J-S51022-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: C.H., MOTHER No. 626 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Dated March 18, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000021-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2019
Appellant, C.H. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the York
County Court of Common Pleas that extended the dependency adjudication of
J.W. (“Child”) and found Mother was the perpetrator of child abuse against
Child. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Mother is the natural parent of Child, born in April 2010.1 Child began to
experience oral pain in late December 2018, due to several seriously decayed
teeth. On December 27, 2018, Mother took Child to a dentist who referred
Child to a pediatric dentist at Children’s Dental Health Associates (“CDHA”) in
York, PA. Mother tried to call that practice on December 28, 2018, to schedule
an appointment, but the office was closed, so Mother left a message. CDHA
contacted Mother via text message, indicating that an emergency
____________________________________________
1 D.W. (“Father”) is not a party to this appeal. J-S51022-19
appointment was available for December 31, 2018. Mother did not respond
or make any further attempts to contact the practice on her own.
On January 16, 2019, the York County Office of Children, Youth, and
Families (“Agency”) received a child protective service (“CPS”) referral of
alleged abuse of Child, based on dental neglect. On January 17, 2019, a
caseworker met with Mother and Child; and the caseworker and Mother called
CDHA together to schedule an appointment for Child. The caseworker also
took photos of Child’s mouth and noted obvious signs of decay, including a
hole in one of Child’s teeth. The Agency transported Mother and Child on
January 24, 2019, to CDHA. Employees of CDHA expressed concerns that
Mother was under the influence of drugs during the appointment, as she
displayed erratic and questionable behavior. Due to these concerns, Mother
was unable to consent to any further treatment for Child.
The Agency filed an application for emergency protective custody on
January 25, 2019, after Mother tested positive for amphetamines and
Suboxone. The court granted the application, transferred physical and legal
custody of Child to the Agency, and appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for
Child. On February 6, 2019, Mother filed a petition for court-appointed
counsel; on the same day, the Agency filed a dependency petition. The
Agency also filed a motion for special relief, which the court granted, for court
permission to have Child undergo oral surgery. On February 11, 2019, the
court appointed counsel for Mother.
-2- J-S51022-19
Following a hearing on February 14, 2019, the court adjudicated Child
dependent but noted the testimony was not complete regarding the finding of
child abuse because the court had deferred the remaining testimony for a
second adjudicatory hearing. On February 25, 2019, the Agency filed a second
motion for special relief, for court permission to have Child undergo further
oral surgery. The court granted the motion on February 26, 2019.
On March 18, 2019, the court held a second adjudicatory hearing, during
which testimony was completed. At the hearing, all counsel also stipulated
that if the pediatric dentist, who treated Child on January 24, 2019, were
called to testify, he would say, “[T]he level of decay in [Child’s] mouth would
not be ordinary if proper dental care had occurred.” (N.T. Hearing, 3/18/19,
at 45.) Following the hearing, the court entered an order from the bench
extending the dependency adjudication of Child and finding Mother had
committed child abuse against Child. On April 17, 2019, Mother filed a timely
notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Mother raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ERROR OF LAW IN MAKING A FINDING OF CHILD ABUSE AS TO MOTHER WHERE THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL NEGLECT[?]
(Mother’s Brief at 4).
-3- J-S51022-19
Our standard of review from an adjudication of dependency:
[R]equires 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 [trial] 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) (internal citation omitted). In
other words: “Although bound by the facts, we are not bound by the trial
court’s inferences, deductions, and conclusions therefrom; we must exercise
our independent judgment in reviewing the court’s determination, as opposed
to its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice dictate.” In
re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 618 (Pa.Super. 2002) (en banc).
In her single issue, Mother claims the Agency failed to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that Mother’s actions rose to the level of serious
physical neglect. Mother avers neither the treating dentist nor any other
medical expert testified that Child’s condition resulted from serious physical
neglect. Mother alleges the only medical opinion presented was a stipulation
that the level of decay in Child’s mouth “would not be ordinary in nature, if
proper dental care had occurred.” Mother argues that beyond this stipulation,
the rest of the record reflects Mother sought dental treatment for Child.
Mother additionally contends the record lacks evidence to support the court’s
finding that Child’s dental problems would not have occurred but for Mother’s
neglect. Mother maintains the court abused its discretion in finding that
Mother had committed child abuse through serious physical neglect of Child.
