J-S73031-14

J-S73032-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S. & B.J.S., 

Minors,

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: J.S., Mother, : No. 1288 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order entered on June 30, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,

Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-36-DP-0000095-2012; 

CP-36-DP-0000196-2012

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S. & B.J.S., 

Minors,

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: R.S., Father, : No. 1289 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order entered on June 30, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,

Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-36-DP-0000095-2012; 

CP-36-DP-0000196-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J: FILED APRIL 15, 2015

In these consolidated appeals, J.S. (“Mother”) and R.S. (“Father”) 

(collectively “the parents”) appeal from the Dispositional Order1concerning 

their two minor children, M.S., born in November 2010, and B.J.S., born in 

November 2012 (collectively “the Children”), which ruled that it was not in 

 

1 The single Dispositional Order, which pertains to both Mother and Father, is 

dated June 30, 2014.
J-S73031-14

J-S73032-14

- 2 -

the Children’s best interest for their permanency plan to include a 

reunification plan concerning the parents. We affirm.

The trial court thoroughly set forth the relevant facts and procedural 

history underlying this appeal in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion entered on 

March 17, 2015. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/17/15, at 1-6.2 We incorporate 

the trial court’s recitation herein by reference. See id. 

On appeal, Mother presents two issues for our review:

A. Whether the trial court erred when it failed to provide Mother 

with a child permanency plan for reunification with [the 

C]hildren? 

B. Whether the trial court erred in finding [that] Mother abused 

M.S. and B.J.S.? 

Mother’s Brief at 9.

Father presents the following issue for our review: “Whether the trial 

court erred when it failed to provide Father with a child permanency plan for 

reunification with [the C]hildren[?]” Father’s Brief at 9.

The parents argue that the trial court improperly refused to order a 

permanency plan for reunification following this Court’s remand in December 

2013. See id. at 12-14; Mother’s Brief at 14-18. The parents contend that 

the trial court’s omission was improper because (1) this Court previously 

found that no aggravating circumstances existed; (2) the parents have made 

progress in improving their parenting skills, and have participated in 

 

2 We observe that Mother’s oldest child, J., the subject of the physical abuse 

by both Mother and Father, is not implicated in the Dispositional Order on 

appeal.
J-S73031-14

J-S73032-14

- 3 -

programs offered by the Lancaster County Children and Youth Service 

Agency (“the Agency”); and (3) the Agency inappropriately failed to give the 

parents a “second chance,” despite the Children’s adjudication of 

dependency. See Father’s Brief at 12-13; Mother’s Brief at 14-18. Mother 

also argues that the trial court erred in finding that she had abused the 

Children, as such finding is not supported by the record. See Mother’s Brief 

at 15-16, 19.

Our standard of review is 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.

* * *

[A]ppellate courts must employ an abuse of discretion 

standard of review, as we are not in a position to make the close 

calls based on fact-specific determinations. Not only are our trial 

judges observing the parties during the hearing, but usually ... 

they have presided over several other hearings with the same 

parties and have a longitudinal understanding of the case and 

the best interests of the individual child involved. Thus, we must 

defer to the trial judges who see and hear the parties and can 

determine the credibility to be placed on each witness and, 

premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of the success of the 

current permanency plan. Even if an appellate court would have 

made a different conclusion based on the cold record, we are not 

in a position to reweigh the evidence and the credibility 

determinations of the trial court.

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
J-S73031-14

J-S73032-14

- 4 -

Here, in the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion entered on August 

21, 2014, the court thoroughly addressed the parents’ claims, discussed the 

applicable law, and determined that the court properly denied the parents a 

reunification plan concerning the Children based upon (1) Mother and 

Father’s respective prior physical abuse of J.; (2) the parents’ lack of 

progress in their respective parenting plans; and (3) the trial court’s finding 

that making the Children available for adoption, and providing them 

permanency in a safe environment, would serve their best interests. See

Trial Court Opinion, 4/21/14, at 7-10. Our careful review confirms that the 

trial court’s analysis is supported by the record and the law, and we adopt it 

for purposes of this appeal. See id. The trial court properly exercised its 

discretion in determining that reunification is not appropriate and is not in 

the Children’s best interests. See In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 (providing 

that an appellate court must defer to the trial court judge who has presided 

over several other hearings with the same parties and has a longitudinal 

understanding of the case and the best interests of the individual children 

involved); see also In the Interest of: D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 676 (Pa. 

2014) (where the agency had failed to employ “reasonable efforts” to reunify 

a child with her parent, holding that permanency for a child may not be 

delayed because of such failure “when a court has otherwise held that 

grounds for termination have been established and the court has determined 
J-S73031-14

J-S73032-14

- 5 -

that termination is in the best interests of the child by clear and convincing 

evidence.”).

