Opinion
1111 WDA 2022 1113 WDA 2022 1115 WDA 2022 1118 WDA 2022 1120 WDA 2022 1112 WDA 2022 1114 WDA 2022 1116 WDA 2022 1117 WDA 2022 1119 WDA 2022 J-S05004-23 J-S05005-23
05-03-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: R.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S, A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000088-2022, CP-65-DP-0000142-2020, CP-65-DP-0000070-2016, CP-65-DP-0000143-2020, CP-65-DP-0000069-2016, CP-65-DP-0000088-2022, CP-65-DP-0000142-2020, CP-65-DP-0000070-2016
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.
T.S. ("Mother") and C.S. ("Father") appeal from the dispositional orders, dated August 26, 2022, and entered on September 7, 2022, in which R.S (born in January of 2022), J.S. (born in November of 2019), D.S. or DZ.S. (born in February of 2018), D.S. (born in October of 2014), and Z.S. (born in October of 2013) (collectively "Children") were adjudicated dependent together with a finding of aggravated circumstances and were to remain in their current placement. These orders were the result of the dependency actions brought by the Westmoreland County Children's Bureau ("WCCB" or "Agency"). After review, we affirm.
This Court by order dated October 27, 2022, consolidated Father's five appeals identified at Nos. 1112 WDA 2022, 1114 WDA 2022, 1116 WDA 2022, 1117 WDA 2022 and 1119 WDA 2022. This Court by order dated November 9, 2022, consolidated Mother's five appeals identified at 1111 WDA 2022, 1113 WDA 2022, 1115 WDA 2022, 1118 WDA 2022 and 1120 WDA 2022. Additionally, this Court now consolidates both Father's and Mother's appeals in that these appeals involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
Mother's brief contains the following list of issues:
I. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in finding clear and convincing evidence existed to support [that] the children were without proper care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other control necessary for the child's physical, mental or emotional health, or morals?
II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Mother's prior bad acts to allow the Agency to show that Mother acted in accordance with the character or trait?
III. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in finding the Agency made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children from their home?
Mother's brief at 4.
Father's brief contains the following list of issues:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit an error of law or abuse[] its discretion in finding that the five (5) children were without proper care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the children's physical, mental or emotional health, or morals; and did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit an error of law in finding children, D.S. (No. 1114 WDA 2022), J.S. and R.S. each met the definition in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302, of "Dependent Child" (10), as the termination of Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 was not within three years immediately preceding the dates of birth of these children?
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse it discretion in admitting evidence of Father's[] prior bad acts and other wrongs to allow the Agency to prove that Father acted in accordance with the character or trait of neglect of children?
3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that the Westmoreland County Children's Bureau made Reasonable Efforts to prevent the removal of the five (5) children from the Father's home?Father's brief at 4.
Mother's and Father's issues are essentially comparable and a single opinion provided by the trial court sets forth its response to both parents' issues on appeal. However, in Father's first issue he adds an argument involving subsection (10) of the definition of a "Dependent Child," which he did not include in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) statement. Nor did he indicate where in the record he raised this issue with the trial court. Thus, Father waived that portion of his first issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) ("Issues not included in the [s]tatement … are waived."); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) ("Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."). Notably, the trial court specifically acknowledged that Father raised his first issue in conjunction with subsection (1) of the definition of a "Dependent Child." See 23 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1). Father made no reference to subsection (10). Thus, it is evident that both parents are raising the same issues.
Our scope and standard of review in dependency cases is as follows:
We must accept the facts as found by the trial court unless they are not supported by the record. Although bound by the facts, we are not bound by the trial court's inferences, deductions, and conclusions therefrom; we must exercise our independent judgment in reviewing the court's determination, as opposed to its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice dictate. We review for abuse of discretion. Our scope of review, accordingly, is of the broadest possible nature. It is this Court's responsibility to ensure that the record represents a comprehensive inquiry and that the hearing judge has applied the appropriate legal principles to that record. Nevertheless, we accord great weight to the court's fact-finding function because the court is in the best position to observe and rule on the credibility of the parties and witnesses.In the Interest of A.N., 39 A.3d 326, 330 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting In re C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted)). "The 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). Moreover, "the dependency of a child is not determined 'as to' a particular person, but rather must be based upon two findings by the trial court: whether the child is currently lacking proper care and control, and whether such care and control is immediately available." In re J.C, 5 A.3d 284, 289 (Pa. Super. 2010).
The trial court directly addressed the three issues raised by the parties, providing facts testified to by various witnesses. We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough, well-written opinion authored by the Honorable Justin M. Walsh of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, dated November 9, 2022. We conclude that Judge Walsh's opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Mother and Father on appeal, and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Walsh's opinion as our own and affirm the September 7, 2022 orders on that basis.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
(Image Omitted)