J-S68045-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: I.M., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: BEAVER COUNTY : CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES : No. 1417 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered August 16, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-04-DP-0000011-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 17, 2020
Appellant, Beaver County Children and Youth Services (“Agency”),
appeals from the order entered in the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas,
which denied the Agency’s petition to adjudicate the minor child, I.M.
(“Child”), dependent. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them.
The Agency raises one issue for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT ADJUDICATING…CHILD DEPENDENT WHEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY BEAVER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT…CHILD WAS DEPENDENT UNDER 42 PA.C.S.[A.] § 6302(1)[?]
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S68045-19
(Agency’s Brief at 3).
The applicable scope and standard of review for dependency cases is as
follows:
[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 A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting In re R.J.T., 608 Pa.
9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)).
We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge because [the court] is in the position to observe and rule upon the credibility of the witnesses and the parties who appear before [the court]. Relying upon [the court’s] unique posture, we will not overrule [its] findings if they are supported by competent evidence.
In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 875 (Pa.Super. 2000) (quoting In re B.B., 745
A.2d 620, 622 (Pa.Super. 1999)). See also In re L.Z., 631 Pa. 343, 360,
111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015) (reiterating standard of review in dependency
cases requires appellate court to accept trial court’s findings of fact and
credibility determinations if record supports them, but appellate court is not
required to accept trial court’s inferences or conclusions of law); In re D.P.,
972 A.2d 1221, 1225 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702, 973 A.2d
1007 (2009) (stating applicable standard of review in dependency cases is
“abuse of discretion”).
The Juvenile Act defines a dependent child, in pertinent part, as follows:
-2- J-S68045-19
§ 6302. Definitions
“Dependent child.” A child who:
(1) 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. A court may adjudicate a child as dependent if the child
meets the statutory definition by clear and convincing evidence. In re E.B.,
898 A.2d 1108, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2006). “The question of whether a child is
lacking proper parental care or control so as to be a dependent child
encompasses two discrete questions: whether the child presently is without
proper parental care and control, and if so, whether such care and control are
immediately available.” In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa.Super. 2004)
(internal citation omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Mitchell P.
Shahen, we conclude the Agency’s issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 11, 2019, at 13-22)
(finding: most of testimony of Ms. Green, Agency caseworker, was based upon
her observation of forensic interviews of Child and Child’s twin, I.J.M.; forensic
-3- J-S68045-19
interviewer, however, did not testify, and Agency presented no evidence of
Child’s behavior during forensic interview; thus, court could not assess
reliability of Child’s forensic interview statements which Ms. Green recounted
at hearing, and court afforded little to no weight to Ms. Green’s forensic
interview summary; further, Ms. Green did not know whether Child’s
permanent legal custodians, maternal grandparents, were aware Child’s half-
brother and purported abuser, T.H., was in home at time of alleged incident;
Ms. Green also did not know if maternal grandparents kept T.H. away from
Child following incident where T.H. purportedly sexually abused Child years
ago; in I.J.M.’s in camera interview, he denied alleged incident occurred and
said T.H. had not been around Child in approximately two years; court found
I.J.M. credible; during Child’s in camera interview, she initially denied recent
incident with T.H. occurred; when Child later recanted, Child described
incident only generally and did not provide details Ms. Green referenced in her
summary of Child’s forensic interview; court found Child incredible; moreover,
even if court accepted Child’s allegation of abuse as true, Agency presented
no evidence maternal grandparents failed to take proper actions since Child’s
allegation to rectify situation and protect Child; record fails to establish proper
parental care or control was not immediately available). The record supports
the trial court’s rationale. See In re. A.B., supra. Accordingly, we affirm on
the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
-4- J-S68045-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 1/17/2020
-5- MEMORANDUM OPINION Circulated 01/09/2020 11:42 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BEAVER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE COURT DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF "I • M. ) A MINOR No. 10 of2013 FID: 8 of2019
OPINION
Shahen, Mitchell P. OCTOBER 11, 2019
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 12, 2019, this court held an Adjudication hearing in the above
referenced case. Beaver County Children and Youth Services ("BCCYS") filed a petition
for the adjudication of the minor child, I.M., age 9, under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6302(1)
alleging that the child was without proper care and control. Simultaneously to the
Adjudication bearing involving J.M., an Adjudication hearing was conducted concerning
I.M.'s twin brother I.J.M. At the time of the instant Petition, both children resided with
Maternal Grandparents, A.R. and R.R.
