Opinion
J-S96015-16 No. 1115 WDA 2016
02-09-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.C., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.B.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 30, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County
Civil Division at No(s): CP-07-DP-120-2015/FID #07-FN-00065-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SOLANO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
J.B. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on June 30, 2016, in the context of a dependency proceeding that resulted in the finding that N.C. (Child), born in August of 2015, was the victim of child abuse perpetrated by J.C. (Father) and by omission as to Mother. The order declined to find aggravating circumstances. After review, we affirm.
Father did not appeal from the June 30, 2016 order and is not a party in the instant matter.
This appeal centers on a petition requesting a finding of child abuse and a motion for aggravated circumstances filed by Blair County Children Youth & Families (BCCYF) against both Mother and Father. In Mother's brief, she raises the following issues for our review:
I. Did the [c]ourt commit error in concluding that [M]other J.B. committed child abuse by omission thus justifying a founded report?
II. Is the standard of prima facie evidence to establish abuse unfair to an individual in the shoes of [Mother] given the
consequences of such a finding and the lack of evidence that she had knowledge of such abuse[?]Mother's brief at 4.
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 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 L.V., 127 A.3d 831, 834 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting In re A.B ., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Timothy M. Sullivan of the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, dated June 30, 2016. We conclude that Judge Sullivan's thorough, well-reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issues raised by Mother. Thus, we adopt Judge Sullivan'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: 2/9/2017
Image materials not available for display.