Opinion
724 MDA 2023 J-S27012-23
10-24-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF: B.G., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.F., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered April 17, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000115-2023
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.
A.F. ("Mother") appeals from the April 17, 2023 order finding her to be a perpetrator of child abuse against her minor child, B.G. (born in October of 2022), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303, and adjudicating B.G. dependent. Mother solely challenges the finding of child abuse against her. After careful review, we affirm.
M.G. ("Father") is not a party to this appeal.
The trial court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this matter, which we need not reproduce herein. See Trial Court Opinion ("TCO"), 5/19/23, at 1-6. Briefly, this case stems from a domestic dispute that occurred on December 27, 2022, during which Mother allegedly stabbed Father multiple times while he was holding B.G. on his chest. See TCO at 1, 3, 5. Mother was arrested and charged with numerous crimes, including child endangerment. Id. at 5. She was released on bail with conditions that restricted her contact with B.G. Because of the incident, the York County Office of Children, Youth and Families ("CYF") received a Child Protective Services referral for B.G., due to concerns for her safety. Id. at 1. A few months later, after learning that Father and B.G. were evicted from a hotel where they had been living, CYF filed a petition for emergency protective custody, which was granted by the trial court. Id. at 2. On April 12, 2023, CYF petitioned the trial court to adjudicate B.G. dependent, to find that B.G. was a victim of child abuse, and to find that Mother perpetrated said abuse. Id.
A hearing was held on April 17, 2023, during which the court heard testimony from the officer who responded to the 911 call on December 27, 2022, and the CYF caseworker assigned to the case. Id. The court took judicial notice of Mother's criminal charges and accepted the officer's report into evidence. Neither Mother nor Father offered any evidence or testimony. Id. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court adjudicated B.G. dependent and found that Mother was a perpetrator of child abuse against B.G. Id.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court filed a responsive opinion on May 19, 2023. Herein, Mother presents a single issue for our review: "Whether or not the lower court erred when it entered a finding of abuse against [Mother] without clear and convincing evidence." Mother's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Mother's concise statement filed in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) contained the same single issue. See Concise Statement, 5/16/23, at 1 ¶ 3 ("It is alleged that the lower court erred when it entered a finding of abuse against [Mother] without clear and convincing evidence.").
Preliminarily, we note:
The 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.Interest of A.C., 237 A.3d 553, 557 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted). "The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
It is also well-established that:
While dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6375, the Child Protective Services Law ("CPSL") controls determinations regarding findings of child abuse, which the juvenile courts must find by clear and convincing evidence. See In the Interest of J.R.W., … 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1993). As the Supreme Court explained in In the Interest of L.Z., [111 A.3d 1164, 1176 (Pa. 2015)], "[as] part of [a] dependency adjudication, a court may find a parent to be the perpetrator of child abuse," as defined by the CPSL.Interest of T.G., 208 A.3d 487, 490 (Pa. Super. 2019).
The CPSL defines "child abuse," in relevant part, as follows:
(b.1) Child abuse.-The term "child abuse" shall mean intentionally, knowingly or recklessly doing any of the following:
(3) Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a child through any act or failure to act or series of such acts or failures to act.
(5) Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through any recent act or failure to act.23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1)(3), (5).
Mother essentially argues that the trial court entered a finding of abuse against her without clear and convincing evidence. Mother's Brief at 12. She argues that there were no witnesses to corroborate Father's claim that he was holding B.G. when she allegedly stabbed him, and that B.G. bore no obvious signs of injury or of even being in close proximity to Father during the alleged stabbing. Id. Additionally, Mother questions the trial court's finding Father's version of events credible, arguing that Father initially made false statements to the police and that there is no evidence to support the statement he made a week after the incident. Id. at 16.
To the extent that Mother argues CYF was not required to pursue a finding of abuse against her at the adjudication hearing since she was incarcerated at the time pending resolution of her criminal charges, and that the court's finding of abuse against her only served to prejudice her, see Mother's Brief at 19-20, we deem these issues waived for failure to include them in her Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement and her statement of questions involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) ("The statement of questions involved must state concisely the issues to be resolved…. No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby."); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) ("The Statement shall concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge."); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) ("Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived."); In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) ("[I]t is well-settled that issues not included in an appellant's statement of questions involved and concise statement of errors complained of on appeal are waived.").
In reviewing Mother's arguments, we have considered the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph N. Gothie of the Court of Common Pleas of York County. Judge Gothie's opinion thoroughly explains the basis for his finding "by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother] was a perpetrator of child abuse." TCO at 7. He provides a detailed discussion of the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as an explanation of his credibility determinations. Mindful of the evidentiary standard, Judge Gothie found it "both clear and convincing that [Mother] stabbed [Father] while he was holding [B.G.] on his chest[;]" thus, he concluded that Mother "came dangerously close to stabbing [B.G.] … and created a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury." Id. at 9. Nevertheless, Judge Gothie conducted an alternative analysis, giving credence to Mother's theory that Father was not holding B.G. when he was stabbed. He explained that even if Father had removed B.G. from his chest before he was stabbed, "the court fully believes that [B.G.] was … within the bedroom, possibly on the bed, as [Mother] stabbed [Father]." Id. at 11. As such, Judge Gothie concluded that a finding of abuse would still be proper, because regardless of where B.G. was in the room, there was still a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury to B.G. Id. The record confirms that Judge Gothie's decision is supported by ample, competent evidence. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own, and we affirm the order finding Mother to be a perpetrator of child abuse against B.G.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.