The children resided with Maternal Grandparents as the result of a prior
Dependency action which was terminated in 2015, whereby the Maternal Grandparents
· were named as "permanent legal custodians" of both I.Mand I.J.M.
In the instant matter, BCCYS requested the removal of the child who is the subject
of this appeal, I.M., from the home of the permanent legal custodians, Maternal
1 of22 Grandparents, but did not seek the removal of I.J .M. from the home of Maternal
Grandparents.
BCCYS provided notice to the Biological Mother, K.R; permanent legal
custodians, Maternal Grandparents, A.R. and R.R.; and Biological Father, L.M. The
Court notes that Biological Father's notice was sent to the last known address for Father
that was available to BCCYS at the time of filing the Petition for Dependency. The Court
further notes that Father has not been involved with the children or another child of
Father in a separate Dependency case.
The following parties appeared at the Hearing: Biological Mother, K.R.; Attorney
Sherri Hurst, Counsel for Biological Mother; Maternal Grandmother, A.R.; Attorney
Nicole Tesla, Counsel for Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather; Attorney
Dana Kwidis, Counsel for BCCYS; Attorney Tiffany York, Guardian Ad Litem
("GAL"); I.M., minor child; and I.J.M., sibling of minor child.
Maternal Grandfather did not attend the hearing. However, Maternal Grandfather
was represented by counsel at the hearing. Biological Father did not attend the hearing.
After a full hearing on the merits, this Court found that there was not clear and
convincing evidence to adjudicate the minor as a dependent child and entered a decree to
that effect on August 16, 2019. A summary of the Findings in support of the written
Decision of August 16, 2109 were included in that written Decision. At the Hearing,
BCCYS offered the testimony of BCCYS intake caseworker, Donita Green and the two
children, I.M. and I.J.M. The testimony of the children was conducted by way of an in
2 of22 camera interview in the presence of the Court and the GAL for the children. The parties
and counsel consented to the interview and that the interview would be conducted in the
presence of the GAL and the Court only. The child who is the subject of this appeal was
interviewed along with her twin brother, I.J.M.
The gist of the allegation against the permanent legal custodians, the Maternal
Grandparents, was that sometime in June of 2019, the Maternal Grandparents permitted
T.H., an older half-sibling of l.M., to be in the residence with I.M. and her twin brother,
I.J.M. and that while he was there, sometime between 12:00 a.m. and 3 :00 a.m., he
requested that I.M. have improper sexual contact with him. When she refused, he
masturbated in the presence of I.M. This was reported to have happened while T.H.,
I.M., and I.J.M., were together in the same room at Maternal Grandparents' house. Prior
to the alleged incident which led to the filing of the instant Dependency Petition in this
case, T.H. was previously indicated for abuse due to a prior incident that involved I.M. in
2016.
In response to the order denying adjudication, BCCYS, by and through its counsel,
filed a Notice of Appeal in addition to Er- rt)rs Complained of on Appeal on September
12, 2019 for the instant case only. An appeal was not filed in the companion case
regarding I.J.M. This appeal now follows.
STATEMENT OF . € R·Ro R> , COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
BCCYS's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal is set forth in its
entirety as follows:
3 of22 1. The Honorable Court erred by not adjudicating the child dependent when the evidence presented by Beaver County Children and Youth Services established by clear and convincing evidence that the child was dependent under 42 Pa. C.S. 6302 (1).
