J-S48001-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.V. No. 548 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered February 24, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County, Criminal Division at No. CP-54-DP-0000220-2013
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.V. No. 553 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered February 24, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County, Criminal Division at No. CP-54-DP-0000219-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, JENKINS and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 01, 2014
urt on February 24, 2014, adjudicating R.A., age 14
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A brief summary of the relevant facts and procedural history is as
follows. On August 6, 2013, Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S48001-14
ren dependent and issued
protective orders on August 27, 2013.
On February 5, 2014, the Agency filed a shelter care application with
regard to the Children based on its concerns for the safety of the Children.
The Agency requested the trial court to transfer custody of the Children to
court held a hearing on February 24, 2014.
the General Protective Unit of
the Agency, testified at the hearing. Fehr testified that she filed the
protective order and recommendation to transfer custody of the Children to
contact with two 8-year-old- Id. at 6. In November 2013, Mother
be if she entered into a relations Id. at 7.
The Agency informed Mother that it would say no contact with the children
until the Agency verified his charges and restrictions. Id. Despite receiving
ted in December
they had no unsupervised contact. Id.
-2- J-S48001-14
D.F. met with the Agency and signed releases so the Agency could
obtain records from his incarceration. Id.
that although D.F. received treatment while in prison, he did not continue
treatment after being released. N.T., 2/24/14, at 26-27. This information
left the Agency with concerns that he may be at risk to re-offend. Id. at 27.
Mother failed to complete a mental health evaluation as requested by the
Agency and ordered by court in August 2013.1 Id. at 8. Mother scheduled
an appointment, however, there were several delays caused by insurance
issues, issues with determining the proper evaluator, and inclement
weather. Id. at 9. Mother failed to return phone calls to reschedule the
evaluation. Id. at 9.
Agency, testified that Mother called the Agency up to 20 times a day. Id. at
Children. N.T., 2/24/14, at 24. The police and the Agency investigated and
determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Id. at 24.
1 The Agency requested the mental health evaluation because Mother
a facility for mental health treatment. N.T., 2/24/14, at 15. The Agency al health to determine her ability to parent K.A. Id.
-3- J-S48001-14
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated the
obtain a psychological evaluation. Id. at 47. The trial court also accepted
Father. Id. On March 26, 2014, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. On
appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err and commit an abuse of discretion when it determined that the [C]hildren continued to be dependent even though the evidence presented was not clear and convincing that dependency should continue?
2. Did the trial court err and commit an abuse of discretion when it determined that the best placement for the [C]hildren was with [] Father and, therefore, removed the [C]hildren from the home of their Mother without a showing that the [C]hildren were at risk?
For her first issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred
and committed an abuse of discretion when it determined that the Children
continued to be dependent even though the evidence presented was not
clear and convincing. 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
-4- J-S48001-14
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)).
Sectio
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 p alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).
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)).
, weighty, and
convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction
In re A.B., 63
A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843
(Pa. Super. 1997)).
-5- J-S48001-14
Court Opinion, 4/29/14
2 Mother permitted D.F.
s recommendation that
Mother avoid contact. N.T., 2/24/14, at 7. In addition, Schumacher
treatment after being released from incarceration, despite a court order to
do so, would heighten his risk of re-offending. Id. at 26-27.
The Agency also presented evidence supporting their concerns
for mental evaluation and has since failed to reschedule the appointment.
Id. at 8-9. Mother also made repeated and excessive phone calls to the
Agency, up to 20 times in one day and made unfounded accusations of
sexual abuse by Paternal Grandmother while choosing to be in a relationship
Id. at 24. Moreover, despite her
2 Mother testified that she was no longer in a relationship with D.F. N.T., 2/24/14, at 30. However, Mother also testified at the hearing that she could no longer speak about D.F. under HIPAA because she is a licensed EMT and he became a patient of hers. Id. at 39. The Agency testified that they were unable to verify the status of their relationship. Id. at 8. The trial court did . to be credible. Id. at 46; Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/14, at 10.
-6- J-S48001-14
unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by Paternal Grandmother,
Mother testified that she did not see a problem with the Children being at
Id. at 39.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Agency established
children at risk. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
adjudicating the Children dependent.
For her second issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S48001-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.V. No. 548 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered February 24, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County, Criminal Division at No. CP-54-DP-0000220-2013
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.V. No. 553 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered February 24, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County, Criminal Division at No. CP-54-DP-0000219-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, JENKINS and PLATT*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 01, 2014
urt on February 24, 2014, adjudicating R.A., age 14
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
A brief summary of the relevant facts and procedural history is as
follows. On August 6, 2013, Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S48001-14
ren dependent and issued
protective orders on August 27, 2013.
On February 5, 2014, the Agency filed a shelter care application with
regard to the Children based on its concerns for the safety of the Children.