Additionally, pursuant to this panel’s directive in our February 19, 

2015 Judgment Order, the trial court, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion 

entered on March 17, 2015, thoroughly discusses the enumerated factors 

that a court must consider concerning evidence issued at a permanency 

review hearing, as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f) and (f.1). See Trial 

Court Opinion, 3/17/15, at 7-10. We incorporate the trial court’s detailed 

discussion herein for purposes of this appeal. See id. 

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly 

exercised its discretion in refusing to require reunification in the permanency 

plan for the Children, where the parents had previously twice abused J., and 

reunification was not in the Children’s best interests. 

Dispositional Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/15/2015
\..0 

N 

U1 

c:, 

1 

("') 

0 

c 

::z: 

-i 

:< 

~ 

1 S. R. did not file an appeal. 

rbruise on the rib cage, a buckle fracture of the left tibia and a fracture of the lefti1h ri~ 

(") 2 

R.S., Jr. v. Department of Public Welfare, No. 1947 C.D. 2010 (April 1, 2011). ~ ~ 

-i 

r,"1 

:::0 -.I 

head, bruising near the right temporal region, bruises on both sides of her neck, a large 

Commonwealth Court opinion, included bruising and swelling of the left side of her 

Children and Youth Social Service Agency (Agency). Her injuries, as described in a 

When J. was nine months old, she was indicated as abused by the Lancaster County 

At the time of J.'s birth, Mother was single. She subsequently married R. S. 

(M.), born November 22, 2010, and B. J. S. (B. J.), born November 11, 2012. J. S. 

(Mother) is the mother of all three girls. R. S. (Father) is the father of M. and B. J., and 

the step-father of J .. S. R. is J.'s biological father.1 

Three sisters are involved in this case: J. R. (J.), born September 15, 2007, M. S. 

FACTUAL HISTORY AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

OPINION SUR APPEAL AND ON REMAND 

By: Leslie Gorbey, J. 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-95-2012 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-196-2012 

M. S., A Minor 

B. J. S., A Minor 

IN THE INTEREST OF: SUPER. CT. NO. 1289 of 2014 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-95-2012 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-196-2012 

M. S., A Minor 

B. J. S., A Minor 

IN THE INTEREST OF: SUPER. CT. NO.: 1288 MDA 2014 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

c- Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
2 

March of 2012. On March 16, 2012, Mother took J. to see a physician and told him that 

reunification, was discontinued early when J. was abused for the second time in early 

and her sister in January of 2012. The PPT, who was to stay to support the 

seemed to be making progress, and J. returned to live with her mother, her step-father 

Personal Parent Trainer (PPT) was assigned to the Ss'. After some time, the parents 

of 2011; his evaluative report recommended parent training. On August 20, 2011, a 

Mother next saw Dr. Gransee, a psychologist, for a parenting assessment in May 

show that Mother had a high score on the scale indicating false answers. 

also concerned about her failure to accept Father as the perpetrator. His test results 

parent. He recommended individual counseling to address the relevant issues. He was 

borderline intelligence range and had serious concerns about her ability to function as a 

seen a therapist, John Weigel, as part of her plan. He found Mother functioning at a 

evaluated for parental competence. After J.'s first abuse discussed above, Mother had 

1/7/13, 95) The Family Service Plan was formulated and provided that both parents be 

Agency, providing that Father was to have no unsupervised contact with her. (N.T. 

permitted to go home with Mother and Father, a safety plan was established by the 

Mother gave birth to M. S. on November 22, 2010. Although the infant was 

has never believed that Father was a perpetrator. 

Welfare, supra) On June 18, 2010 the protective services case was closed. Mother 

Court, which- affirmed his status as perpetrator. (R.S., Jr. V. Department of Public 

agreement, with her maternal grandparents. Father appealed to the Commonwealth 

the perpetrator of this abuse on August 1, 2008, and J. was placed informally by 

Protective Service Plan was put in place. (N.T. 9/17/12, 48) Father was indicated as 

( Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
bruises on the child happened during a nightmare when J. threw herself against a wall. 

(N.T. 9/17/12, 77) The Agency received a March 23rd call from Mother to tell them that 

J. had banged into the bedside wall during a nightmare and had been injured. When 

the caseworker went out to the house to investigate, she found that the child had black 

eyes, bruising and lacerations to her face. She took photographs. (GAL's Exhibit 1 ). 

Mother reported that she had gone into J.'s room alone after hearing J. scream, and 

believed that J., in the throes of a nightmare, had slapped or punched herself in the 

face, or banged her head, face first, against the wall. (N.T. 1/7/13, 114 et seq., 131) 

Mother did not see these things happen; it was a supposition or fabrication on her part. 

