal Uncle prior to the dependency hearing.
3 Although Mother and Maternal Grandfather testified that Maternal Uncle was not an aggressive person, they admitted that he was previously involved in two physical altercations with other adults, including one altercation with L.T. N.T., 6/23/14, at 23, 27; N.T., 8/4/14, at 145-46, 160- 61. It is a far cry to reach the conclusion, however, that Maternal Uncle’s involvement in physical altercations with other adults would put Mother on notice that he would sexually assault or otherwise harm the Children.
-8- J-A12020-15
See Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 9; N.T., 8/4/14, at 79-81.4 The trial
court’s opinion reflects that it did not base its determination that Mother
could not provide proper parental care and control on its concerns regarding
Maternal Uncle, but instead, rested its determination upon “additional
concerns” involving Mother’s alleged drug use and Mother’s neglect of the
Children’s dental and mental health needs:
Mother did not act appropriately during the time frame between shelter care and dependency hearings, specifically in failing to report for requested drug screens. Furthermore, this [c]ourt finds that Mother failed to address E.T.’s mental health needs and the [C]hildren’s dental needs which are currently adequately addressed by E.T.’s father, [L.T.]
Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 19. The trial court determined that these
additional concerns evidenced that K.B. was without proper parental care
and control when residing with Mother. Id. at 7. After our careful review of
the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
CYS presented evidence supporting its concerns regarding Mother’s
alleged drug use. Pall testified at the August 4, 2014 dependency hearing
that she received a referral that Mother was abusing drugs. N.T., 8/4/14, at
75. Pall testified that she had concerns regarding Mother’s drug use and
requested that she submit to a urinalysis drug screen prior to having
4 Mother obtained new housing for herself and the Children, which CYS inspected and deemed appropriate. N.T., 8/4/14, at 79. Maternal Grandfather also testified at the shelter care hearing that if Maternal Uncle were released from incarceration, he would not be permitted to return to his home. N.T., 6/23/14, at 20-21.
-9- J-A12020-15
overnight visits with the Children. Id. at 89-90. Despite her phone call to
Mother on October 24, 2014, informing her that she needed to submit to a
urinalysis drug screen that afternoon, Mother failed to appear for the screen.
N.T., 10/28/14, at 27.
At the October 28, 2014 hearing, testimony established that Mother
submitted to a drug screen and tested positive for one narcotic substance,
Suboxone. Id. at 16-17. CYS had not yet obtained records regarding
Mother’s Suboxone use, however, because Mother did not provide CYS with
releases from her doctors until October 20, 2014. Id. at 28. Counsel for
CYS informed the trial court that CYS had difficulty locating the doctor that
prescribed Mother Suboxone because Mother failed to “provide exact
information as to the location of the doctor.” Id. at 28-29. Furthermore,
counsel for CYS informed the trial court that CYS obtained results from a
previous drug screen from Mother’s primary physician, in which Mother
tested positive for “several substances that the doctor was not aware of and
didn’t have information that she was prescribed [those substances].”5 Id. at
26.
CYS also presented evidence that Mother neglected K.B.’s dental
needs. Dr. Allen Woods testified that he treated K.B. on April 4, 2013. N.T.,
5 According to counsel for CYS, Mother submitted to a drug screen in April of 2014. N.T., 10/28/14, at 29. Mother tested positive for “Morphine, [N]oroxycodone, Oxycodone, Alprazolam, Oxymorphone, and then another medication that were not listed on any requisition.” Id.
- 10 - J-A12020-15
8/4/14, at 58. At that time, K.B. had three cavities; one in a baby tooth,
and two in her adult teeth. Id. at 58-59. K.B. had an appointment
scheduled for April 25, 2013 to have further work completed, but K.B. did
not come to the appointment. Id. at 59.
Dr. Shawn Casey testified that he examined and treated K.B. on June
24, 2014 when “she came in with an emergency problem.” Id. at 46-47. Dr.
Casey testified that K.B. required two fillings on two of her adult teeth and
had one baby tooth extracted that was decayed and nonrestorable. Id. at
46-48. Dr. Casey testified that the decay of the tooth was extensive and
that there was “a little bit of infection” in the tissue around the tooth. 6 Id.
at 47, 49, 51. Dr. Casey also testified that K.B. experienced some
discomfort from the tooth that had to be extracted. Id. at 46-47. According
to Dr. Casey, K.B.’s discomfort most likely came from the decay of the tooth,
but he admitted that it could have been caused by the pressure from the
permanent tooth that was coming in immediately underneath it, or from a
6 Dr. Casey testified that a ruptured abscess could cause the infection. N.T., 8/4/14, at 49. Dr. Casey also testified that L.T.’s girlfriend, B.B., provided a medical history and described that K.B. had an abscess on that tooth, which is the reason why she came to the office for treatment. Id. at 48-49. Pall testified that K.B. informed her that she previously told Mother she had a “bubble” on her tooth and that she was experiencing pain. N.T., 8/4/14, at 68-69. According to Pall, Mother’s friend’s mother “popped said bubble.” Id. Mother contested this information and asserted that K.B. “did not address the problem to [her],” and that she just recently learned of this information. Id. at 125-26. The trial court, however, did not find Mother credible, choosing instead to believe Pall’s testimony on this issue. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 13.
