J-A16002-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 149 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 7, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-DP-0000072-2021

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 12, 2022

J.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the order adjudicating N.M. (“Child”), born 

November 2020, dependent. Mother argues the trial court erred when it found

Child dependent and placed her in kinship care, erred in its evidentiary rulings,

and violated her Due Process rights. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the factual and procedural history, which we 

adopt and incorporate herein. Trial Court Opinion, filed Jan. 26, 2022, at 1-10

(“Trial Ct. Op.”). We will provide a summary.

In 2017, prior to Child’s birth, Child’s five older siblings came into DHS’s 

care due to concerns regarding domestic violence, substance abuse, mental 

health, and housing. Id. at 2. In September 2019, DHS received a GPS report 

that Mother tested positive for methadone when she gave birth to another of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A16002-22

- 2 -

Child’s siblings. Id. Approximately 14 months later, in November 2020, Child 

was born. Mother tested negative for substances at the time of Child’s birth, 

but DHS received a report that she had tested positive for cocaine, PCP, and 

fentanyl during her pregnancy. N.T., 8/17/2021, at 13-14. DHS received a 

GPS report in January 2021, that Child had been admitted to St. Christopher’s 

Hospital. Id. at 12-13. Child was transferred to CHOP. Mother was escorted 

from CHOP after she threatened to remove Child against medical advice. Id.; 

N.T., 8/17/2021, at 25. DHS obtained an order for protective custody in 

January 2021, and, after a shelter care hearing, the court found Child 

medically needed and ordered the temporary commitment to stand. Trial Ct. 

Op. at 2-3.

The trial court held a multi-day adjudicatory hearing. At the first day of 

the hearing, in June 2021, it heard from the Community Umbrella Agency’s

(“CUA”) case manager/supervisor Joshua Hage. He testified there were 

concerns regarding Mother’s drug and alcohol history, mental health, domestic 

violence, anger management, and housing. N.T., 6/16/2021, at 83. Although

Mother had drug screens through Gaudenzia, he was unable to confirm 

whether they were random. Id. at 85-86. Hage testified Mother’s visits were 

moved from supervised at the CUA to supervised at DHS due to Mother’s 

erratic behavior and threats she made. Id. at 91-92.

The court resumed the proceedings in August 2021. DHS investigative 

worker Erica Payne testified that Mother signed consent forms for Gaudenzia 

and Best Behavioral Health but refused to sign releases for her prenatal care. 
J-A16002-22

- 3 -

N.T., 8/17/2021, at 14-15, 18. She further testified that Mother did not keep 

the appointment for a home assessment. Id. at 20-21. Payne had concerns 

regarding Mother’s mental health, impulse control, defensiveness, minimal 

compliance with the investigation, and drug and alcohol history. Id. at 27-28.

Payne testified that Mother was in treatment and provided screens, but DHS 

was unable to determine whether the screens were random. Id. at 28.

Hage resumed his testimony, stating he had concerns regarding 

Mother’s mental health because of her failure to consistently attend treatment 

at Best Behavioral Health and her mental health diagnoses, including post 

traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and cocaine and opioid 

dependency. Id. at 88, 99-100. Hage testified he did not think a mother-baby 

program was appropriate due to concerns about Mother’s protective capacity.

Id. at 113-14. Hage further testified that Mother did not have suitable 

housing. Id. at 101. She resided with maternal grandmother, who did not 

want her home to be considered a reunification resource. Id. Mother’s visits 

were supervised at DHS, due to her outbursts and the agency’s concerns for 

safety. Id. at 104.

In November 2021, the court held the final day of the adjudicatory 

hearing. CUA case manager Ericka Mitchell testified. She had been assigned 

the case in September 2021 and had concerns regarding Mother’s mental 

health, including her aggressive and erratic behavior. N.T., 11/19/2021, at 

18-19. She testified Mother showed aggressive behavior throughout the case, 

including threatening a case aide and the foster parents of Child’s sibling. Id.
J-A16002-22

- 4 -

at 19, 23. She further testified Mother refused to sign mental health releases. 

Id. at 25. She stated Mother obtained random drug screens from Gaudenzia

and the most recent was negative. Id. at 32. Further, Mother completed a 

parenting course and Mitchell did not have concerns regarding Mother’s 

parenting. Id. at 33-34. Mitchell further testified Mother attended five out of 

seven individual therapy sessions since August 2021. Id. at 92. Mother was 

approved for housing in Westmoreland County, but the housing was 

conditioned on her being reunited with all seven children. Id. at 47-48. That 

was no longer viable due to a pending termination petition for two of the 

children. Id. at 95-96.

