Opinion
2042 EDA 2023 2043 EDA 2023
01-11-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF: I.G.-P., A MINOR APPEAL OF: I.G.-P., MINOR IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G.-P., A MINOR APPEAL OF: S.G.-P., MINOR
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered July 13, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-46-DP-0000059-2023, CP-46-DP-0000060-2023
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
MEMORANDUM
DUBOW, J.
In this consolidated appeal, Appellants, 7-year-old I.G.-P and 13-year-old S.G.-P (collectively, "Children"), through their guardian ad litem ("GAL"), appeal from the July 13, 2023 orders entered in the Montgomery County Juvenile Division that adjudicated Children dependent, ordered legal and physical custody to remain with Children's parents, and ordered the family to comply with service providers recommended by the Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth (the "Agency"). Upon review, we affirm.
The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. The Agency has been involved with the family since April of 2022, when the Norristown Area School District ("NASD") initiated a truancy referral for Children's older sibling, S.B., who was subsequently adjudicated dependent on December 5, 2022, for truancy. While the Agency was working with the family, NASD communicated additional concerns about Children's school attendance. On or around February 7, 2023, the Agency learned that the family had moved to Children's maternal grandmother's home. On or around February 22, 2023, S.B. notified the Agency that the family had relocated to a Red Carpet Inn. Notably, neither parent notified the Agency about the family's relocation to a hotel.
On March 31, 2023, the Agency filed petitions for adjudication of dependency after the Agency received updated school attendance records for Children and learned that I.G.-P. had accumulated 37 unexcused absences and S.G.-P. had accumulated 50 unexcused absences. The trial court held an adjudicatory hearing on May 30, 2023. The court heard testimony from Kelly Harris-Soto, program support specialist for pupil services at NASD, and T'andra Clark, Agency caseworker, who testified in accordance with the above facts.
Additionally, Ms. Harris-Soto testified that, to date, I.G.-P. had accumulated 44 unexcused absences, 23 excused absences, and 3 tardies. Ms. Harris-Soto further testified that S.G.-P. had accumulated 58 unexcused absences, no excused absences, and 8 tardies.
Ms. Clark testified she was assigned as the caseworker for the family on December 16, 2022. Ms. Clark informed the court that Children were currently living at the Red Carpet Inn and that NASD was providing transportation to and from school. Ms. Clark explained that she reached out on multiple occasions to Children's mother, J.P. ("Mother"), who was continually unresponsive to both the Agency as well as NASD, which contributed to a delay in implementing services for the family, including setting up transportation to school. Ms. Clark testified that NASD did not begin providing Children transportation to school until mid to late April. Ms. Clark further testified that the Agency initiated referrals for services for the family, including Justice Works to aid the family with truancy and Lincoln Center to help the family obtain stable housing. Ms. Clark explained that the parents have been uncooperative with services in the past. Ms. Clark recommended that the trial court adjudicate Children dependent and implement court-ordered supervision. GAL opposed the recommendation.
The trial court adjudicated Children dependent based on truancy and lack of proper parental care, ordered legal and physical custody of Children to remain with parents, ordered the Children to attend school daily, and ordered the family to comply with the services recommended by the Agency.
This timely appeal followed. Both Children and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Children raise a sole issue for our review: "Did the lower court err in finding [Children] dependent because it was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the minor[s were] without proper parental care or control, nor that [they were] habitually and without justification truant from school? Children's Br. at 3.
We review findings in a dependency case for an abuse of discretion. In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015). This Court is required to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if the record supports them, but not required to accept the lower court's inferences or conclusions of law. Id. "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." Interest of T.G., 208 A.3d 487, 490 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). Notably, "we are not in a position to reweigh the evidence and the credibility determinations of the trial court." In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).
An adjudication of dependency is governed by the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-65 ("the Act"). Pertinent to this appeal, the Act defines a "dependent child" as, inter alia, a child who "while subject to compulsory school attendance is habitually and without justification truant from school;" or "is without proper parental care and control." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302.