- 11 - J-A12020-15
combination of the decay and the pressure from the permanent tooth. Id.
at 46-47, 52.
Mother attempted to provide an explanation for the lack of dental care,
testifying that she did not follow up with Dr. Woods because L.T., who
provided dental insurance to the Children, “dropped their insurance” when
he quit his job. Id. at 113-14. When questioned, Mother admitted that she
never called the insurance company to determine whether the Children had
coverage. Id. at 128. Mother, however, applied for and received welfare
assistance, including a medical ACCESS card, after she learned that the
Children’s insurance was cancelled. Id. at 117-18. Mother did not return to
Dr. Woods, however, because he did not accept the ACCESS card. Id. at
118. Furthermore, Mother testified that the Children did not complain of any
pain and that she did not receive any reports from L.T. that the Children
complained of pain, and therefore, did not see “a major issue that needed to
be prompted [sic] immediately.” Id. at 118, 122-125.
The trial court did not find Mother credible, stating, “The court finds
Mother’s testimony to be inconsistent with respect to whether she was told
the health insurance was actually cancelled or whether she assumed it was
cancelled at the time her second appointment was scheduled with Dr. Woods
in April of 2013.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 14. The trial court also
deemed credible L.T.’s testimony that the Children complained about dental
pain. Id.
- 12 - J-A12020-15
As the trial court is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, we
are unable to find that the trial court abused its discretion. See Busse v.
Busse, 921 A.2d 1248, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“The fact-finder is in the
best position to assess credibility of witnesses and we do not disturb
credibility determinations on appeal.”). Furthermore, “we are not in a
position to reweigh the evidence and credibility determinations of the trial
court[,]” even if the opposite conclusion could be reached. In re R.J.T., 9
A.3d at 1190. In this case, the record contains evidence establishing
Mother’s inability to provide proper care or control necessary for K.B.’s
physical health. CYS also established a concern that Mother’s substance
abuse threatened the health, safety, and welfare of K.B.7 Accordingly, we
conclude that the record supports the trial court’s determination. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating K.B. dependent.
For her second issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court
erred in transferring custody of E.T. to L.T. since she remedied the
conditions that led to the filing of the shelter care petition prior to the time
of the adjudication hearing. Mother’s Brief at 16. Mother asserts that the
trial court erred in relying on the principles of In the Interest of Justin S.,
7 This Court has established that evidence of a parent’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance is a proper consideration in determining whether parental care and control is immediately available. In re J.J., 69 A.3d at 731; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).
- 13 - J-A12020-15
543 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Super. 1988), as that case is distinguishable from the
case herein. Mother’s Brief at 16.
In In the Interest of Justin S., a trial court altered an existing
custody arrangement between a divorced mother and father by awarding
custody to the father without first adjudicating their two children dependent.
In the Interest of Justin S., 543 A.2d at 1200. Prior to the trial court’s
decision, the mother had custody of the children. The trial court
determined, however, that the mother could not provide her two children
with proper parental care and control, while the father of the children could
immediately provide the children with such care. Id. On appeal to this
Court, mother argued that the trial court erred in awarding custody to father
without first adjudicating the children dependent. Id.
This Court held that “in a dependency proceeding, a court may grant
custody of an allegedly dependent child to that child’s non-custodial natural
parent without first declaring the child dependent as long as sufficient
evidence of dependency exists.” Id. at 1199. We further found that, in
general, “any attempted disposition of the custody of an infant in a
dependency proceeding is improper where the record indicates no finding of
dependency was ever made.” Id. at 1187. “[A] court cannot adjudge a
child to be dependent when his non-custodial parent is ready, willing, and
able to provide the child with proper parental care and control[.]” Id. at
1191. Thus, we concluded:
- 14 - J-A12020-15
It is the duty of the trial court to determine whether the noncustodial parent is capable and willing to render proper parental care and control prior to adjudicating a child dependent. If the court determines that the custodial parent is unable to provide proper parental care and control ‘at this moment’ and that the non-custodial parent is ‘immediately available’ to provide such care, the child is not dependent under the provisions of the Juvenile Act. Consequently, the court must grant custody of the allegedly dependent child to the non-custodial parent.
Id. (emphasis added).
Mother asserts that In the Interest of Justin S. is inapplicable
because CYS did not meet its burden of proof for dependency in this case,
and therefore, the Children should be returned to her. Id. at 16. We
disagree.
As previously discussed, CYS presented evidence establishing a
concern regarding Mother’s alleged drug use. With respect to E.T.’s health
and safety in particular, CYS presented evidence that as with K.B., Mother
neglected E.T.’s dental needs. Dr. Woods treated E.T. on April 4, 2013, and
discovered that E.T. had five cavities. N.T., 8/4/14, at 58, 60. Dr. Woods
referred E.T. to a pedodontist to have two pulpotomies (root canals on baby
teeth) conducted, as the cavities had reached the middle of the tooth where
the nerve is located. Id. at 60-61. Mother did not follow up with the
pedodontist or pursue any additional treatment despite Dr. Woods’ referral.
