In the Int. of: A.R., Appeal of: D.R.M.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 1, 2024
• Docket: 716 EDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A20025-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: D.R.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 716 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000913-2023

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.J., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: D.R.M., MOTHER : : : : : : No. 717 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000914-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2024

In these consolidated cases, D.R.M. (“Mother”) appeals the February 9,

2024 orders that compelled her to cooperate with the investigation conducted

by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) regarding

allegations of abuse or neglect as to her daughter, A.R., born in March 2014, J-A20025-24

and her son, A.J., born in May 2021 (collectively, “the Children”). 1 After careful

review, we affirm due to Mother’s waiver of her underlying claims.

We gather the relevant factual and procedural history of this matter

from the certified record. On August 15, 2023, DHS received an anonymous

child protective services (“CPS”) report alleging that then two-year-old A.J.

burned himself with a curling iron while in Mother’s care. See N.T., 1/22/2024,

at 7. According to Jaleesa Simmons, DHS intake social worker, the report

stated that A.R., then age nine, was pretending to curl her doll’s hair with a

flat iron when A.J. “got a hold of the flat iron and allegedly burned his neck

and arms.” Id. Ms. Simmons explained that the report listed the Children as

alleged victims and Mother as the alleged perpetrator. See id.

From August 15, 2023, to September 14, 2023, Ms. Simmons

attempted, unsuccessfully, to investigate the allegations set forth in the CPS

report. See id. Accordingly, on October 2, 2023, DHS filed a motion to compel

Mother’s cooperation with the investigation into the allegations from the

August 15, 2023 CPS report with respect to each child. Additionally, DHS also

requested access to Mother’s residence to perform an in-home evaluation.

____________________________________________

1 The record reveals that the Children’s father, A.R. (“Father”), lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is not involved in the care of the Children. See N.T., 1/22/2024, at 10. He did not participate in the instant proceedings.

-2- J-A20025-24

On January 22, 2024, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing. 2 DHS

presented the testimony of Ms. Simmons. Mother did not appear, but she was

represented by counsel.3 The Children were also not present but were

represented by a guardian ad litem.

Ms. Simmons testified that she attempted to meet with Mother on

various occasions in the course of her investigation. Specifically, on August

15, 2023, she went to Mother’s home, unannounced, to investigate the

allegations of the CPS report and assess the safety of the Children. See N.T.,

1/22/2024, at 8. Because the family was not present, Ms. Simmons left a

letter in Mother’s mailbox. See id. The same day, Ms. Simmons was able to

contact Mother via telephone and arranged to meet her at the family’s home

the following day. See id. However, when Ms. Simmons arrived the next day,

August 16, 2023, Mother did not answer the door. See id. On September 13,

2023, Ms. Simmons again attempted to meet with Mother. See id. Mother

informed Ms. Simmons that the family was available at 6:00 p.m., but, once

again, she did not answer the door when Ms. Simmons appeared at the

2 Before the hearing on January 22, 2024, the court had scheduled the proceeding for October 10, 2023, November 7, 2023, and December 5, 2023. The matter was continued to ensure Father received service, to allow the Children’s guardian ad litem an opportunity to review case law provided by Mother at the November 2023 hearing, and due to witness unavailability.

3 Mother’s counsel informed the court that her father passed away the morning

of the hearing and, therefore, she would not be in attendance. See N.T., 1/22/2024, at 5.

-3- J-A20025-24

agreed-upon time. See id. On September 14, 2023, Ms. Simmons attempted

to speak with A.R. at her school, but learned that she was no longer enrolled

there, and that the school did not have any information about where she

currently attended. See id. Later that day, Ms. Simmons went to Mother’s

residence. See id. Although Mother advised Ms. Simmons that she would

meet her downstairs, Mother never appeared. See id. Finally, Ms. Simmons

further testified that she briefly spoke with Mother on the telephone about the

CPS report. See id. at 9. Mother denied the allegations and told Ms. Simmons

that “somebody is trying to get her, trying to put a target on her back.” Id.

On January 22, 2024, the trial court entered orders granting DHS’s

motions to compel Mother’s cooperation with their investigation of the August

15, 2023 CPS report, including an in-home evaluation. On January 31, 2024,

however, Mother filed emergency petitions to stay pending an appeal of the

cooperation orders. In response, the court issued a rule to show cause and,

ultimately, held a hearing on February 9, 2024. Following argument, the court

entered orders denying Mother’s petitions to stay. Separately, the court

entered revised orders granting DHS’s petitions to compel Mother’s

cooperation with their investigation. Importantly, the revised orders no longer

permitted DHS access to Mother’s home, thus eliminating the potential for a

home evaluation. See Order, 2/9/2024, at 1. Specifically, the orders merely

compelled Mother to make the Children available at “a date, time and location”

mutually convenient between the parties so DHS could interview the Children.

-4- J-A20025-24

See id. The orders specifically stated that DHS would “interview the child

outside of the home.” Id.; see also N.T., 2/9/2024, at 9 (“The [c]ourt does

not find that it’s necessary for DHS to enter the home to interview the

[C]hildren.”). It is also undisputed that Mother subsequently complied with

the February 9, 2024 orders. See Mother’s Brief, at 12.

Mother timely filed notices of appeal along with concise statements of

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).

In response, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 4, 2024.

On appeal, Mother purports to raise a single, broad issue for our review,

which she has framed as follows: “Did the trial court err in granting DHS’s

motion to compel cooperation?”4 Mother’s Brief, at 7. At the outset, Mother

contends that her appeals are not moot.5 See id. at 15-16.

