J-S28042-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.I.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.M. AND S.M., 

PARENTS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 668 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-01-DP-0000012-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 2, 2022

Appellants, T.M. (“Father”) and S.M. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”), 

appeal from the order entered in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, 

which entered a finding of abuse against Parents concerning their minor child, 

T.I.M., born in February 2007 (“Child”). We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On 

March 3, 2021, the Adams County Children and Youth Agency (“Agency”) 

received a referral regarding Child. After the court compelled Parents to

cooperate, the Agency conducted an inspection of the house on March 4, 2021. 

Following the inspection, Child was admitted to the hospital for concerns of 

his wellbeing. The Agency was granted emergency protective custody of child 

on March 4, 2021.

On March 16, 2021, the Agency filed a petition for dependency and 
J-S28042-22

- 2 -

sought a concurrent finding that Child was a victim of child abuse. The court 

held hearings on the petition on May 20, 2021, June 21, 2021, July 22, 2021, 

August 5, 2021, and August 10, 2021. The court adjudicated Child dependent 

on August 10, 2021.

1

 

The court summarized the basis for the finding of dependency as 

follows:

The Child was born [in February 2007]. He was initially 

placed in the custody of [Parents] when he was six months 

old and has remained in their sole custody since that time. 

Ultimately, the parental rights of his natural parents were 

terminated, and the Child was adopted by [Parents] on 

September 15, 2011. In addition to the Child, the [Parents’] 

home includes their two natural male children, J.M. age 14, 

and E.M. age 12; and a natural female child, E.I.M. age 10.

The record is undeveloped concerning the Child’s history 

with his natural parents; however, there is some indication 

that the Child suffered from nutritional and physical neglect. 

By all accounts, the Child has significant mental health 

concerns having been diagnosed throughout his life with, 

inter alia, oppositional defiance disorder, disruptive mood 

disorder, reactive attachment disorder, attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and bipolar 

disorder.[1] During his life, the Child has been evaluated and 

treated by a variety of professionals including his family 

physicians, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and numerous 

therapists. Although his treating psychiatrist, among 

others, recommended the Child for therapeutic residential 

treatment, the same was rejected by his insurance carrier

and not further pursued by [Parents]. The outstanding 

question, which has not been credibly answered is unlikely 

to ever be known, is whether the Child’s significant issues 

were precipitated by the six-month contact with his natural 

____________________________________________

1 With the agreement of the parties, the court separated the dependency 

proceedings from the finding of abuse. Parents initially appealed the 

adjudication of dependency; however, they later withdrew that appeal. 
J-S28042-22

- 3 -

parents or, alternatively, by the Child’s interaction with 

[Parents] while living in their home for approximately 13 

years.

[1] The bipolar diagnosis has recently been determined 

to be medically inaccurate. 

* * *

On March 3, 2021, the Agency received the referral 

underlying the current litigation. The allegations included 

claims that the Child was underweight, was eating his own 

feces, and was being physically abused. An after-hours 

caseworker for the Agency responded to the home that 

same date. The caseworker was able to speak briefly with 

[Mother] but was refused access to either the Child or the 

home. Due to the exigency of the allegations, the Agency 

sought, and was granted, court permission to compel access 

to the Child. On March 4, 2021, Agency workers, 

accompanied by the Pennsylvania State Police, returned to 

[Parents’] home. After initial reluctance and some delay, 

[Mother] permitted law enforcement and Agency workers 

peaceful access to the Child and the home.

Upon entry to the home, Agency staff observed significant 

clutter and at least ten cats and dogs in the residence.[2] 

The bedrooms for all family members except the Child were 

on the heated upper level of the home; by contrast, the 

Child’s bedroom was located in an unheated basement. 

Photographs of the other children’s rooms depicted

decorated living areas with age-appropriate toys and 

accompaniments. The Child’s room, however, lacked 

decoration and was more consistent with a storage room. 