Father did tell his mother-in-law that Mother was hitting J .. (N.T. 7/30/212, 287) Mother 

told the police that the medication she was on could have caused the incident, but she 

later denied having said that. (N.T. 7/30/12, 166). Mother insisted that J. had frequent 

nightmares or "night terrors." She told an Agency caseworker that "J.'s nightmares were 

getting worse ... And they were going to be taking J. to the doctor because of concerns 

that J. may be having some kind of seizures because she shakes so violently during the 

nightmares." (N.T. 7/30/12, 354) The resource mother told the Court that J. had had no 

nightmares or other nighttime disturbances while with her. (N.T. 7/30/12, 197-198) In 

addition, when M. S., the child's aunt, brought J. to see Dr. Hoshauer for an 

investigation of abuse, she said nothing about J. having sleep problems, although she 

was specifically asked. (Id at 230) Mother also went out of her way to hide the injured 

child from others. During the week immediately following the injury, she did not take J. 

to the doctor for treatment for the injuries, canceled her meetings with the PPT, and 

kept J. home from school. (N.T. 1/7/13, 144) She did not keep an appointment for an 

3 

( Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
4 

pregnant and her third child was born on November 11, 2012. The Agency took 

Mother informed the Agency on October 11, 2012 that she was again 

complete testimony. 

held on October 1 and 14, December 6, 2012, and January 7, 2013 in order to 

grandparents. Mother was permitted to visit only in her parents' house. Hearings were 

placement was modified after hearing, and they were moved to live with their maternal 

because of a lack of time to complete testimony. On September 20, 2012, the girls' 

On July 30, 2012, and September 17, 2012, hearings were continued 

modified and the children were placed in foster care. 

a permanent resource for the child, so on June 18, 2012, after a hearing, the order was 

the case on May 22, 2012. Unfortunately, the aunt's significant other did not want to be 

and have only supervised contact with Mother and Father. A CASA was appointed for 

with J .. A safety plan provided that J. and M. would live with their paternal aunt M. S. 

unavailable. On May 18, 2012, M. was placed in an Agency approved resource home 

On May 14, 2012, a scheduled hearing was continued because Father's attorney was 

had indicated to his mother-in-law that Mother had been hitting J .. (N.T. 7/30/12, 287) 

placed by the Agency. Father was named as a perpetrator by omission because he 

Agency, Mother was named as a perpetrator of abuse against J. and both children were 

on May 1, 2012. On May 10, 2012, temporary custody of M. was also given to the 

Order triggered by the March, 2012 abuse was issued by the Lancaster County Court 

seek alternative care such as an Emergency Room visit. (Id at 144-147) A Shelter Care 

the doctor had been unavailable when she called, but she admitted she did not then 

investigative meeting with the police. (N.T. 7/30/12, 167-169)) She told the Court that 

/ 

\. 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
custody of the newborn, B. J., and placed her in an agency approved resource home. 

These foster parents are willing to be a permanent resource for the little girl. 

The Court received expert testimony from Cathy Hoshauer, M.D., a pediatrician 

and an expert in the evaluation of child abuse victims. (N.T. 7/30/12, 203 et seq.) Dr. 

Hoshauer had seen J. and reviewed an interview of her by a forensic interviewer 

concerning the injuries. She subsequently prepared a report, in which she concluded 

that the injuries sustained by J. were inconsistent with her hitting her head on a wall. 

(Id. at 215 et seq; Petitioner's Exhibit 1) She explained further that "if you bump your 

head against a wall, you're not going to get injuries in multiple different places. So her 

injuries were her mouth, below her eye, above her eye and hemorrhage within the eye, 

and that's not something that will - - that a child can create enough force on their own." 

(N.T. 7/30/12, 223-224) She also responded negatively when asked if she had ever 

seen a child of four or so who was able to self-injure themselves with their own hands 

or other body parts to cause purple bruising on their face. (N.T. 7/30/12, 219) 

On March 20, 2013, aggravated circumstances were found as to Mother and 

Father, an adjudication order was issued and all three children were found to be 

dependent. J. was placed in the physical custody of her biological father, M. to the 

custody of her maternal grandparents and B. J. to her foster parents. 

Father appealed the March 20, 2013 orders concerning M. and B. J. to the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court on April 17, 2013. Mother appealed the Orders concerning 

all three girls to the Superior Court on the same day. The Superior Court issued its 

opinion on December 10, 2013, affirming the dependency adjudication decision, but 

finding there were no aggravated circumstances and remanding the matter because of 

5 

(' ( . : 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
6 

the Court's decision to deny a reunification plan based thereon. A remand hearing was 

scheduled for March 3, 2014,and then continued to June 23, 2014,at the same time as a 

permanency review hearing. It was around this time when Mother went on her own to 

see another therapist, Bruce Eyer. (N.T. 1 /7 /13) 137) He has recommended no further 

necessary action, but this decision was based only on what Mother chose to self-report. 

