J-S66017-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.D., JR., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.L., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 152 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Domestic Relations at No(s): CP-51-DP-0003160-2017

 FID: 51-FN-002843-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2018

R.L. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered December 13, 2017, 

adjudicating as dependent her son, Z.D., Jr. (“Child”),1 pursuant to § 6302 of 

the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301, et seq. We affirm.

On November 13, 2017, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services 

(“DHS”) received a general protective services report. The report averred that 

on November 11, 2017, Child was admitted to St. Christopher’s Hospital for 

Children’s intensive care unit in severe respiratory distress. The day after his 

admission, doctors sought Mother’s permission to intubate Child. Mother 

refused, informing the doctors that she did not want Child intubated until she 

returned to the hospital. Medical necessity demanded the doctors ignore 

Mother’s preference and they intubated Child. Mother returned to the hospital 

____________________________________________

1 Child was born in December 2005. His father, Z.D., Sr., is deceased.
J-S66017-18

- 2 -

that afternoon, left, and returned once more in the evening—intoxicated and 

irate. Police officers ultimately escorted Mother from the hospital.

The general protective services report also averred that DHS contacted 

Child’s paternal aunt, F.R. She stated that on the day of Child’s hospital 

admission, Child informed Mother that he was not feeling well. Mother replied 

that Child would be fine. Child then called F.R. about the situation; F.R. then 

called Mother and told her that she needed to take Child to the hospital and if 

she did not, F.R. would take him. At that time, Mother took Child to the 

hospital and left him there. DHS then spoke with Mother, who stated she was 

not intoxicated, but did not have an explanation for leaving the hospital.

Later that month, DHS obtained an order for protective custody (“OPC”) 

of Child. DHS placed Child with F.R., where he currently remains. On 

December 1, 2017, the court held a shelter care hearing, lifted the OPC, and 

ordered Child’s temporary commitment to stand. A week later, DHS filed a 

dependency petition, averring that Child was without proper parental care or 

control.

On December 13, 2017, the court convened an adjudicatory hearing. 

Catherine White, a DHS caseworker, testified for DHS. Mother, represented 

by counsel, testified on her own behalf. Ms. White testified that Child had told 

Mother he was not feeling well and Mother stated that he would be fine. Child 

contacted his aunt, who told Mother that she needed to take Child to the 

hospital. Child was admitted to the intensive care unit in respiratory distress 

and doctors, unable to obtain Mother’s permission to intubate Child, were 
J-S66017-18

- 3 -

forced to make that decision without her consent. Mother arrived at the 

hospital intoxicated and had to be escorted out by police officers. Mother 

informed Ms. White that she was not intoxicated and had only had two drinks. 

When asked why she was not at the hospital, Mother claimed that she was 

helping F.R. with car trouble, and that her phone died.2

Upon visiting Mother, who was living at her own father’s house, Ms. 

White found Child’s sleeping quarters were freezing, although gas and electric 

utilities were working. At the time of his placement, Child was in seventh grade 

and doing well in school, with no behavioral or attendance issues. Mother was 

engaged in mental health treatment. 

Mother testified that she asked doctors not to intubate Child without her 

present because her mother had passed away during a procedure. She stated 

she was escorted from the hospital because she refused to leave her son’s 

side, but claimed that she was not intoxicated and had had only two drinks. 

Mother stated she was not transient, but had been staying with her 

grandmother while her room at her father’s house was under construction; 

nevertheless, she claimed the home was appropriate and that she had given 

Child a space heater and plastic coverings for the window. Mother attends Pan 

American for mental health services. Mother stated that Child was fragile 

physically and had suffered from asthma for his entire life, but admitted she 

had not taken him to a primary care doctor in over five years. 

____________________________________________

2

It appears, from the testimony, that Mother had already told doctors not to 

intubate Child without her presence.
J-S66017-18

- 4 -

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adjudicated Child dependent. 

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal along with a concise statement of 

matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).

On appeal, Mother claims that DHS did not prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that Child was dependent. Essentially, she argues that DHS did not 

present sufficient evidence that Mother’s conduct placed the health, safety, or 

welfare of Child at risk. In support of this contention, she avers that the 

hospital was able to contact her; that she takes Child to a specialist for his 

asthma; and that the housing she has provided for Child is safe and 

appropriate.

The standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate 

court to accept 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. We review for abuse of discretion[.] 

In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a “dependent child” as:

[a] child who:

(1) 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[.]

This Court clarified the definition of “dependent child,” as
J-S66017-18

- 5 -

whether a child is lacking proper parental care or control so as to 

be a dependent child encompasses two discrete questions: 

whether the child presently is without proper parental care and 

control, and if so, whether such care and control are immediately 

available. 

In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2004) (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted). See also In re J.C., 5 A.3d 284, 289 (Pa. Super. 

2010). “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 at 872 (citation 

omitted).

This Court has explained that

a court is empowered by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(a) and (c) to make a 

finding that a child is dependent if the child meets the statutory 

definition by clear and convincing evidence. If the court finds that 

the child is dependent, then the court may make an appropriate 

disposition of the child to protect the child's physical, mental and 

moral welfare, including allowing the child to remain with the 

parents subject to supervision, transferring temporary legal 

custody to a relative or public agency, or transferring custody to 

the juvenile court of another state. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a).

In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc).

Here, DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Child was 

without proper parental care or control. Mother does not dispute the facts, as 

entered into evidence. Instead, she argues they should be interpreted 

differently. Regardless, the record reflects that Child was severely asthmatic, 

and that Mother did not take him to a primary care physician for at least five 

years. 
J-S66017-18

- 6 -

Child’s condition had deteriorated to the point that he was admitted to 

St. Christopher’s intensive care unit in respiratory distress. Mother, at first, 

refused to take him to the hospital and only did so after F.R. told her to take 

him. After leaving Child in the care of doctors, she refused to give permission 

for doctors to perform necessary medical procedures without her presence, 

instead choosing to help F.R. with car troubles. Mother’s continued absence 

forced doctors to act without her. Mother arrived at the hospital, intoxicated 

and irate, and had to be physically removed from the hospital. 

Although Mother argues that the hospital was able to contact her, she 

did not give permission for necessary treatments and, indeed, does not seem 

to appreciate how severely ill Child was. Additionally, Mother does not deny 

that she was drinking, but disputes only that she was intoxicated.

Additionally, Mother’s housing remains a concern. The record reflects 

that Mother and Child are transient, at times living with Mother’s father in a 

house still under construction, at other times living with other family 

members. Child’s sleeping quarters in maternal grandfather’s house are 

neither safe nor appropriate, as they are “freezing” in winter. 

Accordingly, between Mother’s medical neglect and the inappropriate 

living quarters, the record reflects that Child is currently without proper 

parental care or control, and that Mother’s lack of understanding of the 

situation that led to Child’s placement means that such care and control are 
J-S66017-18

- 7 -

not immediately available. Thus, the court’s adjudication of dependency was 

supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/8/18