2. The Honorable Court abused its discretion in failing to adjudicate the child dependent despite statements made by the child regarding the alleged abuse which were not objected to as hearsay at the time of the hearing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the testimony and evidence in this case, the following Findings and
Conclusions were reached by the Court and included in the August 16, 2019 Order of
Adjudication:
An Adjudication Hearing was held on August 12, 2019. The Caseworker, Donita Green, testified on behalf of the Agency. The Court also heard testimony from [I.M.] and [I.J.M.]. From this testimony, the following findings are made. [I.M.] is 9 years old, _ [!.J.M.] is the twin brother of [I.M.]. Currently, [I.M.] is placed in a foster home and [I.J.M.] was not removed from the home. He still resides with [Maternal Grandparents, A.R. and R.R.].
Prior to the time that these proceedings were filed, [J.M.] and (1.J.M.] resided with the maternal grandparents • [Maternal Grandfather, R.R.] works and is away from home most of the day. [Maternal Grandmother, A.R.] is the party who provides most of the support and supervision for the children. The testimony, some of which consisted of the hearsay statements of a forensic interview and the hearsay conclusions of the forensic interview of [I.M.], along with statements that were made by the child to the caseworker and others, insinuated that an adult brother of [I.M.] attempted to solicit inappropriate contact from [1.M.] and that he engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in the presence of [I.M.]. This conduct is alleged to have occurred while [I.M.] and [I.J.M.] were in a bedroom of the [Maternal Grandparents, their guardians] sometime around 12:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. in the days preceding [I.M. 's] admission to an inpatient facility.
4 of22 Both children were interviewed and both children were found competent to provide testimony. Clear and convincing evidence of the alleged statement and actions of the adult �hi( is not found to exist.
Order of Adjudication and Disposition dated August 16, 2019.
The following additional Findings and credibility determinations are found to arise
out of the evidence and the procedural history of this case.
1. I.M. resides in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. She has a twin brother, I.J.M., with whom she resided· , at the home
ofA.R. and R.R., the Maternal Grandparents of the Children.
2. The Agency originally filed Dependency petitions for both of the twins, I.M. and
I.J.M. By Orders dated August 16, 2019, the Court found that clear and convincing
evidence did not exist to substantiate the allegations set forth in either Dependency
petition. No appeal was taken by the Agency from the decision on the case involving
I.J.M., the twin brother of J.M.
3. I.M. and !.J.M. have an adult older half-brother, T.H. who did not reside with them.
4. The Agency referral for this case was received on July 1, 2019. The referral
allegation was that the older brother-, T.H., requested that I.M. engage in inappropriate
conduct with T.H. and then when I.M. refused, T.H. masturbated in the presence of
I.M. This was alleged to have occurred in the home of the Maternal Grandparents
between 12:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. I.M., !.J.M. and the older brother, T.H., were
alleged to be together when the incident occurred.
5 of22 5. The older brother, T.H., was previously indicated for sexual assault on I.M. when I.M.
was six (6) years old. T.H. "went through delinquency proceedings for that .. J'
conduct.1
6. J.M. and her siblings have a history of being involved m the Beaver county
Dependency system.
7. In March of 2013, I.M. along with other siblings, were removed from their mother,
K.R., due to neglect and her inability to maintain adequate housing. During the time,
the Agency was involved providing services and support to A.R.
8. In May of 2014, l.M was placed in the care of her maternal grandparents, A.R. and
R.R., due to K.R.'s lack of cooperation and progress with BCCYS's
recommendations.
9. In January of 2015, the legal guardianship of J.M. was given to maternal
grandparents, dependency was terminated, and protective supervision was closed.
