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 Enter ed December 13, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations a t 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 0 8 , 2018 R.L. (“Mother”) appeals from the order enter ed December 13, 2017, adjudicating as dependen t her son, Z.D., Jr. (“Child”), 1 pursuant to § 6302 of the Juv en ile 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. Ch ristopher’ 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 Ch ild 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. P olice officers ul timately escorted Mother from the hospital. The general protective services report also averred that DHS contact ed 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. Mot her re plied 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 th e hospital an d 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 protec tive custody (“OPC”) of Child. DHS placed Child with F.R ., where h e 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
contr ol. On December 13, 2017, the court con vened 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 in tubate Child, wereJ

- S66017

- 18

- 3

-

forced to make that decisi on without her consent. Mother arrived at the hospital intoxicated and had to be es corted out by police officers. Mother informed Ms. White that she was not intoxicated and had only had two drinks. When asked w hy 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 be havioral or attendance issues. Mother was engaged in mental health treatment. Mother testified that she asked doctors not to int ubate Child without her present because her mother had p assed 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 pla stic coverings for th e window. Mother attends Pan
Americ an 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 conc lusion 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 C hild 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 tha t 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.3 d 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,” asJ

- S66017

- 18

- 5

-

whether a child is lacking proper parental care or co ntrol 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. S up er. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted ). S ee 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
stat utory 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 defini tion 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 th e 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, D HS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Child was without p roper parental care or control. Mother does not dispute the facts, as entered into evidence. Instead, she argues they shou ld be interpreted differently. Regardless, the record reflects tha t Child was severely asthmatic, and that Mother did not take him to a primary care phys ician 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. Mot her, 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 forc ed doctors to act without her. Mother arrived at the hospital, intoxicated and irate, and had to be physica lly removed from the hospital. Although Mother argues that the ho spital 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, Mothe r’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 liv ing with other family members. Child’s sleeping quarters in maternal grandfather’s house are neither safe nor appropria te, 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 ca re or control, and that Mother’s lack of understanding of the situation that led to Child’s placement means that such care and control areJ

- S66017

- 18

- 7

-

not immediately available. Thus, the court’s adjudication of dependency was supported b y clear and convincing evidenc e. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/8/18