For instance, he did not even know about the first instance of abuse. (Id., 151) She 

remains in therapy with him; he still has no detailed background information and has not 

dealt with any abuse. (N.T. 4/28/14, 7-8; 6/23/14, 21) Mother and Father are involved in 

a parenting program; a caseworker inquiry found that it involved basic child care and did 

not deal with abuse. (N.T. 4/28/14, 14.) Mother testified that she cannot think of any 

other services that the Agency could provide to her to remedy her situation. (N.T. 

6/23/14, 26) Father did not testify at all so the status of his involvement in any services is 

unknown. The only information the Court has is that he has been attending a parenting 

program with Mother. 

This Court issued its dispositional order on July 1, 2014, and.without finding 

aggravated clrcumstances.denied the parents a reunification plan. On July 30, 2014, 

Mother and Father both appealed the July 1 order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, 

which issued an opinion on February 19, 2015, again remanding the matter to the trial 

Court with instructions to discuss the specific considerations set out in Section 6351 (f) 

and Section 6351(f.1) of the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act. It is pursuant to this remand 

that this opinion is being written. The arguments and discussions of this Court's two 

prior decisions, insofar as consistent with the two Superior Court remand opinions, are 

incorporated herein by reference. 

( Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
7 

decidedly appropriate. If the children are not in placement in a safe setting with 

visit with each other on a regular basis, the Court finds these arrangements to be 

half-sister J., B. J. is doing well and is happy in her current resource home, and the girls 

since M. is doing well in a household which includes her maternal grandparents and her 

appropriate. Neither parent can be trusted to ensure the safety of the children. And 

inflicted serious physical abuse upon J. This is not a situation where one parent is 

rely upon either Mother or Father to keep the children safe since both, at different times, 

infliction of abuse, the children remain appropriately in foster care. The Court cannot 

the fact that there have been no serious remedial actions taken by the family relative to 

Given the history of this family, the serious abuse perpetrated twice upon J. and 

(1) the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement. 

hearing, a court shall determine all of the following: 

Section 6351 (f) Matters to be determined at permanency hearing -At each permanency 

the Court's specific consideration of them are as follows: 

review hearing in order to support its decision after that hearing. These elements and 

Section 6351 (f) sets out specific elements for the trial court to consider during a 

ANALYSIS 

children live with appropriate permanent resource families. 

progress toward remedying the situation in which the abuse occurred, and where the 

found to be perpetrators of the abuse, have no plan for reunification, have made no 

half-sister was seriously abused on two separate occasions, the parents have been 

Whether two young children should be returned to their family in which their older 

ISSUE 

( Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
8 

been truthful with her current therapist and without the operative facts he has concluded 

activities during "night terrors." She was harmed by someone else. Mother has also not 

testimony. It was clear from Dr. Hoshauer's testimony that J. was not injured by her 

then by her mother. The Court saw a disturbing lack of candor in these parents' 

four and a half years of age, she had been seriously abused by both her step-father and 

which included two fractured bones. By the time of placement in 2012 when J. was just 

herself. She also does not believe that Father was the perpetrator of the first abuse 

the Agency. Mother continues to insist that the child was not abused, but harmed 

PPT was providing extensive help to the parents and they were also receiving help from 

There is no visible progress. J. was abused for the second time during the time a 

necessitated the original placement. 

(3) the extent of progress made toward alleviating the circumstances which 

of their Family Service Plan, J. was again seriously abused, lndicatinq that these parents 

were not sufficiently compliant with the plan to remedy their abusive tendencies. 

(PPT). Despite the provision of one-on-one instruction by the PPT and in the final phase 

included various goals for the parents and also provided for a personal parent trainer 

they were operating under a safety plan and a Family Service Plan for J. The plan 

therewith cannot be examined, but these parents have been in a prior situation where 

While there is currently no plan for reunification in effect, the parents' compliance 

plan developed for the child. 

(2) the appropriateness, feasibility and extent of compliance with the permanency 

who are proven abusers of a child. 

appropriate resource parents, then the only alternative is to return them to two parents 

( 

\ 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
9 

parents and thereby put their safety, protection, physical, mental and moral welfare in 

of realistic remedial services, there is no way the Court can return these children to their 

their lack of response to the remedial efforts taken by the Agency, and their current lack 

perpetrated upon J., the lack of candor of the parents about the origin of her injuries, 

As stated above, the Court believes because of the two separate physical abuses 

to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child." 

rights in cases where return to the child's parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited 

will be placed for adoption and the county agency will file for termination of parental 

paragraph in this case is (f.1 )(2) which asks the Court to consider "if and when the child 

Section 6351 (f.1) sets out additional matters for examination. The relevant 

contemplated as soon as is procedurally possible. 

father and her mother. Both homes are permanent resources and adoption is 

happy, and, above all, are safe from the kind of abuse perpetrated upon J. by her stepThe children are in suitable resource homes where they are doing well, are 

child[ren]. 