10. In 2016, the half-brother of I.M., T.H., was indicated for sexually abusing I.M.,
initiated through a report from I.M. to BCCYS that continuous instances of sexual
abuse or attempted sexual abuse were occurring. A Dependency action was not
initiated as a result of this allegation. However, according to the testimony of BCCYS
Intake caseworker, Donita Green, T.H. was subject to delinquency proceedings
stemming from that incident. 2
1 Adjudication Hearing Transcript, 8/12/19, p. 20. (Hereinafter "A.H.T.") 2 Id. at 19. 6 of22 11. On July 1, 2019, BCCYS received a referral regarding l.M.3 The referral was received
during the time when I.M. was staying at Mars Home for Youth ("MHY").4 I.M. went
to MHY on June 19, 2019.5 The alleged abuse occurred a week to a couple days
before I.M. went to MHY.6 During the investigation of the alleged abuse, which later
prompted the instant proceedings, BCCYS intake caseworker, Ms. Green, was made
aware of a prior sexual misconduct allegation between I.M. and T.H. which occurred
back in 2016.7
12.I.M. was moved from MHY and involuntarily committed to Butler Community
Hospital. She was later transferred to Sharon Regional Hospital on July, 17, 2019.8 .
Thereafter, I.M. was discharged from Sharon Regional Hospital on July 23, 2019 to
the care of Maternal Grandmother, A.R. 9
13. A verbal request for Emergency Protective Custody was received by the Court on July·
29, 2019 concerning I.M.
14. The Court verbally Ordered the Emergency Protective Custody of the minor and
Confirmed the Verbal Order in writing on August 2, 2019. The basis for the
Emergency Protective Custody request by BCCYS was the receipt of a report to
BCCYS that while the minor was in the custody of her current legal custodians, A.R.
and R.R., the minor's half-brother, T.H., was also at times located on the premises,
3 Id. at 15. 4 Id. at 15-20, 5 Id. at 19-20. 6 Id. at 19-20. 7 Id. at 18-19. 8 Id. at 20. 9 Id. at 36. 7 of22 during which time it was alleged that T.H. masturbated in the minors presence and
asked her to perform an oral sex act on him.'" BCCYS advised they became aware of
the alleged conduct from the minor.11 BCCYS also reported that the current legal
guardians of the minor, A.R. and R.R., refused to believe the allegations and that this
created a safety risk to the minor, as the guardians refused to take a protective stance
to ensure the minor would not have contact with T.H. 12
15.0n July 31 2019, BCCYS filed a Dependency Petition pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 6302
(1), which states in pertinent part:
The child:
is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his/her 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 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. 6302 (1).
16. BCCYS's petition alleged that there was a safety risk regarding the minor for lack of
supervision and the refusal to take a protective stance by the current legal custodians
A.R. and R.R. and the biological Mother, K.R. 13 BCCYS's Petition averred that the
° Confirmation of Verbal Order for Emergency Protective Custody Order, 8/2/19 (hereinafter, "EPC Order"). 1
II Id. 12 Id. 13 BCCYS Dependency Petition, 7/31/19 (hereinafter, "D.P.") 8 of22 minor made an allegation regarding an adult sibling that is indicative of a serious lack
of supervision on behalf of the caregivers.14
17. During the course of the Dependency hearing the intake caseworker, Ms. Green,
testified with regards to maternal grandparents and biological Mother's ability to
supervise I.M.
18. There was a forensic interview of I.M. conducted on July 15, 2019, and Ms. Green
was present during the interview.15 During the forensic interview I.M. alleged that an
incident occurred a couple days before she went to MHY (June 19, 2019), the incident
was stated to have occurred in the living room of the Maternal Grandparents' home
between 12:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. I.M. stated to the forensic interviewer that T.H., the
older brother, asked her to perform oral sex acts and masturbated and that !.J.M. and
I.M. were both present when this happened. 16
19. The notes of the forensic interview of I.M. were not admitted into evidence, nor was
there any testimony from the forensic interviewer.
20. There was not testimony by Ms. Green of the opinions of the forensic interviewer
regarding any indicators of truthfulness or deceit that were noted by the forensic
interviewer. Ms. Green was not aware of whether I.M. was asked if she was around
her older brother, T.H., at any other time.17
14 Id. 15 Id. at 21. 16 Id. 17 Id. at 22. ·9 of22 21. A forensic interview was conducted with I.J.M. on August 6, 2019.18 I.J.M. did not
make any disclosures of any alleged incidents during the interview. 19 However, Ms.
