In the Interest of: J.R., Appeal of: DHS

2025 Pa. Super. 58

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 1507 EDA 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-A03019-25 2025 PA Super 58

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.R., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: PHILADELPHIA : DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES : : : : : No. 1507 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered May 31, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0001128-2023

OPINION PER CURIAM: FILED MARCH 13, 2025

The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) appeals from

the order dismissing its petition for dependency of J.R. (“Child,” born in

September 2019) and returning legal and physical custody of Child to Ja.R.

(“Mother”). We reverse and remand.

DHS received a General Protective Services (“GPS”) report on December

20, 2023, alleging that Mother was having a mental health breakdown and

was stating that Child’s older sibling is not human and that both Child and his

sibling do not deserve to be on this planet. See Application for Order of

Protective Custody, 12/20/23, at 2 (unpaginated). The report further stated

that Mother had a history of beating, punching, and kicking Child’s sibling, and

that the sibling was currently residing with the sibling’s father. Id.

A DHS worker went to Mother’s house and met with Mother. Id. During

the interview, Mother initially answered DHS’s questions coherently, stating

that she had a history of using marijuana but that she had not used any that J-A03019-25

day, and that she was prescribed medication but that she was not taking it.

Id. During the conversation, Mother became extremely unfocused, began

referring to DHS as her grandmother, started slurring her words, and

continued to make incoherent statements. Id. Mother also made several

lunging motions toward the DHS worker, causing the worker to call the police

and leave the home to ensure her safety. Id. After the police arrived, Mother

continued to make numerous threatening motions toward the DHS worker and

told the police that her eyes were coming out of her head, and she could not

see. Id.

DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (“OPC”) on December 20,

2023, to remove Child from Mother’s care. After a shelter care hearing, the

court found that it would not be in Child’s best interest to return to Mother’s

care. See Recommendation for Shelter Care - Amended, 12/22/23, at 1. The

court lifted the OPC, transferred temporary custody of Child to DHS, and

placed Child in kinship care with her maternal grandmother (“Maternal

Grandmother”). Id. at 2. Mother was to have supervised line-of-sight, line-of-

hearing visits weekly at the agency. The court’s order also provided: “DHS is

to do a forthwith assessment on [Child’s father’s (‘Father’s’)] home, and

conduct a clearance [on Father’s] wife. Once all clears, [C]hild may be moved

to [F]ather’s home forthwith without further court order.” Id.

Six days after receiving the OPC, on December 26, 2023, DHS held a

Crisis/Rapid Response Family Meeting to discuss concerns of Mother’s

“unstable [mental health;] she is unable to care for or supervise [Child]

-2- J-A03019-25

according to her needs.” See Crisis/Rapid Response Family Meeting Report

Conference, 12/26/23, at 1 (unpaginated). Father attended the meeting, but

Mother did not. Father stated that before Mother’s recent mental health

difficulties, he and Mother had an informal arrangement where Child stayed

with him every other day. Id. at 2 (unpaginated). Maternal Grandmother

stated that she could continue to care for Child, but she did not feel

comfortable with Father having unsupervised visits with Child because of his

alleged drug history. Id. Subsequently, on December 28, 2023, DHS reunified

Child with Father. See Continuance Order, 1/26/24.

DHS then filed a dependency petition for Child. The petition contained

the above allegations about Mother. See Dependency Petition, 1/4/24, at ¶

5(b). It additionally alleged that during her mental health breakdown, Mother

was talking about taking her own life, as well as the lives of Child and Child’s

sibling. Id. The petition stated that Mother was hospitalized for mental health

treatment for a week in September 2023 for choking Maternal Grandmother.

Id. The petition also alleged that Father pled guilty to drug-related charges in

January 2014 and July 2015. Id. at ¶ 5(h).

At a hearing on January 26, 2024, at which Child was present, Child

appeared to have scratches and abrasions on her face. DHS made an oral

motion for an OPC, which the court granted. N.T., 1/26/24, at 8-9. The court

ordered that Child be removed from Father’s care and returned to DHS’s

custody while DHS investigated how Child sustained her injuries. Id. 9-10.

The court deferred adjudication. The court also denied Mother’s request for

-3- J-A03019-25

additional supervised contact with Child and kept her visits to supervised line-

of-sight, line-of-hearing visits at the agency once per week. Id. at 7.

Following a shelter care hearing on January 31, 2024, the court found

that it was not in Child’s best interest to be returned to Father. See

Recommendation for Shelter Care, 1/31/24, at 1. The court lifted the OPC and

ordered Child’s temporary commitment to DHS to stand. Id. at 2. The court

ordered Mother and Father to have separate, supervised, line-of-sight, line-

of-hearing visits at the agency, as arranged. Id. The court scheduled an

adjudicatory hearing for February 12, 2024.

DHS filed an amended dependency petition, on February 7, 2024,

repeating the same allegations about Mother that were set forth in the initial

dependency petition. It further stated that an investigation of the injuries Child

sustained while in Father’s care was pending. See Dependency Petition,

2/7/24, at ¶ 5(j).

