In re C.Z.

Full title: IN THE INTEREST OF: C.Z. APPEAL OF: S.K., MOTHER Appellant IN THE INTEREST…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 5, 2014

J. S12045/14 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 5, 2014)

Opinion

J. S12045/14 No. 3213 EDA 2013 No. 3214 EDA 2013

06-05-2014

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.Z. APPEAL OF: S.K., MOTHER Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: L.Z. APPEAL OF: S.K., MOTHER Appellant

FORD ELLIOTT

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered April 10, 2013,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County

Juvenile Division at Nos. 13-FN-13-000003-2013,

CP-13-DP-0000003-2013

Appeal from the Order Entered April 10, 2013,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County

Juvenile Division at Nos. 13-FN-13-000003-2013,

CP-13-DP-0000004-2013

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE AND JENKINS, JJ. DISSENTING MEMORANDUM STATEMENT BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

I respectfully dissent. While I agree with the majority that the Children were not dependent, I believe their legal and physical custody should have been transferred to Father. As the trial court points out, Father was already involved in the Children's lives, having exercised partial physical custody. (Trial court opinion, 6/18/13 at 12.)

I believe the majority's reliance on Anita H. and Mark T. is misplaced. In Anita H., this court held that the children were improperly adjudicated dependent absent a determination of whether the children's non-custodial fathers were able to provide proper parental care and control. We directed the trial court to order home studies of the natural fathers' homes and consider the results before making its adjudication. In Mark T., the trial court did not consider the availability of the father, who lived in another state, before adjudicating the child dependent. We remanded for the trial court to direct an investigation of the father's home and consider the results before making its adjudication. There is nothing in these cases to suggest that the fathers had any custodial relationship with the children prior to dependency review.

Instantly, according to the trial court, Father was ready, willing, able, and available to take immediate custody. ( Id. ) Given the fact Father already had partial physical custody, I believe the need for an investigation of Father's home is unnecessary.