Green indicated that !.J.M. was not asked about the incident I.M. disclosed."
22. The notes of the forensic interview of !.J.M. were not admitted into evidence and the
forensic interviewer did not testify.
23. With regards to the most recently alleged incident, Ms. Green testified that A.R. was
home when it allegedly occurred but that she and R.R. were asleep, as the incident
occurred between Midnight and 3:00 a.m. at their home.21
24.It is unknown whether A.R. and/or R.R. were even aware that T.H. was at the
residence at that time. 22
25. A.R. advised Ms. Green that inappropriate and nude photographs were found on
I.M. 's phone and that A.R. believed the current allegations stemmed from I.M. being
upset that A.R. sent her to MHY. 23
26. After I.M. 's release from the hospital, I.M. was returned to the care of A.R. and R.R.24
I.M. remained in their care from July 23rd through 29111 and no further allegations of
abuse were reported.25
18 Id. at 22. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 32-33. 22 Id. at 33. 23 Id. at 35. 10 of22 27. BCCYS has no knowledge of T.H. ever being permitted to be around J.M. after the
time Ms. Green advised Mother that T.H. was not perntitted to be around I.M.26
28. BCCYS acknowledged that the only alleged contact between I.M. and T.H. occurred
prior to Mother being notified that T.H. was not permitted around I.M.27
29. Ms. Green was asked whether she was aware that any no contact provision regarding
the 2016 allegations was connected to the Court Order from the Delinquency Court
and that any no contact provision would have ended upon T.H.'s release relating to
those allegations, to which she stated she was not aware. 28
30. At first Mother believed that I.M. was not telling the truth, but now she does believe
her.29
31. The Court also spoke with both I.M. and her fraternal twin brother, I.J.M, in chambers
in the presence of the GAL. Counsel for the parties waived their presence during the
in camera interview that was conducted for both children.
32. Prior to the separate in camera interviews with each child, the court conducted an age
appropriate competency evaluation of each child and determined that each child was
competent to testify.
33. During the interview of I.J.M., the minor repeatedly denied that T.H. has been at the
maternal grandparents' house at any time in the past two years.'"
24 Id. at 37. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 38. 27 Id. at 38-39. 28Id.at37. 29 Id. at 40. 11 of22 34. I.J.M. stated that T.H. is not permitted at the house.31 ·
35.He also denied that T.H. came to the house and asked I.M. or I.J.M. to do "bad
things."32
36. I.J.M. stated that the only time T.H. was at the house recently he remained outside.33 '
37.He also stated that Grandma and Grandpa, A.R and R.R., respectively, take care of
him and make sure he is safe. 34
38. The Court then interviewed I.M.
39. She indicated that T.H. does not come to the house.35
40. She indicated that T.H. works with Grandfather, R.R., and that he picks T.H. up to go
to work."
41. She indicated that the only time that T.H. talked to her in a bad way was a long time
ago and that nothing has happened after that time.37
42. She also stated that Grandmother, A.R., now believes her about what has happened
with T.H.38
43. She also stated that T.H. does not come around her anymore and that she believes
A.R. would protect her.39
30 Dependency Hearing Transcript, sealed, 8/12/19. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. JS Id. 36 Id. 31 Id. 38 Id. 39 Id.
12 of22 44. During the interview of I.M. she eventually changed her earlier statements that the
incident with T .H. did not occur. She did not specifically say what happened but she
did affirm to the GAL that she had previously told the GAL about the "nasty" things
that T.H. said and did.
