In the Interest of: R.R., a Minor
This text of In the Interest of: R.R., a Minor (In the Interest of: R.R., a Minor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S68001-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.R., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.B. : : : : : : No. 821 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered May 10, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-22-DP-0000270-2016
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2017
C.B. (Father) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Dauphin County, denying his petition for reconsideration of the order
granting Dauphin County and Youth Services’ (the Agency) motion to
withdraw the dependency petition with respect to his daughter (R.R.) (born
12/06). We are constrained to quash this appeal.
On October 21, 2016, after having received three referrals of Father’s
neglect and abuse of R.R., the Agency requested a Safety Plan with respect
to both parents “as there are some concerns that [Mother]1 may be influencing
the child’s disclosures and may hinder the Agency’s investigations due to her
____________________________________________
1 Mother and Father were never married and they ended their relationship shortly after R.R. was born. The custody order provided Father with custody the first three weekends of each month, with Mother having custody the remainder of the time.
____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S68001-17
feelings toward [Father].” Id. at 8. The Safety plan provided that while
exercising their respective custody periods, both Mother and Father would
have supervised contact with R.R. (by maternal grandfather when R.R. is with
Mother, and paternal grandmother when R.R. is with Father), pending the
outcomes of the investigations. Id.
On October 26, 2016, Mother rescinded her agreement to the Safety
Plan at a hearing before Hearing Examiner Sandra O’Hara. The Hearing
Examiner issued a recommended order providing that R.R. be placed in
emergency foster care, with Mother and Father to have only supervised
visitation. That same day, the Agency filed a dependency petition. The
petition alleged that R.R. was a dependent child who was without proper care
or control, under section 6302(1) of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-
6375. See Dependency Petition, 10/26/16, at 4. The Agency also averred
that it would be “contrary to the welfare, safety and health of [R.R.] to remain
under the care of her parents.” Id. at 4.
The Honorable John F. Cherry adopted the Hearing Examiner’s
recommended order, issued a verbal pick-up order, directed the Agency take
temporary custody of R.R., and appointed a guardian ad litem for R.R. The
court also scheduled a Shelter Care Hearing for November 9, 2016. See Trial
Court Opinion, 1/27/17, at 1-2. R.R. was placed with a foster family in
Mechanicsburg. The Court noted it would issue a Shelter Care order but
would not consider adjudication and disposition until completion of the
directives of the Shelter Care Order. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 1240 et seq.
-2- J-S68001-17
Following the November 9, 2016 Shelter Care Hearing, the court ordered
R.R. to remain in the custody of the Agency, pending the completion of the
abuse investigation and the completion of psychological evaluations for
Mother, Father and R.R. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6332, 6351. Mother appealed
from the Shelter Care order, objecting to the court’s finding that R.R. required
placement, and this Court ultimately dismissed that appeal.2
By mid-December, 2016, both Mother and Father had participated in
psychological evaluations. By December 19, 2016, the Agency had
determined that all three of the reports of abuse and neglect were unfounded.
23 Pa.C.S. § 6303. R.R. had not yet undergone psychological evaluation.
On February 3, 2017, the Agency filed a petition to withdraw the
dependency petition pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1335.3 On February 9, 2017,
Father filed a motion to enforce the court’s order to conduct a psychological
evaluation of R.R. pending Mother’s appeal of the shelter care order. Motion
2 On February 28, 2017, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion to withdraw the dependency petition with respect to R.R, and, on April 7, 2017, this Court dismissed Mother’s appeal from the shelter care order as moot. See In the Interest of R.R., Appeal of A.Z., 2019 MDA 2016, filed 4/7/17. See also Pa.R.A.P. 1972(a)(4) (authorizing dismissal for mootness). Mother filed a motion for reconsideration, which this Court denied. Order, 2019 MDA 2016, filed May 4, 2017.
3 Rule 1335 provides that “[t]he attorney for the county agency may withdraw the petition. The withdrawal shall be filed with the clerk of courts.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 1335.
-3- J-S68001-17
to Enforce Court’s Order to Conduct Psychological Evaluation of Child During
Pendency of Current Appeal, 2/9/17, at 11.4
On February 28, 2017, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion to
withdraw the dependency petition. See Order, filed 3/2/17. The Agency
released R.R. back to Mother, as primary custodian. On March 9, 2017, Father
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order, and the guardian ad
litem filed a court-ordered response. The court denied Father’s motion for
reconsideration on May 10, 2017, and on May 19, 2017 Father filed his notice
of appeal.
An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable.
Huntington Nat. Bank v. K–Cor, Inc., 107 A.3d 783, 787 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(“‘Pennsylvania case law is absolutely clear that the refusal of a trial court to
reconsider, rehear, or permit reargument of a final decree is not reviewable
on appeal.’”) (quoting Provident Nat'l Bank v. Rooklin, 378 A.2d 893 (Pa.
Super. 1977)). See Valentine v. Wroten, 580 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 1990)
(appeal will not lie from order denying motion for reconsideration). Moreover,
filing a motion for reconsideration neither extends nor tolls the appeal period
absent a stay of the judicial proceedings. Cheathem v. Temple Univ. Hosp.,
743 A.2d 518, 520 (Pa. Super. 1999). See Gardner v. Consol. Rail Corp.,
100 A.3d 280, 283 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“[A] motion for reconsideration, unless
expressly granted within the thirty-day appeal period, does not toll the time ____________________________________________
4The disposition of this motion is not included in the docket or record before us.
-4- J-S68001-17
period for taking an appeal from a final, appealable order.”); Pa.R.A.P.
1701(b).
Here, the trial court entered the order withdrawing the dependency
petition on February 28, 2017. Father’s March 9, 2017 motion for
reconsideration did not stay the appeal period. Accordingly, the appeal period
expired on March 30, 2017. Father’s motion for reconsideration, which was
not granted, did not toll the time period for taking an appeal from the February
28, 2017 order granting the Agency’s petition to withdraw. As the comment
to Pa.R.A.P. 1701 explains, although a party may petition the court for
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of: R.R., a Minor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rr-a-minor-pasuperct-2017.