Opinion
J-S33002-17 No. 44 MDA 2017
05-30-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.D., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered November 28, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-36-DP-0000280-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
D.D. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on November 28, 2016, in a dependency proceeding that resulted in the finding that R.D. (Child), born in December of 2014, is a dependent child and that the permanency goal is adoption. On that same date, the court entered a separate order in which it found that aggravated circumstances existed, thus, alleviating the Lancaster County Children and Youth Social Service Agency (Agency) of the necessity to make efforts toward unification. After review, we affirm the order declaring Child dependent.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
I. Was there sufficient evidence of record to find that "aggravated circumstances[,"] as defined by 42 Pa.C.S. [§] 6302, exist against Mother?
II. If aggravated circumstances do in fact apply, did the court abuse its discretion in setting the Permanency Goal as adoption, when the Agency had no child welfare concerns for the [C]hild,
and [Child] would have, but for Mother's incarceration[,] no[t] been found to be dependent?Mother's brief at 5.
Dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6375. Moreover, we note that :
[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determination 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 L.V., 127 A.3d 831, 834 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
Before we are able to address any arguments Mother asserts in her brief, we are compelled to point out that Mother's notice of appeal indicates that she is appealing from an order filed on November 28, 2016, despite the fact that two orders were entered on the trial court's docket that day, i.e., the dependency order and the order finding aggravated circumstances. Notably, the notice of appeal does not indicate from which order Mother is appealing. The order contained in Mother's brief, situated immediately following the statement of jurisdiction, is the order relating to the finding of dependency. Thus, Mother's first issue, which directly addresses the finding of aggravated circumstances, could be considered waived in that we may not address an issue relating to an order that is not under appeal. See Pennsy Supply , Inc. v. Mumma , 921 A.2d 1184, 1194 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2007) ("As a general rule, it is not wise to file a single appeal from multiple orders."). However, in K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2003), our Supreme Court stated:
See Pa.R.A.P. 2115 ("Order or Other Determination in Question") ("The text of the order or other determination from which an appeal has been taken or which is otherwise sought to be reviewed shall be set forth verbatim immediately following the statement of jurisdiction."). --------
Where a party specifies a particular part of a judgment or order in their notice of appeal, appellate review may nevertheless be extended to orders not identified in the notice of appeal if the specified and unspecified orders are connected, the intention to appeal the unspecified order is apparent, and the opposing party has not suffered prejudice and has had an opportunity to brief the issues.Id. at 871. Therefore, pursuant to this statement, it appears that Mother's aggravated circumstances argument could be considered even though the finding of aggravated circumstances was contained in a separate order.
Unfortunately, however, Mother has not preserved her aggravated circumstances issue because she has failed to include it in her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Baysmore v. Baysmore , 771 A.2d 54, 56-57 (Pa. Super. 2001) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) ("Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.")). Specifically, Mother's 1925(b) statement provides only that "[t]he Juvenile Court abused its discretion by denying Mother a plan for reunification with her child when, although subject to aggravated circumstances, there were no issues with her care of the child, other than and until her incarceration." Mother's 1925(b) Statement. Accordingly, we must consider her first issue waived.
With regard to Mother's second issue, we rely on the trial court's discussion of the reasons for its determination as to the permanency goal of adoption for Child. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the opinion authored by the Honorable Leslie Gorbey of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dated January 23, 2017. We conclude that Judge Gorbey's thorough opinion properly disposes of the issue raised by Mother. Thus, we adopt Judge Gorbey's opinion as our own and affirm the order appealed from on that basis.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/30/2017
Image materials not available for display.