(4) the appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the 

little value to alleviate the reason which necessitated the reason for placement. 

with the intensive one-on-one PPT class, then attending a basic class on child care is of 

which did not deal specifically with abuse. If the parents were unable to make progress 

Since the second placement of J., the parents attended a "basic child care" class 

certainly indicates that these parents have made little if any progress. 

unconscious, it does not bode well for the safety of young children in their care and 

that she needs no additional help from him. Whether the parents' denial is purposeful or 

(- ( 

\ 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
10 

I certify this document to bo rn::ci 

in the Lancaster County OLc::, :jf 

the Cler!~ of the Courts. 

d~t~)) !! » 1~: '. 

,...::'·',.:,.~ ··$ r Joshua G f-"""" ';'' 

~~j}t~": \ ~,, ... ,~ • ', .. ~ ~: ... · .• -~ ''"""'""'''' Clerk of tho \,.;:.,,,; ,_, 

BY THE COURT: 

~~ 

LESLIE GORBEY, JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Caprice Hicks-Bunting, Esquire 

Samuel Encarnacion, Esquire 

Elizabeth A. Stineman, Esquire 

David J. Natan, Esquire 

Attest: 

Dated: March 16, 2015 

the S. children. 

which is best suited to the safety, protection, and physical, mental and moral welfare of 

For the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the current disposition is that 

these children is contemplated. 

jeopardy. The current, very appropriate placements are permanent, and adoption of 

('. ( 

\ 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
(J -0 0 

c: ~ 

1 z - --i .. 

:< ( ... 11 

sJ 

C) 

J> 

bruise on the rib cage, a buckle fracture of the left tibia and a fracture of the left 81h rib. 

,...., 

J> = (; 

R.S., Jr. v. Department of Public Welfare, No. 1947 C.D. 2010 (April 1, 2011 ~ A~ ~ 

CJ) G') :;::;: 

-i 

rr, r-o 

1 . ~ S. R. did not file an appeal. 

head, bruising near the right temporal region, bruises on both sides of her neck, a large 

Commonwealth Court opinion, included bruising and swelling of the left side of her 

Children and Youth Social Service Agency (Agency). Her injuries, as described in a 

When J. was nine months old, she was reported as abused to the Lancaster County 

At the time of J.'s birth, Mother was single. She subsequently married R. S. 

S. R. is J.'s father.1 

(Mother) is the mother of all three girls. R. S. (Father) is the father of M. and B. J., and 

(M.), born November 22, 2010, and B. J. S. (B. J.), born November 11, 2012. J. S. 

Three sisters are involved in this case: J. R. (J.), born September 15, 2007, M. S. 

FACTUAL HISTORYAND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

OPINION SUR APPEAL 

By: Leslie Gorbey, J. 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-95-2012 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-196-2012 

M. S., A Minor 

B. J. S., AMinor 

IN THE INTEREST OF: SUPER. CT. NO. 1289 of 2014 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-95-2012 

DOCKET NO.: CP-36-DP-196-2012 

M. S., A Minor 

B. J. S., A Minor 

IN THE INTEREST OF: SUPER. CT. NO.: 1288 MDA 2014 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

J- 57303 / ..f 5;;;_ - /tiCirculated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
Protective Service Plan was put in place. (N.T. 9/17/12, 48) Father was indicated as 

the perpetrator of this abuse on August 1, 2008, and J. was placed informally by 

agreement, with her maternal grandparents. On June 18, 2010 the protective services 

case was closed. Mother has never believed that Father was a perpetrator. Father 

appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed his status as perpetrator. (Id) 

Mother gave birth to M. S. on November 22, 2010. Although the infant was 

permitted to go home with Mother and Father, a safety plan was established by the 

Agency providing that Father was to have no unsupervised contact with her. (N.T. 

1/7/13, 95) The Family Service Plan also provided that both parents be evaluated for 

parental competence. After J.'s first abuse, Mother had seen a therapist, John Weigel, 

as part of her plan. He found Mother functioning at a borderline intelligence range and 

had serious concerns about her ability to function as a parent. He recommended 

individual counseling to address the relevant issues. He was also concerned about her 

failure to accept Father as the perpetrator. His test results show that Mother had a high 

score on the scale indicating false answers. 

Mother next saw Dr. Gransee, an Agency consultant, in May of 2011; his 

evaluative report recommended parent training. Mother also went on her own to see 

another therapist, Bruce Eyer. (N.T. 1/7/13) 137) He has recommended no further 

necessary action, but this decision was based only on what Mother chose to self-report. 

