In the Interest of: Q.F.-H., a Minor

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 21, 2018
• Docket: 3464 EDA 2017
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-A10005-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.0.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: Q.F.-H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: P.F.-H., MOTHER : No. 3464 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered September 22, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002047-2017, FID: 51-FN-001874-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MCLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2018

Appellant, P.F.-H. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which adjudicated Q.F.-H. (“Child”) dependent. We affirm.

In its opinion, the Family court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Mother raises the following issue for our review:

WHETHER THE [FAMILY] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN RELYING ON THE 23 PA.C.S.A. § 6381(D) PRESUMPTION TO FIND ABUSE AS TO

MOTHER WHERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED A FINDING THAT THE PRESUMPTION HAD BEEN REBUTTED?!]

1 To the extent Mother argues on appeal that the court effectively prohibited her from testifying during the dependency hearing, her argument is waived because Mother failed to include it in her Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) statement. See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating generally that

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A10005-18

(Mother’s Brief at 6). [T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the [Family] court if they are supported by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the [Family] 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, 26,9 A.3d 1179, 1990 (2010)).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daine Grey, Jr., we conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief. The Family court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Family Court Opinion, filed December 1, 2017, at 7-11) (finding: at dependency hearing, Dr. Bennet testified that Child could not generate enough force during his daily activities to cause his injuries, thus Child’s injuries were inconsistent with accidental trauma; Dr. Bennet testified that three linear bruises on Child’s stomach were consistent with child abuse because small children should not bruise on their stomach; skeletal survey showed many of

Child’s injuries, which indicated severity and non-accidental nature of injuries;

several physicians at hospital ruled out any type of medical condition as cause

issues not raised in Rule 1925 statement will be deemed waived for appellate review). Moreover, the record makes clear the court appointed Fifth Amendment counsel out of an abundance of caution for Mother before she made her decision not to testify.

-2- J-A10005-18

of Child’s injuries; court found Dr. Bennet’s testimony credible; court found Mother’s lack of plausible explanation for Child’s injuries suspicious; clear and convincing evidence supported court’s finding of child abuse; Mother and Father were Child’s only caregivers at time of Child’s injuries; hematoma on Child’s left leg and linear bruises on Child’s stomach could not have been sustained absent abuse by parents; prima facie evidence established presumption that Mother perpetrated abuse; even if Mother did not physically inflict injuries, she committed abuse by omission; Mother failed to rebut presumption of abuse by presenting evidence to establish Child was not in her care when injuries occurred or that she had no reason to believe Child would be unsafe in Father’s care; court properly adjudicated Child dependent after it found Mother perpetrated child abuse).2 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the Family court’s opinion. Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Es¢ Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/18

2 Mother included in her reproduced record three documents, which are not contained in the certified record on appeal. This Court will only consider documents which have been duly certified in the record on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1921.

-3- J-A10005-18