Mother’s OB/GYN, Dr. Michelle Duncan, testified on Mother’s behalf. She 

testified that Mother tested negative for controlled substances at Child’s birth 

and did not test positive for any substances while the doctor was treating 

Mother in 2020. N.T., 8/17/2021, at 62-63, 84. The Director of the Gaudenzia 

WINNER program also testified. The WINNER program is a mother-baby 

program that had accepted Mother. Id. at 152-69.

Mother testified that she had been clean for two years and that she was 

compliant with her mental health treatment, which she found helpful. N.T., 

11/19/2021, at 113, 117-18.

Child’s foster parent testified that she did not think Mother continued to 

have substance abuse issues and, although Mother had mental health issues, 

she did not believe they would impact her ability to care for Child. Id. at 172-

79.
J-A16002-22

- 5 -

The trial court adjudicated Child dependent in December 2021. Mother 

filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Mother raises the following issues:

1. Was Mother, J.M., denied Due Process, in that the 

evidence presented by DHS was largely inadmissible 

hearsay?

2. Did DHS fail to prove grounds for dependency by “clear 

and convincing” evidence?

3. Did the trial court err in ordering that the child remain in 

state custody?

4. Did the court err by denying Due Process of Law to J.M., 

Mother, as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of the United States of 

America?

Mother’s Br. at 4.

We will address Mother’s first and fourth issues together. In her first 

issue, Mother argues that DHS’s evidence was mostly inadmissible hearsay, 

which impacted Mother’s ability to cross-examine adverse witnesses. In her 

fourth issue, Mother argues she was denied due process because the decision 

was based on inadmissible hearsay, and not on competent evidence. She 

claims that “[b]y committing errors of law in conducting the proceedings which 

led to termination of the parental rights of Mother,” the trial court “necessarily 

violated her fundamental rights.” Mother’s Br. at 19.

Mother waived these issues because she did not raise them with 

sufficient detail in her statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant 

to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). Rule 1925(b) requires 
J-A16002-22

- 6 -

the appellant to “concisely identify” in the statement “each error that the 

appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify the issue to be 

raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Any issues not included in the 

1925(b) statement, or not raised in accordance with the Rule, are waived. 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

In her 1925(b) statement, Mother raised the following issues:

1. Ruling that [Child] be adjudicated dependent 

without holding an adjudicatory hearing.

2. Ruling that [Child] be committed to DHS, without 

holding a dispositional hearing.

3. Ruling as stated above, without making findings, 

determinations, and orders required by the Juvenile Act 

and by court rules, including but not limited to, 

Pa.R.J.C.P. 1401.

4. Failing to rule upon [Mother’s] Motion for 

Reconsideration, thus forcing [Mother] to choose 

between 1) losing her rights to obtain relief, and 2) filing 

this Appeal, and divesting the Trial Court of jurisdiction 

to take further action.

5. Denying Due Process of Law to [Mother], as 

guaranteed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania and of the United States of America.

6. [Mother] reserved the right to expand and to 

supplement this Concise Statement, and to raise any 

additional issues in her Appellant’s Brief, for the following 

reasons:

a. Pursuant to Children’s Fast Track Rules, this 

Concise Statement is being filed at the same time 

as is the Notice of Appeal and Order for Transcript,

b. Therefore, this Concise Statement must be 

prepared and filed without benefit of a copy of the 

Transcript. 
J-A16002-22

- 7 -

Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed Jan. 5, 2022.

Mother did not seek to amend her 1925(b) statement after receipt of the 

transcript. 

Here, Mother’s Rule 1925(b) statement did not elaborate on the 

substance of her due process claim. As a result, the trial court did know the 

nature of the alleged due process violation. See Trial Ct. Op. at 18-19 (noting 

Mother’s “broad assertion does not state the basis of the denial of Mother’s 

due process rights,” and that it “could not speculate what” was intended, and 

noting that Mother was provided an opportunity to participate at each listing 

and to present her evidence and testimony). The statement did not apprise 

the judge of the issue it should discuss. 