The adjudicatory hearing was then repeatedly continued. The hearing

scheduled for February 12, 2024, was continued until March 15, 2024. On

March 15, 2024, the court granted DHS’s request for a continuance to conduct

further investigation and rescheduled the hearing for April 19, 2024. However,

the April 19, 2024 adjudicatory hearing was continued to May 31, 2024, due

to DHS’s witness’s unavailability.

The adjudicatory hearing was held on May 31, 2024. At the hearing,

counsel for DHS stated that “after further investigation the agency does not

believe that it has dependency as to [Father].” N.T., 5/31/24, at 6. The DHS

-4- J-A03019-25

investigator, Larbriah Powell, testified that Child told her that “she was

running and playing with her two-year-old sibling at her father’s home when

she fell and that’s how she sustained the marks and bruises.” Id. at 8. Father

corroborated that Child had fallen while playing with her sibling in his home.

Id. at 8-9. The DHS investigator stated that a DHS nurse examined Child and

determined that her injuries were consistent with Child’s and Father’s

explanation. Id. at 8.

The Community Umbrella Agency worker, Nakeem Addison, testified

that Father’s home had been cleared, and Father was ready, willing, and able

to have Child live with him. Id. at 12-13. He also noted that Mother had been

consistent with her supervised visits, but Father had not. Id. at 12. When

asked what Mother would need to do to be reunified with Child, Addison replied

that while Mother was not court-ordered to do anything, “right now we just

ask that [M]other continue parenting classes. She’s in parenting classes right

now. And just to follow up with I believe her mental health assessment. Just

letting us know if she’s been attending treatment.” Id. at 13-14. The parties

then stipulated that Father was ready, willing, and able to have Child live with

him. Id. at 14-15. After this testimony, the court asked counsel for DHS if it

had “[a]ny additional evidence,” and she responded, “No, Your Honor.” Id. at

14.

The court then discharged the petition of dependency, and the following

exchange occurred:

-5- J-A03019-25

THE COURT: The petition is discharged. Confirm custody in parents. Everybody is excused.

COURT CLERK: I’m sorry. Who get the child mom or dad? You’re giving them separate (unintelligible).

THE COURT: I don’t know who the child was taken from, but they haven’t shown –

[MOTHER]: Me.

THE COURT: They haven’t shown that either parent was un –

COURT CLERK: So you have to make the determination of who the child is going with today.

THE COURT: Who was the child taken from?

[MOTHER’S ATTORNEY]: From mom.

THE COURT: Actually, testimony was that child was in dad’s custody at the time she was taken. Defer custody of dad.

[FATHER’S ATTORNEY]: Thank you.

[MOTHER]: My daughter lived with me. The dad was – he got her after we came her[e], and DHS took custody of my daughter. They took my daughter into custody.

THE COURT: The testimony was that child was in dad’s custody at the time this happened. We’re going to confirm custody to dad.

[FATHER’S ATTORNEY]: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Off the record)

---

(On the record)

[MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER]: Father wants the child with mother.

[FATHER’S ATTORNEY]: No. Father wanted the child to go to him.

[MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER]: No he don’t. He don’t want the baby. He’s shaking his head no. He don’t want her.

-6- J-A03019-25

COURT CLERK: I don’t know. Maybe they can have a conversation.

[MOTHER’S ATTORNEY]: What is going on? Do we need another date?

THE COURT: You want the child in mom’s custody.

[FATHER]: I want her to go to her mom.

THE COURT: Confirm custody to mom. Everybody’s excused.

[MOTHER’S ATTORNEY]: Thank you, Your Honor.

[DHS’S ATTORNEY]: On the record can I note my objection.

[CHILD ADVOCATE]: Note the objection of the Child Advocate. The record[’]s still running.

THE COURT: Okay.

[DHS’S ATTORNEY]: Thank you.

Id. at 15-17.

DHS filed a notice of appeal the same day as the hearing. 1 It raises the

following issue for our review:

Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a comprehensive review of ____________________________________________

1 After DHS filed its notice of appeal, it filed a motion with the trial court to

mark the case as “active” and relist the matter for status hearings. The motion noted that Child “has remained in the custody of DHS by virtue of the automatic supersedeas associated with DHS’s appeal of the order of adjudication and disposition.” DHS’s Motion to Mark Case as “Active” and Relist for Status of Appeal Hearing, 9/6/24, at ¶ 7. On September 12, 2024, the court granted the motion and reinstated the temporary commitment of physical and legal custody of Child to DHS. See Order, filed 9/13/24.

-7- J-A03019-25

the identified issues in the case before returning [Child] to Mother’s care, where it only resolved safety concerns regarding Father but did not address the significant safety concerns regarding Mother’s mental health instability which led to [Child’s] initial removal, as well as prior findings that it would not be in [Child]’s best interest to return to Mother’s care, and orders for Mother to have only supervised, line- of-sight and line-of hearing contact with [Child] to ensure the child’s safety?