For instance, he did not even know about the first instance of abuse. (Id., 151) She 

remains in therapy with him; he still has no detailed background information and has 

not dealt with the abuse. (N.T. 4/28/14, 7-8; 6/23/14, 21) Mother and Father are 

involved in a parenting program; a caseworker inquiry found that it involved basic child 

2 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
care and did not deal with abuse. ( N.T. 4/28/14, 14.) Mother testified that she cannot 

think of any other services that the Agency could provide to her to remedy her situation. 

(N.T. 6/23/14, 26) Father did not testify as to the status of his compliance, if any, with 

the plan. The only information the Court has is that he has been attending a parenting 

program with Mother. 

On August 20, 2011, a Personal Parent Trainer (PPT) was assigned to the Ss'. 

After some time, the parents seemed to be making progress, and J. returned to live with 

her mother, step-father and sister in January of 2012. The PPT, who was to stay to 

support the reunification, was discontinued early when J. was again abused in March of 

2012. On March 16, 2012, Mother took J. tosee a physician and told him that bruises 

on the child happened during a nightmare when J. threw herself against a wall. (N.T. 

9/17/12, 77) After a second incident on March 20, 2012, the Agency received a March 

23rd call from Mother to tell them that J. had banged into the bedside wall during a 

nightmare and had been injured. When the caseworker went out to the house to 

investigate, she found that the child had black eyes, bruising and lacerations to her 

face. She took photographs. (GAL's Exhibit 1 ). Mother reported that she had gone into 

J.'s room alone after hearing J. scream, and believed that J., in the throes of a 

nightmare, had slapped or punched herself in the face, or banged her head, face first, 

against the wall. (N.T.1/7/13, 114 et seq., 131) Mother did not see these things 

happen; it was a supposition or fabrication on her part. Father did tell his mother-in-law 

that Mother was hitting J .. (N.T. 7/30/212, 287) Mother told the police that the 

medication she was on could have caused the incident, but she later denied having 

said that. (N.T. 7/30/12, 166). Mother insisted that J. had frequent nightmares or "night 

3 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
terrors." She told an Agency caseworker that "J.'s nightmares were getting worse ... 

And they were going to be taking J. to the doctor because B. was concerned that J. 

may be having some kind of seizures because she shakes so violently during the 

nightmares." (N.T. 7/30/12, 354) The resource mother told the court that J. had had no 

nightmares or other nighttime disturbances while with her. (N.T. 7/30/12, 197-198) In 

addition, when M. S., the child's aunt, brought J. to see Dr. Hoshauer for an 

investigation of abuse, she said nothing about J. having sleep problems, although she 

was specifically asked. (Id at 230) Mother also went out of her way to hide the injured 

child from others. During the week following the injury, she did not take J. to the doctor 

for treatment for the injuries, canceled her rneetinqs with the PPT, and kept J. home 

from school. (N.T. 1/7/13, 144) She did not keep an appointment for an investigative 

meeting with the police. (N.T. 7/30/12, 167-169)) She told the Court that the doctor 

had been unavailable when she called, but she admitted she did not seek alternative 

care such as an Emergency Room visit. (Id at 144-147) J.'s Shelter Care Order 

triggered by the March 23, 2012 abuse was issued by the Lancaster County Court on 

May 1, 2012. On May 10, 2012, temporary custody of M. was also given to the Agency, 

Mother was named as a perpetrator of abuse against J. and both children were placed 

by the Agency. Father was named as a perpetrator by omission because he appeared 

to know that Mother had been hitting J .. (N.T. 7/30/12, 287) On May 14, 2012, a 

scheduled hearing was continued because Father's attorney was unavailable. On May 

18, 2012, M. was placed in an Agency approved resource home with J .. A safety plan 

provided that J. and M. would live with their paternal aunt M. S. and have only 

supervised contact with Mother and Father. A CASA was appointed for the case on 

4 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
May 22, 2012. Unfortunately, the aunt's significant other did not want to be a permanent 

resource for the child, so on June 18, 2012, after a hearing, the order was modified and 

the children were placed in foster care. 

On July 30, 2012, and September 17, 2012, hearings were continued 

because of a lack of time to complete testimony. On September 20, 2012, the girls' 

placement was modified after hearing, and they were moved to live with their maternal 

grandparents. Mother could visit only in her parents' house. Hearings were held on 

October 1 and 14, December 6, 2012, and January 7, 2013 in order to complete 

testimony. 

Mother informed the Agency on October 11, 2012 that she was again pregnant 

and her third child was born on November 11, 2012. The Agency took custody of the 

newborn, B. J., and placed her in an agency approved resource home. These foster 

parents are willing to be a permanent resource for the little girl. 