Mother also includes various substantive arguments in her brief which

we now summarize. She first argues that the trial court’s orders directing her

4 We note with disapproval the failure of the Children’s GAL to file a brief on

behalf of his clients.

5 We acknowledge that Mother’s undisputed compliance with the trial court’s

cooperation orders arguably renders this matter moot. Our case law, however, provides a relevant exception to the mootness doctrine for appeals of this nature. See In re Petition to Compel Cooperation with Child Abuse Investigation, 875 A.2d 365, 370 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that appeals stemming from orders compelling parents to comply with CPS investigations are “clearly capable of repetition, yet evading appellate review” and present “questions of great public importance, implicating fundamental constitutional rights enjoyed by every citizen of this Commonwealth”). Accordingly, we do not find Mother’s claims to be moot. See id.

-5- J-A20025-24

to allow the Children to be interviewed by DHS constituted a seizure within

the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8. See Mother’s

Brief, at 16. Initially, Mother asserts that the seizure was a custodial detention,

requiring probable cause. See id. at 24. However, she argues in the

alternative that, at the very least, the order compelled an investigatory

detention, requiring reasonable suspicion. See id. at 17, 27.

Mother further claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting

DHS’s motions to compel based solely on the trial court’s analysis under the

Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301 et seq., without

issuing a finding of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. See id. at 33-34.

Thereafter, she asserts that the trial court erred because DHS failed to

establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion. See id. at 34-60. Mother

relies heavily on Interest of Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d 602, 627-628 (Pa. 2021) and

Petition to Compel, supra, to support her contentions.

Finally, Mother concludes her brief with a slew of subsidiary arguments,

namely, that (1) the CPS report was stale; (2) DHS failed to establish a fair

probability that it will discover evidence of child abuse by interviewing the

Children; and (3) the trial court’s order lacked constitutionally required

particularity. See id. at 60-67. We find all of Mother’s issues waived due to a

lack of specificity on her Rule 1925 concise statement.

Specifically, Rule 1925(b)(4) provides appellants with the requirements

of their concise statement. Importantly, although the issues shall be “concisely

-6- J-A20025-24

identified,” appellants must “assert [] sufficient detail to identify the issue to

be raised for the judge.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Further, “[i]ssues not

included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions

of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

Mother failed to identify any of her many appellate issues with sufficient

detail in her Rule 1925(b) concise statements. Therein, Mother purported to

present a single issue, which she baldly framed, as follows: “The trial court

erred in granting DHS’s motion to compel cooperation.” This brief sentence

failed to apprise the trial court of the scope and nature of her appellate

arguments.

Due to Mother’s inappropriate lack of specificity, the trial court did not

have the opportunity to address any of her specific claims she subsequently

proffers in her brief. Indeed, Mother’s brief includes seven major headings

highlighting specific arguments with respect to the constitutions of the United

States and Pennsylvania. Instead of apprising the trial court of these

arguments in her concise statements or statements of questions involved in

her brief, Mother relied upon a single general sentence to preserve her claims

on appeal.

Since the trial court did not have an opportunity to address any of

Mother’s claims in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, we must conclude that her issues

are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); see also Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d

505, 510 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2021) (finding waiver of an issue where the former

-7- J-A20025-24

husband failed to specifically raise a constitutional challenge in his Rule

1925(b) concise statement); see also In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466

(Pa. Super. 2017) (reiterating that issues not included in a concise statement

of errors complained of on appeal and statement of questions involved are

subject to mandatory waiver).

Even assuming arguendo Mother’s claims are not waived, we also note

that Mother failed to address critical distinctions between Y.W.-B., Petition

to Compel, and the case sub judice. In Y.W.-B., our Supreme Court

determined that the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution apply in

the context of “searches conducted in civil child neglect proceedings, which

have the same potential for unreasonable government intrusion into the

sanctity of the home” as similar searches conducted during criminal

investigations. Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d at 627-628; see also Petition to Compel,

supra (finding that, in the context of a “home visit,” federal and state

constitutional provisions governing searches and seizures applied to CPSL).

The holding in Y.W.-B. solely concerned whether there was probable cause to

support a search of a parent’s home in the course of an investigation. See

Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d at 635 (“Mother’s constitutional rights were violated. The

order compelling her cooperation with a governmental intrusion into her home

was deficient for want of probable cause.”).

-8- J-A20025-24

In plain contrast, the trial court’s February 9, 2024 orders explicitly

stated that the interview of the Children did not have to occur at Mother’s

residence, thus eliminating an intrusion into Mother’s home. As detailed

above, the orders merely required that she cooperate with the investigation

into the August 15, 2023 CPS report by allowing DHS to interview the Children.

Accordingly, to the extent Mother relies on the above-referenced cases, we

would determine that they are inapplicable as the case at bar provides a wholly

different set of circumstances. While some level of suspicion is likely required

to interview children outside of the home as part of an investigation under the

CPSL, we are not aware of any case that establishes the requisite legal

standard with specificity. Accordingly, we decline to address this potential

issue of first impression on questionable procedural grounds. See In re Fiori,

673 A.2d 905, 909 (Pa. 1996) (observing “the sound tenet of jurisprudence

that courts should avoid constitutional issues when the issue at hand may be

decided upon other grounds.”).

Based on the foregoing, we hold that Mother has waived her challenge

to the February 9, 2024 orders compelling her to make the Children available

to DHS for an interview regarding the August 15, 2023 CPS report. Thus, we

affirm.

Orders affirmed.

-9- J-A20025-24

Date: 11/1/2024

- 10 -