Opinion
J-S09001-16 No. 1181 MDA 2015 No. 1182 MDA 2015
04-08-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.B., A MINOR APPEAL OF: R.K., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF C.B., A MINOR APPEAL OF R.K., A MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 10, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Juvenile Court Division, at No(s): CP-36-DP-0000153-2014 Appeal from the Order Entered June 10, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Juvenile Court Division, at No(s): CP-36-DP-0000152-2014 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
In these consolidated appeals, R.K. ("Mother"), the parent of the subject children, L.B., born in October 2008, and C.B., born in November 2005, ("Children"), appeals the orders entered June 10, 2015, granting the petitions filed by Lancaster County Children and Youth Services ("CYS" or the "Agency") to adjudicate Children dependent and remove them from her custody and finding aggravated circumstances such that reunification services would not be provided for Mother. We affirm.
L.B.'s parents are Mother and J.C.; C.B.'s parents are Mother and A.B. Children resided in Virginia with Mother until August 2013. At that time, Mother and Children had been living in a homeless shelter and Mother decided to move to Pennsylvania. Mother brought Children and their belongings to her mother's ("Maternal Grandmother") home in Lancaster County, so Children could begin the 2013-2014 school year in Pennsylvania. Prior to this time, Mother and Maternal Grandmother had what the court described as a "love/hate relationship." Order of Adjudication and Disposition, Addendum, 6/10/15, at 1-2.
CYS's history with the family began on March 11, 2014. At that time, CYS received reports from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Prince William County Department of Social Services, Child Protective Services Division, ("CPS") concerning allegations of sexual abuse in Virginia. At the time, Children were living with Maternal Grandmother and Maternal Grandfather. CPS contacted CYS to request an interview with C.B. and L.B. concerning the allegations of abuse. C.B. and L.B. were individually interviewed by Children's Alliance, and both Children disclosed that physical and sexual abuse occurred in Virginia. CYS supplied CPS with the information.
On April 24, 2014, CYS again received report of alleged sexual abuse of the Children in both Pennsylvania and Virginia. The reports alleged that Mother was sexually abusing both L.B. and T., a younger sister of L.B. and C.B. CYS began an investigation. L.B. was again interviewed at the Lancaster County Children's Alliance. L.B. again disclosed that she was being sexually abused by both Mother and her stepfather, T.K. L.B. stated that Mother took both videos and pictures of the occurrences.
While the investigation was ongoing, it was reported to CYS that Mother informed Children's school that she planned on taking C.B. and L.B. back to Virginia. On May 2, 2014, Pennsylvania State Troopers took protective custody of C.B. and L.B., pending conclusion of the sexual abuse investigation. The next day, CYS filed a Stand By Petition for Temporary Custody. CYS also filed a Petition for Temporary Physical Custody and Legal Custody on May 5, 2014. On August 15, 2015, CYS filed a Petition for a Finding of Abuse requesting the court to find L.B. to be an abused child and further find that Mother was the perpetrator of the sexual abuse against L.B.
On May 6, 2014, the court held a shelter hearing. Mother waived the hearing without prejudice and without admitting any of the allegations set forth in the custody petition. Visitation of C.B. and L.B. was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal investigation against Mother and T.K.
The court held hearings on November 4, 2014, December 10, 2014, January 21, 2015, and February 3, 2015. At the hearings, CYS offered the testimony of Mary Halye, a forensic interviewer for Children's Alliance; Kari Stanley, program supervisor of Lancaster Children's Alliance; Kate Egerter, intake caseworker for CYS; C.B.; L.B.; Craig Clearwater, C.B.'s therapist; Belinda Dickson, a Philhaven family-based therapist; Carrie Fitzpatrick, a Philhaven family-based mental health worker; Maternal Grandmother; C.L., a family friend; and Amanda Schreiber, the current CYS caseworker. Mother testified and offered the testimony of Amy Hermansen, Esquire, Mother's Virginia attorney; Vinchanzo Goodman, a CPS intake worker; Sarah Weatherford, a CPS family services worker; Michael Yankson, a CPS family services worker; Laura Simpson, Kindercare preschool director; C.B.'s Paternal Grandmother; and L.B.'s Paternal Grandmother. Father, who appeared pro se, also testified. The adjudication and disposition was concluded, and the record closed, at the February 3 hearing.
By the Orders of Adjudication and Disposition with the Addendum, entered on June 10, 2015, the trial court granted the petitions filed by CYS to adjudicate Children dependent and remove them from the custody of Mother, pursuant to Sections 6302 and 6351 of the Juvenile Act, and found aggravated circumstances such that reunification services would not be provided for Mother, pursuant to Section 6341(c.1) of that act. These timely appeals followed.
Our Supreme Court set forth our standard of review for dependency cases as follows.
[T]he 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.In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
Additionally, "[t]he burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets that statutory definition of dependency." In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a "dependent child" as a child who
(1) 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. 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, including evidence of the parent's, guardian's or other custodian's use of alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk[.]42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).
The Juvenile Act further provides, in pertinent part, the following.
(a) General rule.— After hearing the evidence on the petition the court shall make and file its findings as to whether the child is a dependent child. . . .
. . .
(c) Finding of Dependency.— If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence that the child is dependent, the court shall
proceed immediately or at a postponed hearing, which shall occur not later than 20 days after adjudication if the child has been removed from his home, to make a proper disposition of the case.42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(a) and (c).
A panel of this Court stated that
[a] court is empowered by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(a) and (c) to make a finding that a child is dependent if the child meets the statutory definition by clear and convincing evidence. If the court finds that the child is dependent, then the court may make an appropriate disposition of the child to protect the child's physical, mental and moral welfare, including allowing the child to remain with the parents subject to supervision, transferring temporary legal custody to a relative or public agency, or transferring custody to the juvenile court of another state. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a).In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super. 2002).
"The question of whether a child is lacking proper parental care and control so as to be a dependent child encompasses two discrete questions: whether the child presently is without proper care or control, and if so, whether such care and control are immediately available." Id., at 619 (citation omitted).
Section 6341(c.1) of the Juvenile Act provides as follows.
(c.1) Aggravated circumstances.—If the county agency or the child's attorney alleges the existence of aggravated circumstances and the court determines that the child is dependent, the court shall also determine if aggravated circumstances exist. If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist, the court shall determine whether or not reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the home or to preserve and reunify the family shall be made or continue to be
made and schedule a dispositional hearing as required by section 6341(c.1) (relating to disposition of dependent child).42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c.1).
The Juvenile Act defines "Aggravated circumstances" as "[t]he child or another child of the parent has been the victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the parent." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(2).
Regarding the placement of a child who has been adjudicated dependent, this Court has explained that
[w]hen a child is adjudicated dependent, the child's proper placement turns on what is in the child's best interest, not on what the parent wants or which goals the parent has achieved. Moreover, although preserving the unity of the family is a purpose of the Act, another purpose is to 'provide for the care, protection, safety, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of this chapter.' 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1.1). Indeed, the relationship of parent and child is a status and not a property right, and one in which the state has an interest to protect the best interest of the child.In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some internal citations and quotation marks omitted; brackets omitted; brackets added).
After careful review, we affirm the trial court's orders finding Children dependent, continuing Children in the legal and physical custody of CYS, and approving Child Permanency Plans without the goal of reunification with Mother, based on the thoughtful and well-written Opinion Sur Appeal of the Honorable Jay J. Hoberg.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/8/2016
Image materials not available for display.