Opinion
J-S15045-16 No. 2461 EDA 2015 No. 2462 EDA 2015 No. 2463 EDA 2015
04-15-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: V.F., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: B.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: V.F., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: M.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: V.F., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Dated July 6, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-DP-0001531-2013 FID# 51-FN-003007-2013 Appeal from the Order Dated July 6, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-DP-0001532-2013 FID# 51-FN-003007-2013 Appeal from the Order Dated July 6, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-DP-0001533-2013 FID# 51-FN-003007-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
In these consolidated appeals, V.F. (Mother), appeals from the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered July 6, 2015, that terminated the trial court's supervision of her daughter, L.F., her son B.F., and her daughter M.F. (Children), triplets born on September 18, 2008 and leaving them in the care and custody of D.G. (Father). The order also directed Mother to stay away from the Children, from Father, and from Father's home. We affirm.
This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte, on September 10, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. --------
We refer the reader to the facts and the procedural history of this matter as the trial court relates them in its opinion entered on September 22, 2015, which facts and procedural history we adopt as our own for the purposes of this memorandum.
The trial court hearing that resulted in the order appealed from took place on July 6, 2015. The sole individual who testified at that hearing was Dwayne Jones, a social worker with Philadelphia's Department of Human Services. The trial court entered its order on July 6, 2015. Mother filed her notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal on August 5, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Mother presents the following questions for our review:
A. Whether the court erred in finding that the circumstances that necessitated the dependency adjudication have been alleviated[?](Mother's Brief, at 3).
B. Whether the court erred in finding that there were no safety or dependency issues in the home[?]
C. Whether the court erred in finding the stay away order as to [M]other to stand and that Mother to stay away from the [C]hildren[?]
D. Whether it is in the best interests of the [C]hildren for DHS supervision to remain in place, for the [C]hildren to be removed from [F]ather's home, and for the [C]hildren to be returned to [M]other[?]
E. Whether the [trial] court erred in entering the above findings, when [M]other was not in attendance[?]
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).
To adjudicate a child dependent, a trial court must determine 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. 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.A. § 6302.
A dependency hearing is a two-stage process. The first stage requires the trial court to hear evidence on the dependency petition and determine whether the child is dependent pursuant to the standards set forth in section 6302. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(a). If it finds clear and convincing evidence that the child is dependent, the court may move to the second stage, an adjudicatory hearing where it must make an appropriate disposition based on an inquiry into the best interests of the child. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c); In re B.S., 923 A.2d 517, 521 (Pa. Super. 2007). "Clear and convincing" evidence has been 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." In the Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation omitted).
In accordance with the overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act to preserve family unity when possible, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(1), a child will only be declared dependent when he is presently without proper parental care or control, and when such care and control are not immediately available. See In the Interest of R.T., 592 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super. 1991). This Court has defined "proper parental care" as "that care which (1) is geared to the particularized needs of the child and (2) at a minimum, is likely to prevent serious injury to the child." C.R.S., supra at 845 (citation omitted).
In regard to when a child should be removed from parental custody, we have stated:
The law is clear that a child should be removed from her parent's custody and placed in the custody of a state agency only upon a showing that removal is clearly necessary for the child's well-being. In addition, this [C]ourt had held that clear necessity for removal is not shown until the hearing court determines that alternative services that would enable the child to remain with her family are unfeasible.In Interest of K.B., 419 A.2d 508, 515 (Pa. Super. 1980) (citations omitted). In addition, we have stated, "it is not for this [C]ourt, but for the trial court as factfinder, to determine whether [a child's] removal from her family was clearly necessary." In the Interest of S.S., 651 A.2d 174, 177 (Pa. Super. 1994).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, briefs, and the applicable law, and determined that the record before us contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that the Children no longer require trial court supervision, and that it was proper and necessary to order Mother to stay away from Father and the Children.
In addition, our close reading of the trial court's opinion reveals that the trial court carefully and methodically reviewed the evidence and ably addressed Mother's issues presented on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of the court's opinion.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's orders entered July 6, 2015 that terminated its supervision of the Children and ordered Mother to continue to stay away from Father and the Children.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/15/2016
Image materials not available for display.