45. In light of the credible testimony of !.J.M. who was reported to be with I.M. and T.H.
when the incident occurred, and in light of the lack of corroborating evidence from
the only other witness, Ms. Green, the court deemed the portion of I.M. 's testimony
regarding any alleged improper conversation or conduct of T.H. not to be credible.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has stated the standard of review in dependency
proceeding is, as follows:
The burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner ... who must show [that] the juvenile is without proper parental care, and that such care is not immediately available. A finding of dependency must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that proper parental care and control are not available. The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. Without such evidence, a child cannot be adjudged dependent and must be returned promptly to his or her parent.
In Interest of J.M., 652 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa.Super.1995) (quotations and citations
omitted).
Our Courts have described clear and convincing evidence as evidence that is "so
clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear
13 of 22 conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In the Matter of
C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation omitted).
The dual purpose of the Juvenile Act is to preserve the unity of the family and to
"provide for the care, protection, safety, and wholesome mental and physical
development of children coming within the provisions of this chapter." In re K.C., 903
A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 630l(b)(l.1)).
Section 6302(1) of the Juvenile Act defines a "dependent child," as follows:
"Dependent child." 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).
The dependency of a child is not determined "as to" a particular person, but rather
must be based upon two findings by the trial court: whether the child is currently lacking
propercare and control, and whether such care and control is immediately available. In
re R.T., 778 A.2d 670, 677 (Pa.Super.2001); Matter of Read, 693 A.2d 607, 609
(Pa.Super.1997). "Both of these determinations must be supported by clear and
convincing evidence." In Interest of JOY, 65� A.2d �2 \ 1 '-12-� C'Ptt-, )(,'-f'2,(", lq9"-1 )o
In this case, the proof of "dependency" was inadequate. Intake caseworker Donita
Green, the only witness other than the two children, had not become involved in the case 14 of22 until after the report of possible abuse was made. Most of her testimony was based on
her observation of a forensic interview ofI.M. and her twin brother, I.J.M.
The brief summary of the forensic interview that was provided by the caseworker,
Ms. Green, leaves unanswered the question regarding the use of any forensic interview
techniques, the manner in which the forensic interviewer phrased questions and whether
the forensic interviewer's questions were capable of suggesting responses from the child,
I.M., or whether the interviewer used suggestive, leading questions during the interview
of I.M. There is no evidence of the child's behavior· during the forensic interview. There
is no evidence regarding the qualifications or experience of the forensic interviewer.
Caseworker, Ms. Green, did not provide the Court with her observations of the forensic
interview techniques or the qualifications of the interviewer.
Without testimony from the forensic interviewer concerning the manner in which
the interview was conducted, the Court cannot assess whether the statements provided by
I.M. at the forensic interview were tainted, either by another party or by prior experiences
of sexual abuse. Without testimony from the forensic interviewer, the Court is unable to
sufficiently assess· the reliability of the information conveyed by the child during the
interview and then recounted to the Court by caseworker, Ms. Green. During the in
camera court interview, I.M. initially did not confirm that the alleged incident occurred . and she did not provide any of the specific details at the hearing that were referenced in
Ms. Green's summary of the child's statements from the forensic interview. This further
calls into question the reliability of the forensic interview statements of the child that
15 of22 were summarized to the Court during the testimony of caseworker, Ms. Green. Thus, the
Court can afford little to no weight to the forensic interview summary provided by
caseworker, Ms. Green.'
The alleged incident was not corroborated by one of the children, I.J.M, who was
allegedly present when the incident occurred. Moreover, even I.M. first denied that the '
incident happened and then referenced an interaction with T.H. that was only described in
a non-detailed, general way.
, Caseworker, Ms. Green testified that Maternal Grandmother was home at the time
when the alleged incident occurred, but that Ms. Green did not know whether Maternal
Grandmother or Maternal Grandfather were even aware that the alleged perpetrator was
in the home. Ms. Green also testified that she had no knowledge of T.H. ever being
permitted to be around I.M. after the time she advised the family that T.H. was not
permitted to be around I.M.40 Ms. Green also testified that the child was returned to the
home of A.R. upon her release from the hospital and no further instances of abuse were
alleged during the eight (8) day time period between her returning home and the filing of
the Emergency Protection Petition.