-4- J-S51022-19
Mother concludes this Court should reverse the finding of child abuse and
remand the matter to the trial court. We cannot agree.
During the course of dependency proceedings, a trial court may find a
parent to be the perpetrator of child abuse as defined under the Child
Protective Services Law (“CPSL”). In Interest of J.M., 166 A.3d 408, 421-
22 (Pa.Super. 2017). The “CPSL does not create or include a separate action
for child abuse, and, under the Juvenile Act, a finding of abuse can only be
made as part of a dependency proceeding in which abuse is alleged.” In
Interest of R.T., 592 A.2d 55, 59 (Pa.Super. 1991). See also 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6370(b)(2)(i) (stating that if county agency deems it appropriate in
dependency or delinquency proceeding, including instance in which alleged
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S51022-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: C.H., MOTHER No. 626 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Dated March 18, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000021-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2019
Appellant, C.H. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the York
County Court of Common Pleas that extended the dependency adjudication of
J.W. (“Child”) and found Mother was the perpetrator of child abuse against
Child. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
Mother is the natural parent of Child, born in April 2010.1 Child began to
experience oral pain in late December 2018, due to several seriously decayed
teeth. On December 27, 2018, Mother took Child to a dentist who referred
Child to a pediatric dentist at Children’s Dental Health Associates (“CDHA”) in
York, PA. Mother tried to call that practice on December 28, 2018, to schedule
an appointment, but the office was closed, so Mother left a message. CDHA
contacted Mother via text message, indicating that an emergency
____________________________________________
1 D.W. (“Father”) is not a party to this appeal. J-S51022-19
appointment was available for December 31, 2018. Mother did not respond
or make any further attempts to contact the practice on her own.
On January 16, 2019, the York County Office of Children, Youth, and
Families (“Agency”) received a child protective service (“CPS”) referral of
alleged abuse of Child, based on dental neglect. On January 17, 2019, a
caseworker met with Mother and Child; and the caseworker and Mother called
CDHA together to schedule an appointment for Child. The caseworker also
took photos of Child’s mouth and noted obvious signs of decay, including a
hole in one of Child’s teeth. The Agency transported Mother and Child on
January 24, 2019, to CDHA. Employees of CDHA expressed concerns that
Mother was under the influence of drugs during the appointment, as she
displayed erratic and questionable behavior. Due to these concerns, Mother
was unable to consent to any further treatment for Child.
The Agency filed an application for emergency protective custody on
January 25, 2019, after Mother tested positive for amphetamines and
Suboxone. The court granted the application, transferred physical and legal
custody of Child to the Agency, and appointed a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for
Child. On February 6, 2019, Mother filed a petition for court-appointed
counsel; on the same day, the Agency filed a dependency petition. The
Agency also filed a motion for special relief, which the court granted, for court
permission to have Child undergo oral surgery. On February 11, 2019, the
court appointed counsel for Mother.
-2- J-S51022-19
Following a hearing on February 14, 2019, the court adjudicated Child
dependent but noted the testimony was not complete regarding the finding of
child abuse because the court had deferred the remaining testimony for a
second adjudicatory hearing. On February 25, 2019, the Agency filed a second
motion for special relief, for court permission to have Child undergo further
oral surgery. The court granted the motion on February 26, 2019.
On March 18, 2019, the court held a second adjudicatory hearing, during
which testimony was completed. At the hearing, all counsel also stipulated
that if the pediatric dentist, who treated Child on January 24, 2019, were
called to testify, he would say, “[T]he level of decay in [Child’s] mouth would
not be ordinary if proper dental care had occurred.” (N.T. Hearing, 3/18/19,
at 45.) Following the hearing, the court entered an order from the bench
extending the dependency adjudication of Child and finding Mother had
committed child abuse against Child. On April 17, 2019, Mother filed a timely
notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Mother raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ERROR OF LAW IN MAKING A FINDING OF CHILD ABUSE AS TO MOTHER WHERE THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL NEGLECT[?]
(Mother’s Brief at 4).