DHS’s Br. at 3-4.

Our standard of review for a dependency adjudication “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.”

In re E.B., 83 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citation omitted). We

therefore review for an abuse of discretion. Id. “[A] trial court abuses its

discretion if, in reaching a conclusion, it overrides or misapplies the law, or

the record shows that the trial court’s judgment was either manifestly

unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” In re K.D.,

144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa.Super. 2016).

DHS argues that the court erred “when it failed to conduct a

comprehensive and searching inquiry of the record or to resolve known safety

concerns about Mother’s mental health instability before summarily returning

[Child] to Mother’s care.” DHS’s Br. at 14. DHS emphasizes that it initially

removed Child from Mother’s care, not Father’s, due to concerns about

Mother’s mental health after she threatened to kill her children and herself.

Id. It maintains that “[t]he trial court repeatedly endorsed this removal by

-8- J-A03019-25

ordering [Child] to remain out of Mother’s care; and only granting Mother

supervised, line-of-sight and line-of-hearing visitation to ensure [Child’s]

safety.” Id.

DHS points out that in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court discussed the

second GPS report and second OPC removing Child from Father’s care in

January 2024, but did not refer to the first GPS report or first OPC removing

Child from Mother’s care in December 2023. Id. at 12. DHS argues that the

court improperly focused “only on later events involving [C]hild’s [F]ather

while ignoring identified concerns involving [M]other” and “failed its mandate

to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire record and erroneously

concluded that [Child] could safely return to Mother’s care.” Id. at 16. DHS

maintains that had the court conducted its own comprehensive and searching

inquiry into the record, as it was required to do, the court would have inquired

about Mother’s mental health status and her statements that she wanted to

kill herself and her children. Id. at 22.

A child is a dependent child if he 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. The question of whether a child is lacking proper parental

care or control “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 M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1173

(Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (citation omitted). The “burden of proof in a

-9- J-A03019-25

dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that a child meets [the] statutory definition of

dependency.” Id. (citation omitted). Clear and convincing evidence is defined

as evidence 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 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013)

(citation omitted).

The “court in a dependency proceeding must conduct a comprehensive

and searching inquiry into the record taking evidence from all interested

parties and also from objective, disinterested witnesses.” Int. of K.B., ___

A.3d ___, 2025 WL 301023, at *4 (Pa.Super. filed Jan. 27, 2025) (per curiam)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This is so because “the utmost

concern is for the children’s welfare[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, a

hearing judge’s

inquiry should be comprehensive and searching, and his decision supported by a full discussion of the evidence. If the hearing judge does not comply with these requirements, on appeal the case will be remanded for further proceedings. This is so because . . . [the scope of our review] is quite broad and, while we cannot nullify the fact-finding function of the hearing judge, we are not bound by a finding which has no competent evidence to support it.

In re Donna H., 602 A.2d 1382, 1384 (Pa.Super. 1992) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Here, the court found that the testimony at the adjudicatory hearing

was that Child sustained the injuries while running and playing at Father’s

- 10 - J-A03019-25

house, and Child’s injuries were consistent with this testimony. See Trial Court

Opinion, filed 9/18/24, at 2. The court determined that Child’s injuries were

not serious enough to rise to the level of considering dependency, and pointed

out that DHS’s counsel even stated that “the agency [DHS] does not believe

that it has dependency as to dad.” Id. at 5. The court noted that there was

no testimony at the adjudicatory hearing that Mother was inappropriate in any

way; rather, the testimony was that Mother had not been asked or ordered

by the court to do anything prior to reunification with Child, was consistent

with visitation, and was attending parenting classes. Id. at 2, 6. The court

further determined that Father was not a ready, willing, and able resource

parent for Child because he had no desire to have Child in his custody and

stated, “I want her to go with mom.” Id. at 7. The court cited custody factors

under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5328 and concluded that since no dependency issues

were found at the adjudicatory hearing as to Mother and Mother was not an

imminent risk to Child’s safety and health, Mother was properly granted

custody of Child. Id. at 3-7.

After a review of the record, we find that the court erred as a matter of

law and abused its discretion in discharging the dependency petition. First,

the court’s reliance on the custody factors under the Custody Act as a basis

for its decision is erroneous. This is a dependency case, not a custody case,

and thus the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387, applies. Further, there

was no testimony at the adjudicatory hearing about Mother’s ability to care

for Child. The case was initiated by a GPS report due to concerns about

- 11 - J-A03019-25

Mother’s mental health. At the adjudicatory hearing, the parties stipulated

that Father was ready, willing, and able to have Child live with him. After the

court confirmed custody of Child to Father, Father made the unexpected

request to have Child go with Mother, to which the court summarily agreed.

However, the court was required to conduct a comprehensive and searching

inquiry into the record to address known safety concerns about Mother’s

mental health and ability to care for Child before returning her to Mother’s

care. See Int. of K.B., supra. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order

dismissing the dependency petition and remand for a complete adjudicatory

hearing consistent with this opinion.

Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 3/13/2025

- 12 -