There was no testimony regarding the condition of Maternal Grandparents' home
or Mother's home. There was no testimony regarding what actions by the Grandparents
substantiated the allegation that Grandparents lack the necessary parental control or ·
supervision. There was no testimony regarding as to how the Grandparents have failed to
40 Id. at 38. 16 of22 take a protective stance. To the contrary, !.J.M. and I.M. were clear in their statements
that maternal grandmother, in particular, provided for the children and protected the
children.
The Court heard the testimony of the child and the child's twin brother which
indicated that the alleged perpetrator had not been around the child for approximately two
years. Prior to hearing the in camera testimony of the children, the court made an age
appropriate inquiry of each child's competence to testify and the Court found I.M. and
I.J .M competent to testify. The competency investigation by the court was designed to
question the children in such a way to test their "(1) capacity to observe or perceive the
occurrence with a substantial degree of accuracy; (2) ability to remember the event which
was observed or perceived; (3) ability to understand questions and to communicate
intelligent answers about the occurrence, and (4) consciousness of the duty to speak the
truth." Commonwealth v. Anderson, 381 Pa.Super 1, 8, 552 A.2d 1064, 1068 (1988),
alloc. denied, 524 Pa. 616, 571 A.2d 379 (1989). After the competency inquiry was
completed, the court heard the testimony of each child and then utilized, in part, their
testimony in reaching the decision in this case.
This Court considered the testimony I.J.M. and was convinced that he answered
the questions truthfully and that he understood the questions and answers put to him. In
particular, he addressed those questions having to do with the alleged sexual abuse and
the alleged perpetrator's presence at the home of Maternal Grandparents. 1.J.M.
completely disavowed that anything happened between T.H. and I.M. during the relevant
17 of22 time frame from which the current allegations arose. He clearly stated that T.H. was not
at the Maternal Grandparents' home during the relevant time frame.
The Court also considered the testimony I.M. and was convinced that she
understood the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie and that she
understood the questions and answers put to her, specifically those questions having to do
with the alleged sexual abuse and the alleged perpetrator's presence at the home of
Maternal Grandparents. J.M. initially denied that there was a time that T .H. came to
I.M. 's home and she continued by later stating that T.H. "doesn't come around me.?"
The Court's finding that the child originally denied that the incident happened is based
upon the Court's observation of the demeanor of the child when she made the statement
and the Court's observation of the clear manner that the statement was made at the time
of the interview. The child, I.M., indicated to the Court that she is happy and well taken
care of when in the home of Grandmother, A.R., and Grandfather, R.R. She also
indicated that she is provided for when in the home of Mother.
The children both testified that they felt safe in the home of the Grandparents, and
J.M. also felt safe in the home of Mother. Testimony also established that both
Grandmother and Mother have taken a protective stance in not permitting the alleged
perpetrator around the child since the allegations were brought to their attention. There is
not any indication to the Court that this stance is likely to change with the determination
41 Sealed Transcript at page 32 18 of22 by the Court that the child is not dependent. The child stated that Grandmother and
Mother both support her and will make sure that the perpetrator is not around the child.
As noted above, during the interview of J.M., she gave conflicting testimony with
regards to whether the incident with T.H. occurred and during what timeframe the
incident occurred. She did not specifically say what happened but she did affirm to the
GAL that she had previously told the GAL about the "nasty" things that T.H. said and
did. However, and in light of the credible testimony of I.J.M. who was reported to be
with I.M. and T.H. when the incident occurred, and in light of the lack of corroborating
evidence from the only other witness, the court deemed that portion of the testimony of
I.M. to not be credible.
A finding of dependency is not the same thing as a determination of the best
interests of the child; the question is whether the child is presently without proper
parental care and, if so, whether that care is immediately available. In re Pernishek, 408
A.2d 872, 878 (Pa. Super. 1979). Nothing in this record indicates that I.M., on August 12,
2019, the date of the Dependency hearing, was without proper parental care or that
Maternal Grandparents could not immediately provide proper care and/or continue to
provide proper care in the future.