-3- J-S51022-19
Our standard of review from an adjudication of dependency:
[R]equires 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 [trial] 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) (internal citation omitted). In
other words: “Although bound by the facts, we are not bound by the trial
court’s inferences, deductions, and conclusions therefrom; we must exercise
our independent judgment in reviewing the court’s determination, as opposed
to its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice dictate.” In
re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 618 (Pa.Super. 2002) (en banc).
In her single issue, Mother claims the Agency failed to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that Mother’s actions rose to the level of serious
physical neglect. Mother avers neither the treating dentist nor any other
medical expert testified that Child’s condition resulted from serious physical
neglect. Mother alleges the only medical opinion presented was a stipulation
that the level of decay in Child’s mouth “would not be ordinary in nature, if
proper dental care had occurred.” Mother argues that beyond this stipulation,
the rest of the record reflects Mother sought dental treatment for Child.
Mother additionally contends the record lacks evidence to support the court’s
finding that Child’s dental problems would not have occurred but for Mother’s
neglect. Mother maintains the court abused its discretion in finding that
Mother had committed child abuse through serious physical neglect of Child.
-4- J-S51022-19
Mother concludes this Court should reverse the finding of child abuse and
remand the matter to the trial court. We cannot agree.
During the course of dependency proceedings, a trial court may find a
parent to be the perpetrator of child abuse as defined under the Child
Protective Services Law (“CPSL”). In Interest of J.M., 166 A.3d 408, 421-
22 (Pa.Super. 2017). The “CPSL does not create or include a separate action
for child abuse, and, under the Juvenile Act, a finding of abuse can only be
made as part of a dependency proceeding in which abuse is alleged.” In
Interest of R.T., 592 A.2d 55, 59 (Pa.Super. 1991). See also 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6370(b)(2)(i) (stating that if county agency deems it appropriate in
dependency or delinquency proceeding, including instance in which alleged
perpetrator has access or poses threat to child, county agency may petition
court for finding of child abuse).
The CPSL defines “child abuse,” in relevant part, as follows:
§ 6303. Definitions
(b.1) Child abuse.--The term “child abuse” shall mean intentionally, knowingly or recklessly doing any of the following:
* * *
(7) Causing serious physical neglect of a child.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(7). The Juvenile Act further defines “serious
physical neglect” as, inter alia, “[t]he failure to provide a child with adequate
-5- J-S51022-19
essentials of life, including food, shelter, or medical care” which “endangers a
child’s life or health, threatens a child’s well-being, causes bodily injury or
impairs a child’s health, development, or functioning.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
6303(a). The existence of “child abuse” pursuant to Section 6303(b.1) must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re L.Z., 631 Pa. 343, 361,
111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015).
Instantly, the record supports the court’s finding of child abuse as to
Mother. Child began to experience oral pain in late December 2018, due to
several seriously decayed teeth. Though Mother took Child to a dentist on
December 27, 2018, she failed to follow up with the referral to a pediatric
dentist, until a caseworker became involved on January 17, 2019. On that
day, the caseworker also took photos of Child’s mouth and noted obvious signs
of tooth decay, including a hole in Child’s tooth. When Child finally saw the
pediatric dentist, Mother came to the appointment under the influence of
drugs and was unable to consent to treatment for Child. Only after Child was
in the Agency’s custody and the Agency filed motions for special relief that
Child finally received proper dental care.
Furthermore, at the hearing on March 18, 2019, Child testified that she
struggled to eat food prior to her dental surgeries because of the severe pain
caused by her decaying teeth. A supervisor from the Agency similarly testified
that Child’s oral pain caused Child to miss school and struggle with both eating
and sleeping. The supervisor additionally testified that Child needed four
-6- J-S51022-19
crowns, four extractions, and four pulps to fix her dental issues, and Child’s
insurance had not been billed for a dental visit since 2015. Finally, all counsel
stipulated at the March 18, 2019 hearing that if the pediatric dentist, who
treated Child on January 24, 2019, were called to testify, he would say, “[T]he
level of decay in [Child’s] mouth would not be ordinary if proper dental care
had occurred.” (See N.T. Hearing, 3/18/19, at 45.) Based on the foregoing,
the Agency successfully proved Mother committed serious physical neglect of
Child by failing to provide Child with adequate and necessary dental care. See
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a); In re L.Z., supra. Thus, we will not disturb the
court’s finding of child abuse. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(7); In re A.B.,
supra. Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 10/21/2019
-7-