The Court received expert testimony from Cathy Hoshauer, M.D., a pediatrician 

and an expert in the evaluation of abuse victims. (N.T. 7/30/12, 203 et seq.) Dr. 

Hoshauer had seen J. and reviewed an interview of her by a forensic interviewer 

concerning the injuries. She subsequently prepared a report, in which she concluded 

that the injuries sustained by J. were inconsistent with her hitting her head on a wall. 

(Id. at 215 et seq; Petitioner's Exhibit 1) She explained further that "if you bump your 

head against a wall, you're not going to get injuries in multiple different places. So her 

injuries were her mouth, below her eye, above her eye and hemorrhage within the eye, 

and that's not something that will - - that a child can create enough force on their own." 

(N.T. 7/30/12, 223-224) She also responded negatively when asked if she had ever 

5 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
6 

seen a child of four or so who was able to self-injure themselves with their own hands 

or other body parts to cause purple bruising on their face. (N.T. 7/30/12, 219) 

On March 20, 2013, aggravated circumstances were found as to Mother and 

Father, an adjudication order was issued and all three children were found to be 

dependent. J. was placed in the physical custody of her father, M. to the custody of her 

maternal grandparents and B. J. to her foster parents. 

Father appealed the March 20, 2013 orders concerning M. and B. J. to the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court on April 17, 2013. Mother appealed the Orders concerning 

all three girls to the Superior Court on the same day. The Superior Court issued its 

opinion on December 10, 2013, , affirming th'e dependency adjudication decision, but 

finding there were no aggravated circumstances and remanding the matter because of 

the Court's decision to deny a reunification plan based thereon. A remand hearing was 

scheduled for March 3, 2014 and then continued to June 23, 2014 at the same time as a 

permanency review hearing. This Court issued its dispositional order on July 1, 2014, 

and without finding aggravated circumstances denied the parents a reunification plan. 

On July 30, 2014, Mother and Father both appealed the July 1 order to the Pennsylvania 

Superior Court, pursuant to which appeal this opinion is being written. 

ISSUE 

Whether the Court appropriately denied Mother and Father a reunification plan for 

their two younger-daughters when the third daughter had been physically abused twice 

at separate times, once by Father resulting in bruising and two fractures and twice by 

Mother resulting in serious bruising of her head and face, neither party has completed a 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
7 

ANALYSIS 

In its opinion of December 1 O, 2013, the Superior Court affirmed this Court's 

decision that M. and B. J. were dependent and abused children. The Superior Court, 

however, found that this Court erred in its finding of aggravated circumstances; the case 

was remanded for an examination of whether a plan for reunification could be withheld 

absent aggravated circumstances. This court scheduled and held hearings relevant to 

the Superior Court's remand order. 

Once a child has been adjudicated dependent, additional decisions in the context 

of permanency planning are made according to his best interest. In re J. S. W., 651 A. 2d 

167 (Pa. Super 1994) Permanency planning is a concept whereby children are not 

relegated to the limbo of spending their childhood in foster homes, but instead, 

dedicated effort is made by the court and the children's agency to rehabilitate and unite 

the family in a reasonable time, and failing in this, to free the child for adoption. In re 

J.S.W., 651 A.2d 167, 170 (1994) The Superior Court has held that providing no plan 

for reunification can be an appropriate decision, depending on the factual 

circumstances. In re R. T., C.A., K.A., 778 A.2d 670 (Pa. Super, 2001) In In R. T., 

although the trial court had found that aggravated circumstances existed and did not 

provide a reunification plan based on that finding, the Superior Court decided that there 

were no aggravated circumstances because of a lack of statutory retroactivity, but still 

permitted there to be no plans for reunification .. In so doing, the Court said : 

plan in a period of over three years, and there are no additional useful services that can 

be offered to Mother and Father. 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
8 

as the Guardian's Exhibit 1, and bumping a head against a wall cannot conceivably 

produce various discrete injuries all over a child's face. The Court believes that J. did 

not credible. The limited strength and small hands of a child cannot conceivably create 

on that child's own body the kind of injuries obvious on J.'s face in the picture provided 

Dr. Horshauer's opinion as a matter of judicial good sense, finding Mother's testimony 

seen a child harm herself as J.'s injuries indicated. The Court agrees with and accepts 

dispelled by the testimony of Dr. Horshauer, a pediatrician, who said she had never 

blaming the child herself, citing bad dreams and sleep disorders. This conclusion was 

swollen and black eyes. The family was unable to look inward for a cause, instead 

seriously abused, experiencing resulting lacerations, bruising, swelling on the face and 

the Agency for a matter of years and received a long list of services, J. was again 

Father, after both J. and M. were returned to them, after they had been involved with 

perpetrator. Then in 2012, after a Personal Parent Trainer worked with Mother and 

resulting serious physical injuries. Mother continues to believe that Father was not the 

measure. In 2008, at nine months of age, J. was physically abused by Father, with 

finds that refusal of a reunification plan for Mother and Father is an appropriate 

The instant opinion is directly governed by the In re R. T. holding, and this court 

Preliminarily, we note that although the polestar of the Juvenile Act is reunification of the 

family, 55 Pa. Code§ 3130.67 lists adoption as a permissible goal for a dependent child. 