The Agency requested the trial court to transfer custody of the Children to
court held a hearing on February 24, 2014.
the General Protective Unit of
the Agency, testified at the hearing. Fehr testified that she filed the
protective order and recommendation to transfer custody of the Children to
contact with two 8-year-old- Id. at 6. In November 2013, Mother
be if she entered into a relations Id. at 7.
The Agency informed Mother that it would say no contact with the children
until the Agency verified his charges and restrictions. Id. Despite receiving
ted in December
they had no unsupervised contact. Id.
-2- J-S48001-14
D.F. met with the Agency and signed releases so the Agency could
obtain records from his incarceration. Id.
that although D.F. received treatment while in prison, he did not continue
treatment after being released. N.T., 2/24/14, at 26-27. This information
left the Agency with concerns that he may be at risk to re-offend. Id. at 27.
Mother failed to complete a mental health evaluation as requested by the
Agency and ordered by court in August 2013.1 Id. at 8. Mother scheduled
an appointment, however, there were several delays caused by insurance
issues, issues with determining the proper evaluator, and inclement
weather. Id. at 9. Mother failed to return phone calls to reschedule the
evaluation. Id. at 9.
Agency, testified that Mother called the Agency up to 20 times a day. Id. at
Children. N.T., 2/24/14, at 24. The police and the Agency investigated and
determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Id. at 24.
1 The Agency requested the mental health evaluation because Mother
a facility for mental health treatment. N.T., 2/24/14, at 15. The Agency al health to determine her ability to parent K.A. Id.
-3- J-S48001-14
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated the
obtain a psychological evaluation. Id. at 47. The trial court also accepted
Father. Id. On March 26, 2014, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. On
appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err and commit an abuse of discretion when it determined that the [C]hildren continued to be dependent even though the evidence presented was not clear and convincing that dependency should continue?
2. Did the trial court err and commit an abuse of discretion when it determined that the best placement for the [C]hildren was with [] Father and, therefore, removed the [C]hildren from the home of their Mother without a showing that the [C]hildren were at risk?
For her first issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred
and committed an abuse of discretion when it determined that the Children
continued to be dependent even though the evidence presented was not
clear and convincing. 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
-4- J-S48001-14
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)).
Sectio
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 p alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).
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)).
, weighty, and
convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction
In re A.B., 63
A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843
(Pa. Super. 1997)).
-5- J-S48001-14
Court Opinion, 4/29/14
2 Mother permitted D.F.
s recommendation that
Mother avoid contact. N.T., 2/24/14, at 7. In addition, Schumacher
treatment after being released from incarceration, despite a court order to
do so, would heighten his risk of re-offending. Id. at 26-27.
The Agency also presented evidence supporting their concerns
for mental evaluation and has since failed to reschedule the appointment.
Id. at 8-9. Mother also made repeated and excessive phone calls to the
Agency, up to 20 times in one day and made unfounded accusations of
sexual abuse by Paternal Grandmother while choosing to be in a relationship
Id. at 24. Moreover, despite her
2 Mother testified that she was no longer in a relationship with D.F. N.T., 2/24/14, at 30. However, Mother also testified at the hearing that she could no longer speak about D.F. under HIPAA because she is a licensed EMT and he became a patient of hers. Id. at 39. The Agency testified that they were unable to verify the status of their relationship. Id. at 8. The trial court did . to be credible. Id. at 46; Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/14, at 10.
-6- J-S48001-14
unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by Paternal Grandmother,
Mother testified that she did not see a problem with the Children being at
Id. at 39.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Agency established
children at risk. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
adjudicating the Children dependent.
For her second issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court
erred and abused its discretion when it determined that the best placement
home without a showing that the Children were at risk. At the outset, we
claim that the trial court removed the Children from her
home without a showing that the Children were at risk is meritless given our
We further conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its
discretion in finding that the best placement for the Children was with
Father. Section 6351 of the Juvenile Act governs the disposition of children
adjudged to be dependent. It provides, in relevant part:
(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 safety, protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child:
-7- J-S48001-14
(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.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a)(1).
In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing In re Sweeney, 574
A.2d 690, 691 (Pa. Super. 1990)). In this case, the trial court, citing to its
obligation to ensure the safety of the Children, determine
the evidence presented, the best interests of the [C]hildren were served by
Opinion, 4/29/14, at 11. Furthermore, the trial court determined that
transferring custody to Father was the least restrictive measure to ensure
the safety of the Children. Id. at 9.
Although Mother alleged that Paternal Grandmother sexually abused
the Children, the Agency and the police determined that these allegations
were unsubstantiated. Moreover, the trial court found credible the
The Agency further recommended that all three of F
-8- J-S48001-14
and her apparent mental health issues, we conclude that the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by placing the Children with Father.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 8/1/2014
-9-