To adjudicate a child dependent based on truancy, a petitioner must present "clear and convincing evidence of three distinct facts, that is, that the child is (1) subject to compulsory school attendance and (2) habitually truant (3) without justification." In re C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348, 353 (Pa. Super. 2004); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. In Pennsylvania, Children are subject to compulsory school attendance from the age of six to eighteen; a child is considered habitually truant if they miss six or more days in a single school year and those absences are not justified. 24 P.S. §13-1326. An absence lacks justification if the petitioner offers "testimony and school attendance records to establish that no excuse was received by the school for an absence, or that a proffered excuse is facially invalid or insufficient." C.M.T., 861 A.2d at 354. "Upon introduction of such evidence, an inference arises that the absence in question is unjustified, at which point the parent or minor child may proceed to rebut the inference." Id.
To adjudicate a child dependent based on lack of proper parental care and control, a trial court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that the child, "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." In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302). Further, "[a] determination that there is a lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk[.]" 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. Clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony 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." A.B., 63 A.3d at 349 (citation omitted).
The overarching purpose of the Act is "to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible[.]" Id. (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1)). Accordingly, "a child will only be declared dependent when he is presently without proper parental care and when such care is not immediately available." In Interest of R.T., 592 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citation omitted). This Court has defined "proper parental care" as care which is "geared to the particularized needs of the child and [,] at a minimum, is likely to prevent serious injury to the child." A.B., 63 A.3d at 349 (citation omitted). Notably, "when determining whether a parent is providing a minor with proper care and control [] the caretaker's acts and omissions should weigh equally." In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1217 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations and emphasis omitted).
In their sole issue before this Court, Children aver that the trial court abused its discretion when it adjudicated them dependent. Children's Br. at 3. Children argue that their school absences were justified by their homelessness and, therefore, the Agency failed to prove that they were truant pursuant to the Act. Id. at 23. Children further argue that the Agency failed to demonstrate that they were without proper parental care and control because, at the time of the hearing, services for the family were in place, Children were attending school, and the family was cooperating with the Agency. Id. at 19. This argument is unavailing.
Based on our review, we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it adjudicated Children dependent based on truancy. Children, who were six and twelve at the time of the hearing, were undisputedly subject to compulsory school attendance. Based on the school records and the testimony from Ms. Harris-Soto, Children missed well over six days to qualify as habitually truant. While Children argue that their truancy was justified due to homelessness, the record belies this claim. As emphasized by the trial court in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the family has had a long history of truancy, and Children's truancy preceded their move to a hotel. The court found:
Mother's homing arrangement did not begin to destabilize until recently [o]n February 7, 2023[,] when she was displaced from her sister's home and had to move in with her grandmother and, shortly thereafter, to a hotel. Prior to February 2023, Mother had stable housing for 10 months; yet all three of her children were truant, necessitating [the Agency]'s involvement. Ensuring the improvement of the truancy behavior is paramount given the long history of truancy in this case.Trial Ct. Op., 8/24/23, at 6.
Moreover, the trial court placed great weight on Mother's failure to cooperate and communicate with the Agency, and its impact on the education and overall welfare of the Children. Id. at 6. The court found, based on the family's history with the Agency, that the family would not comply with services unless there was court involvement. Id. The court opined:
Another factor in the [c]ourt's decision was the lack of communication with Mother every time she relocated. This resulted in a disruption in [Children receiving school transportation. Court oversight is needed to ensure that the recently implemented services are properly carried out and the housing insecurity stabilizes. As such, [Children are without immediate proper parental supervision.Id. Our review of the record supports the trial court's findings and we decline to reweigh the evidence. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion.
In sum, the Agency presented clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that Children were habitually truant without justification, and that Mother's lack of communication and the family's lack of cooperation led Children to be without proper parental care or control, subsistence, or education as required by law. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it adjudicated Children dependent.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.