His room had two doorways, one that led to the remainder 

of the unfinished basement area and the second that led to 

a hallway and stairway, which is the sole access to the 

upper-level living area of the house. There was no 

bathroom or other known facilities in the basement as the 

sole bathroom in the residence was located on the upperlevel heated portion of the house. On the inside of the 

doorway accessing the Child’s bedroom was a hook and 

eyebolt latch located near the top of the door.[3] [Parents] 

incredibly claimed the purpose of the hook and latch was to 

permit airflow into the Child’s room while keeping the cats 
J-S28042-22

- 4 -

out of the room. [Parents’] explanation, however, accounts 

for neither the height location of the lock nor the need for 

the restriction on the Child’s bedroom door as compared to 

restricting the animals’ freedom at other locations in the 

house.

[2] Child has been medically diagnosed to be allergic 

to cats.

[3] From the photographs, it is conceivable that with 

some effort, the Child had the physical ability to

unlatch the hook although it was located at a height 

higher than his short stature. Whether the Child was 

psychologically or emotionally capable of the same is 

unknown as evidence was presented at the hearing 

that corroborates the Agency’s concern as to the 

[Parents’] psychological manipulation of the Child. As 

discussed above, [Parents’] explanation concerning 

the location of the latch was rejected by this [c]ourt 

as not credible.

The record also supports the existence of a similar 

lock at an elevated height on a door at the top of the 

stairway. The record neither credibly explains the 

reason for the lock on this second door being located 

at a height level that is difficult to access nor the need 

for the duplicative restrictions hampering access to 

the living portion of the home from the Child’s 

bedroom. 

Upon entering the home and interacting with the Child, the 

caseworker observed the Child to be approximately 4 feet, 

6 inches tall and to weigh 78 pounds. The Child was wearing 

a diaper and appeared dirty. While speaking to the Child in 

the home, the Child provided inconsistent answers as to his 

eating habits and personal hygiene practices. Despite 

wearing a jacket, the caseworker noted that the Child’s 

basement bedroom was too cold for the caseworker to 

remain there for any amount of time.

The Child’s appearance prompted paramedics who had

responded to the scene to seek a medical wellness 

assessment of the Child. [Parents] agreed, and the Child 

was taken to the Gettysburg Hospital Emergency Room. 
J-S28042-22

- 5 -

While at the emergency room, the Child confirmed to his

treating physician that he lived in a home with a lot of 

animals. He also confirmed he lived in the basement while

other family members resided in the upper level of the 

home. He indicated he was not free to leave his room when 

he wanted because the door “was locked.” The Child 

indicated he wears diapers because he is unable to “make it 

to the bathroom in time” because the doors are locked and 

he is unable to use the bathroom. He added that he is not 

permitted to use the bathroom alone because someone 

must be with him to make sure he does not make a mess 

on the walls. The Child further indicated that someone 

always supervises him while showering, and sometimes he 

has “mom time,” which he described as taking a bath with 

[Mother]. Interestingly, the Child indicated he feels safe at 

home. Although the treating physician intended to 

discharge the Child, he concurred that removal of the Child 

from the custody of [Parents] was reasonable under the 

circumstances until further investigation could be made. 

The Child was taken into emergency shelter care following 

his discharge from Gettysburg Hospital. 

While undergoing evaluation at Gettysburg Hospital, Agency 

staff consulted with Dr. Lori Frasier, Medical Director at 

UPMC Pinnacle Children’s Resource Center and Professor of 

Pediatrics, Division Chief Child Abuse Pediatrics, at Penn 

State Hershey Medical Center. At Dr. Frasier’s suggestion, 

the Child was taken to the Hershey Medical Center the 

following day for evaluation. [4] Upon presentation on March

5, 2021, the Child was admitted to the Center. At the time 

of his admission, he weighed approximately 79 pounds with 

the principal diagnosis being malnourishment in the setting 

of neglect. Due to his condition, he remained hospitalized 

through his discharge on March 8, 2021.

[4] Dr. Frasier expressed concern to the caseworker 

that the Child “might not make it through the 

weekend.”

During the Child’s stay at the Hershey Medical Center, Dr. 