In the case, Matter of Jackson, 448 A.2d 1087, 1089-90 (Pa. Super. 1982), the
Superior Court concluded that proof of "dependency" in that case was inadequate where
"[O]nly one witness appeared for the petitioning agency. That witness, [a caseworker],
had not become involved in the case until after the report of possible abuse ... [and ...
19 of22 [H]er testimony was a superficial recitation of conditions existing at the time of her
testimony." Id. In that case, the Superior Court cited to an "almost a total absence of
evidence regarding �ppellant's abilities and/or shortcomings as a parent" and also an
absence of "a professional evaluation of appellant's parenting abilities and the child's
prospects if permitted to remain with her natural mother" to support the finding that there
was nothing in the record to indicate that the child was without proper parental care at the
time of the bearing or that the parent could not provide future care. Id.
In the instant case viewing this case under the aforementioned standards, the Court
finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support a finding of dependency.
Even if the allegation of abuse was accepted as true, there was no evidence presented that
Maternal Grandparents have not taken proper actions since the time of the allegation to
rectify the situation and protect the child. The present record does not clearly and
convincingly establish that proper parental care or control was not immediately available.
The isolated incident of potential abuse, even if the allegation was found to be credible,
does not warrant the conclusion that the child will likely continue suffering such
treatment.
In Interest of Palmer, 590 A.2d 798, 800 (Pa. Super.1991), is a case that is found
to be similar factually to the instant case, the Court pointed out that, at the dependency
hearing, "[Tjhere was no testimony concerning [the parent's] parenting ability" even
though the Agency presented 11 witnesses, including three witnesses with the ability
provide direct evidence of parenting abilities. Id. The Palmer Court also pointed to the
20 of22 lack of evidence that the parent would allow the person who abused other children to
have access to the parent's child in support of that Court's ultimate decision to reverse
the trial Court's finding of Dependency. Id.
It has long been an accepted proposition in Pennsylvania that "it is a very serious
matter indeed to allege that a child is a dependent child and thereby invite the
intervention of agencies of the state into a parent's care of that child." Id. The statutorily
required burden of proof thus requires that a Court can find a child dependent only upon
proof by clear and convincing evidence. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6341(c). Clear and convincing
evidence is "testimony [that] is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the
[fact-finder] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise
facts in issue." In Interest of Palmer, supra. At 801.
In order to ensure the proper resolution of a dependency petition, a hearing judge
is required to " ..... conduct a comprehensive inquiry by receiving evidence from both
interested and disinterested witnesses ... ,, In re A.S., 936 A.2d 1094, I 096-97 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (emphasis added). The evidence that was received in this case, when
examined by the Court, does not constitute the type or quantum of evidence that is so
clear, direct, weighty, and convincing so as to permit the Court to come to a clear
conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the facts upon which BCCYS requests that
this Court make a finding of dependency.
In this case, the evidence presented by the Agency falls short of the necessarily
high standards that are in place before a Court can Order an outside Agency to intervene
21 of22 into this family's right to care for J.M. The inability to properly protect l.M. and the
underlying incident which was presented as the danger from which the child, l.M.,
required protection were not proved by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly,
because the evidence does not support a finding of dependency, this decision of this
Court should not be disturbed.
This Court is aware of the risks facing a child when there are allegations of sexual
abuse such as in the instant case. However, based on the evidence in this case, BCCYS
has not presented sufficient credible evidence for the Court to conclude on the present
record that the child, LM. " .... 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(1 ).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court respectfully submits that the allegations of
error in this case are without merit and therefore this Court's holding should be affirmed,
The Beaver County Juvenile Court Clerk is hereby directed to file the record of these
proceedings with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an appropriate order shall fo�low.
Respectfully Submitted,
.J.