From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Aunt

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 28, 2016
No. J-S70014-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2016)

Opinion

J-S70014-16 No. 1114 EDA 2016

09-28-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.D., MATERNAL AUNT


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered March 16, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000576-2014 BEFORE: OLSON, OTT, MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:

Appellant, T.D., the prior guardian and a female cousin of C.H., ("Child), a female born in September of 2009, appeals from the order entered on March 16, 2016, finding Appellant abused Child pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b) and thereby granting a petition filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Resources ("DHS") for a permanency goal change to adoption. We affirm.

The trial court also refers to Appellant as Child's maternal aunt.

We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as follows. In March 2011, Appellant obtained primary and legal custody of Child. On January 16, 2014, Child tested positive for gonorrhea. Thereafter, DHS removed Child from Appellant's care. After Child was adjudicated dependent she was placed in the custody of DHS. On March 16, 2014, the trial court held a child abuse hearing. The doctor, who performed tests on Child for sexually transmitted diseases, testified that the four-year-old could not have contracted gonorrhea without penetrative sexual contact. It was undisputed that Appellant was the primary caregiver for Child at all relevant times. The trial court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence of child abuse as to Appellant and granted the petition filed by DHS for a permanency goal change to adoption. This timely appeal resulted.

On appeal, Appellant raises three interrelated issues, claiming that the trial court erred by finding: 1) child abuse regarding Appellant; 2) Appellant was a perpetrator by omission because she was primary caretaker; and 3) clear and convincing evidence of abuse. Appellant's Brief, at 8. Appellant concedes that the issues are consolidated and "essentially ... appeals the court's finding of child abuse." Id.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently set forth our standard of review in a dependency case as follows:

The standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept 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. We review for abuse of discretion[.]
In Interest of L.Z., A Minor Child , 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015).

Further, our Supreme Court determined:

[E]vidence that a child suffered injury that would not ordinarily be sustained but for the acts or omissions of the parent or responsible person is sufficient to establish that the parent or responsible person perpetrated that abuse unless the parent or responsible person rebuts the presumption. The parent or responsible person may present evidence demonstrating that they did not inflict the abuse, potentially by testifying that they gave responsibility for the child to another person about whom they had no reason to fear or perhaps that the injuries were accidental rather than abusive. The evaluation of the validity of the presumption would then rest with the trial court evaluating the credibility of the prima facie evidence presented by the CYS agency and the rebuttal of the parent or responsible person.
Id. at 1185.

We reviewed the certified record, the parties' briefs, the relevant law, and the trial court's opinion entered on May 18, 2016. The trial court found credible the doctor's testimony that Child must have contracted gonorrhea through sexual contact. The trial court further recognized that Appellant was the primary caregiver for Child and Child lived exclusively in Appellant's home when Child contracted the disease. The trial court presumed Appellant was the perpetrator of the abuse because Child would not have contracted gonorrhea but for Appellant's acts or omissions. Sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, and serious physical injuries inflicted upon Child showed clearly and convincingly that Child suffered child abuse as defined in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b)(i)-(iii). The trial court further determined that Appellant did not offer rebuttal evidence; instead, she testified that she did not know how Child contracted gonorrhea. Upon review, we conclude there has been no error or abuse of discretion in this case and that the trial court's May 18, 2016 opinion meticulously, thoroughly, and accurately disposes of Appellant's issue on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion and adopt it as our own. Because we have adopted the trial court's opinion, we direct the parties to include the trial court's opinion in all future filings relating to our examination of the merits of this appeal, as expressed herein.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/28/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

In re Aunt

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 28, 2016
No. J-S70014-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2016)
Case details for

In re Aunt

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF: C.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.D., MATERNAL AUNT

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 28, 2016

Citations

No. J-S70014-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 28, 2016)