Although Mother attempted to “reserve” a right to raise new claims on 

appeal because she filed the Rule 1925(b) statement without the benefit of a 

transcript, this is not permissible. Nothing in the rule or in caselaw affords an 

appellant an absolute right to amend a Rule 1925(b) statement without the 

court’s permission. There was thus no right to “reserve.” Counsel could have 

sought the trial court’s leave to amend the Rule 1925(b) statement, but did 

not. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2)(i) (permitting court, on application and for 

good cause, to “permit an amended to supplemental Statement to be filed”).

Furthermore, it appears the due process claim is based at least in part on 

alleged evidentiary errors. As counsel was present at the hearing and appears 

to have based a separate claim on the evidentiary issues, such errors were 
J-A16002-22

- 8 -

known at the time of the filing of the Rule 1925(b) statement, without aid of 

the transcript.

In her second issue, Mother claims DHS did not prove dependency by 

clear and convincing evidence. She argues the evidence was mostly 

inadmissible hearsay and, even if the hearsay is considered, it did not prove 

dependency. The evidence concerned events that occurred two to three years 

in the past and the events were not relevant to her current ability. She argues 

that an adjudication of dependency must be based on her current conduct and 

condition. 

We review orders entered in dependency cases for an abuse of 

discretion. In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). We must accept the 

findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the 

record, but we are not required to accept the trial court’s inferences or 

conclusions of law. Id.

A “dependent child” includes a child who “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.” 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 (“Dependent child”). “A determination that there is a lack 

of proper parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by 

the parent . . . that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk,”

including evidence of the parent’s “use of alcohol or a controlled substance 

that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.” Id. The petitioner 

must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets the 
J-A16002-22

- 9 -

statutory definition of a dependent child. In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870, 782 

(Pa.Super. 2004). 

The trial court concluded the testimony at the hearing supported the 

adjudication, reasoning it had heard testimony that Child’s health and safety 

were at risk because of Mother’s present inability to provide adequate care for 

Child. It commended Mother for making progress to alleviate the dependency 

issues but stated it continued to have concerns with Mother’s ability to provide 

adequate care for Child. It noted the unavailability of provably random drug 

screens, and issues with Mother’s housing, anger management, and mental 

health. See 1925(a) Op. at 15. The court added that Mother’s visits are 

supervised with increased security due to Mother’s threatening behavior. After 

review of the briefs, trial court record, relevant law, and the well-reasoned 

opinion of the Honorable Cateria R. McCabe, we affirm on the basis of the trial

court opinion. 1925(a) Op. at 12-16.

In her third issue, Mother asserts the court erred in ordering that Child 

remain in DHS’s custody. She claims the court provided no analysis or mention 

as to whether DHS made reasonable efforts, and no evidence of the same.

Where a child is adjudicated dependent, a court “may not separate that 

child from his or her parent unless if finds that the separation is clearly 

necessary.” In re G.T., 845 A.2d at 873. “Such necessity is implicated where 

the welfare of the child demands that he . . . be taken from his parents’ 

custody.” Id. (quoting In Int. of J.M., 652 A.2d 877, 881 (Pa.Super. 1995)).
J-A16002-22

- 10 -

The trial court concluded it heard credible testimony that outstanding 

dependency issues existed that would affect Mother’s ability to provide 

adequate care for Child. It acknowledged Mother had made progress but found 

Mother’s mental health was not stable enough to reunify with Child. It further 

pointed out it had heard credible testimony that Mother had threatened to 

physically harm the foster parent of Child’s sibling. It noted Mother had not 

signed mental health releases until November 2021, so it was unaware if 

Mother’s current health treatment provider was addressing all of Mother’s

mental health issues and that the CUA was unable to assess Mother’s housing. 

The court concluded reunification would create a health and safety risk for 

Child and Child’s best interest would be met in kinship care. 

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. After review of 

the briefs, the trial court record, the relevant law, and the trial court opinion, 

we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. See 1925(a) Op. at 17-18.1

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

1 Mother argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding 

reasonable efforts under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(b)(2). Section 6351(b)(2) 

provides that prior to entering an order finding a child dependent the court 

shall make findings as to “whether reasonable efforts were made prior to the 

placement of the child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the 

child from his home, if the child has remained in his home pending such 

disposition.” Here, Child had not remained in the home pending the

disposition. 
J-A16002-22

- 11 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/12/2022