See id. at (b)(9)(iii). See also In the Matter of Luis R., 430 Pa. Super. 518, 635 A.2d 170, 

172-73 (1993), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 635, 647 A.2d 511 (1994) (noting permissible 

goals listed in 55 Pa. Code§ 3130.67(b)(9), and explaining that "one goal is not 

mandated over another; nor does the language of the regulation require that each goal 

be implemented in the order in which they are listed."). A review of the trial court's 

......... Order and its Opinion following appeal reveals that the court found the placement 

plan amendments at issue here appropriate, regardless of the alleged aggravating 

circumstance." In re R.T., 2001 PA Super 157, 778 A.2d 670, 680 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
not harm herself, but rather that Mother was the perpetrator. Mother's actions on the 

night of the injuries and afterward are very telling to this Court and support its decision. 

She was in J.'s room before anyone else for some unspecified period of time. She 

insisted unreasonably that J. was responsible for her own injuries. She contends that 

she did not obtain medical care for J. because when she called to make an appointment, 

the doctor would not see J., but then she never took this visibly injured child to the 

emergency room for treatment. She kept the child home from school so the teachers, 

mandated reporters, would not see her. She insistently refused to permit the personal 

parent trainer to come as she normally would, so the PPT would not see J. That Mother 

harmed J. and then went to such lengths to keep her hidden and away from medical 

attention indeed provides sufficient evidence that J. is an abused and dependent child. 

The extent of her injuries and her mother's indifference to them as well as the history of 

her step-father's abuse, clearly supports her having been removed from her parents' 

custody. 

Although J. was seriously abused twice, once by her step-father and once by her 

mother, a scenario which fulfills the requirements of abuse and dependency, the court 

recognizes that M. and B. J. were not physically harmed by either Mother or Father. 

Nonetheless, the operative concepts apply to them also. They have a Mother and 

Father who are both perpetrators of abuse as parents. There is nothing in the record 

that indicates to the court these children would be safe if they were given into the 

custody of these parents, absent Mother's and Father's successfu)W' engagement in 

remedial activities. Mother and Father did not sufficiently engage in such activities. 

Neither was fully compliant with the available plan. Mother saw a counselor at 

9 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
10 

trusted to provide a safe haven for these children within a reasonable period of time. 

interests requires that they live permanently in a loving home where there exists no risk 

of harm from their parental caretakers. Given the long time frame of this case and the 

parents' lack of progress, Mother and Father are not those caretakers and cannot be 

the Agency could provide that would be helpful to her. 

To allow these children to languish in foster care, while no additional services are 

available, is clearly not in the children's best interests. Not only are M. and 8. J. 

unquestionably dependent children at the present time, they appear to be permanently 

without an appropriate parent. After a finding of dependency, the standard to be applied 

by the court as to further disposition is the best interest of the child . M.'s and B. J.'s best 

Pennsylvania Counseling Services, but stopped when the counselor went elsewhere. 

She saw Dr. Gransee who recommended par t t . . which the Agency provided in 

, en raining, 

the form of a PPT. Despite such personalized t . . J was injured again. Mother raining, . 

went to Dr. Eyer, another therapist, on her own .1 iti t' but never showed him prior rn 1a 1ve, . 

informational reports, allowing him to know only what she chose to self-report. Father 

never even testified as to his remedial activities, if any. Mother told the Court that she 

and Father are now in counseling together, but little information is available concerning 

the substance of the counseling or their progress. There are no objective criteria 

available to the court that indicate that Mother's and Father's predilections to harm a 

child in their care has been remedied to such an extent that J., or any other child, would 

be safe. In the last hearing, Mother was candid in admitting that there was nothing else 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM
11 

Copies to: 

Caprice Hicks-Bunting, Esquire 

Samuel Encarnacion, Esquire 

Elizabeth A. Stineman, Esquire 

David J. Natan, Esquire 

Attest: 

BY THE COURT: 

DATED: August».. , 2014 LES=!v~GE 

reunification plan. 

believes it to be in these dependent children's best interest to deny Mother and Father a 

risk of abuse being perpetrated upon a child in their custody. The Court therefore 

completed a plan or reached a status which informs the court that there is no longer a 

and/or Mother would place the children at risk of harm, since neither parent has 

For the reasons stated above this Court finds that to return M. and B.J. to Father 

CONCLUSION 

Circulated 03/27/2015 03:47 PM