- 15 - J-A12020-15
Another dentist, Dr. Leigh Jacopetti, testified that she treated E.T. on
June 23, 2014. E.T. did not report any pain at that time, but Dr. Jacopetti
filled a cavity in one of E.T.’s permanent molars and extracted two baby
teeth. Id. at 37, 39. Dr. Jacopetti testified that E.T. needed three
additional fillings, including one tooth, which needed a pulpotomy. Id. at
38. Given E.T.’s young age, however, Dr. Jacopetti testified that the
additional work had to be scheduled for a future date “because it’s too much
for [young children] to sit through in one visit.” Id. at 41.
CYS also presented evidence that Mother failed to follow
recommendations with regard to E.T.’s mental health needs. Because E.T.
exhibited problems at school both socially and academically, E.T.’s school
recommended that Mother seek treatment for E.T. Id. at 114. Mother
chose to take E.T. to Northeast Counseling since they accepted the ACCESS
card. Id. at 158. A psychiatrist at Northeast Counseling diagnosed E.T.
with social phobia and determined that E.T. required further evaluation to
determine if she had Attention Deficit Disorder. N.T., 8/4/14, at 24. Janice
Wile Judge (“Ms. Judge”), the program director of the children’s outpatient
department at Northeast Counseling, testified that Mother and E.T. attended
two therapy sessions with the psychiatrist, but failed to attend a third
session, and thereafter failed to respond to any letters sent by Ms. Judge or
Northeast Counseling. Id. at 25-27.
- 16 - J-A12020-15
Mother testified that she stopped attending sessions at Northeast
Counseling because they wanted to medicate E.T. Id. at 140. L.T. testified
that he attended the session at Northeast Counseling when they discussed
recommendations for E.T. and that they never discussed medicating E.T.
Id. at 169-70. The trial court found that Mother’s testimony lacked
credibility. Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 12-13.
Mother further testified that she did not engage any other services or
agencies to treat E.T.’s mental health needs because E.T. had shown
significant improvement without outside intervention. N.T., 8/4/14, at 141-
42. Mother asserted that in two months she helped E.T. bring her grades up
“from [fifties] to straight A’s [sic],” Id. at 115, and that E.T.’s mental health
needs were being met by the school’s counseling services and her
individualized education plan (“IEP”). See id. at 114-17. Mother and CYS
stipulated, however, that an IEP draft report showed that E.T. had a thirty-
three in spelling. Id. at 133-39.
We once again reiterate that “[w]e must defer to the factual findings
of the hearing judge and accord them great weight as he has had an
opportunity to observe and rule upon the credibility of the witnesses and
parties who have appeared before him.” In the Interest of Justin S., 543
A.2d at 1198. In this case, the record reveals evidence to support the trial
court’s determination that Mother neglected E.T.’s dental and mental health
needs, and that Mother had drug concerns. Thus, contrary to Mother’s
- 17 - J-A12020-15
assertion, we do not find In the Interest of Justin S. to be distinguishable,
as CYS demonstrated that Mother could not provide proper parental care and
control for the Children.
Mother further asserts that unlike the father in In the Interest of
Justin S., which the trial court in that case deemed immediately available to
provide proper parental care and control, L.T. was not “a fit and willing
resource for the court to consider.” Id. at 17. Mother states that L.T. had
the same failings as she did with regard to the dental needs and mental
health of the Children and that “it is illogical to hold [Mother] accountable
but not dad when he had the [C]hildren [twenty] of the days the month
preceding shelter care.” Id.
The trial court specifically rejected Mother’s assertion, stating, “This
[c]ourt disagrees with Mother’s argument that [L.T.] failed to take the child
[(E.T.)] and her half-sibling [(K.B.)] to dental appointments or to counseling
appointments.” Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/14, at 17. The trial court found
credible L.T.’s testimony and Pall’s testimony that L.T. attempted to address
the Children’s dental needs by discussing the issue with Mother.8 Id. The
trial court also accepted the testimony and stipulations by Mother and L.T.
that L.T. could not schedule appointments for counseling to address E.T.’s
mental health needs because Mother would not let him see the Children for a
8 We note that since L.T. gained custody of the Children, L.T. and B.B. have addressed the dental needs of the Children. See N.T., 8/4/14, at 165-66, 170.
- 18 - J-A12020-15
period of time, evidenced by the three custody contempt petitions L.T. filed
against Mother. Id. at 17-18. As credibility determinations are left to the
trial court, we do not disturb the trial court’s findings in this regard. See
Busse, 921 A.2d at 1255.
As a result, we conclude that pursuant to In the Interest of Justin
S., the trial court was required to grant custody of E.T. to L.T. since L.T., the
noncustodial parent, was available to provide E.T. with proper parental care
and control. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in transferring custody of
E.T. to L.T.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 5/8/2015
- 19 -