Frasier and the child abuse team were consulted. Based 

upon her review of medical records and interaction with the 

Child, Dr. Frasier concluded the Child was the subject of 

physical, nutritional, and emotional neglect. She noted the 
J-S28042-22

- 6 -

Child had grown normally through ten years of age but since 

had stagnated. Among factors influencing Dr. Frasier’s 

opinion was her experience that the average 14-year-old 

was approximately 30 pounds heavier than the Child’s 

current weight. She opined the Child was developmentally 

delayed and immature for his age. Despite the Child 

undergoing a host of medical studies while at the hospital, 

there was no discovered medical condition that would

impact his normal growth and development. Dr. Frasier also 

revealed that a bone scan of the Child evidenced a nondisplaced finger fracture on the left hand and an 

approximately one-year-old untreated fracture of the Child’s 

left arm. 

During Dr. Frasier’s discussions with the Child, he confirmed 

that he lived in the basement, and his only access to others 

was through a “baby monitor.” The Child advised that he 

wore a diaper and was required to ask for permission to go 

to the bathroom. He claimed to have been punished for 

“eating Cheerios” that were supposed to be fed to a rabbit 

in the residence. Dr. Frasier opined that the Child was 

coached not to disclose the abusive conditions in his 

home.[5] She described him using the word “time-out” as a 

means of punishment. When she inquired further as to what 

that meant, the Child described it as “gets beat” and being 

struck with a stick. Dr. Frasier observed that his statements 

were corroborated by his behavior as he would seek

permission from nurses before using the bathroom. 

Interestingly, the Child was taken out of diapers at the 

hospital and displayed no issues with soiling himself.

Medical records further confirm the Child had no difficulty 

digesting food as he was tolerating a 2,400 calorie per day 

diet without complications.

[5] Dr. Frasier believed any further immediate contact 

between the Child and [Parents] would be a “grave 

threat to him.”

The Child was placed in foster care upon his release from 

Hershey Hospital. Although initially he suffered occasional 

incidents of soiling his underwear, he had not had such an 

issue in over two months at the time of the hearing. There 

was no concern about the Child using his waste excretions 

as a means to obtain attention. It was noted that he was 
J-S28042-22

- 7 -

eating well while in foster care and in fact had gained 

approximately 12 pounds since his placement. 

While under emergency shelter care of the Agency, the Child 

was evaluated by a trauma art therapist, Amanda EvansFreet, at the Adams County Children’s Advocacy Center. 

During the session, the therapist observed the Child recreating his removal from [Parents’] home. He played out 

a reenactment in which he identified himself as a baby lion. 

He placed police cars and ambulances in the play area with 

two other toys that he identified as “bad parents” and used 

a play gun to shoot the “bad parents.” He identified two 

other toys as his foster parents whose residence he liked 

due to its heat and air conditioning. 

During the session, the Child indicated to the therapist he 

would be locked in his bedroom because he was “bad.” He 

further acted out his not having food because other baby 

lions “needed it more.” The therapist opined that the Child 

displayed evidence of coaching because he stated in 

response to questions that it was none of the therapist’s

business and that he can’t talk about “bad parents.” The 

Child confirmed that when he was punished with “time-out,”

he was hit with a paddle or a paint stick. Ms. Evans-Freet 

opined that the Child was very immature as, although being 

14 years old, he acted like a seven-year-old. 

In response to Agency evidence, [Parents] presented 

evidence of their attempt to obtain services for the Child as 

early as 2013. [Parents’] initial attempt was to obtain a 

family-based team from York/Adams Mental Health-IDD 

(“MH-IDD”). The effort was unsuccessful, however, as they 

could not acquire approval. In 2014, [Parents] attempted 

to obtain family driven funds from MH-IDD; however, they 

did not qualify for funding as it was only available to the

“intellectually disabled.” Later in 2014, [Parents] sought an 

intensive case manager from MH-IDD, but the process was 

closed due to lack of follow-through by [Parents] as they 

indicated they would seek services elsewhere. In 2017, an 

effort to obtain residential treatment for the Child was 

unsuccessful as the health insurance carrier indicated the

Child did not meet criteria for insurance coverage. The

recommendation to [Parents] for personal hospitalization 

was rejected. Additionally, a recommendation to [Parents]
J-S28042-22

- 8 -

for treatment by a provider in York County was rejected by 

them due to distance. The witness from MH-IDD indicated 

she had never met the Child but relied solely on [Mother]

for information related to his alleged behaviors.

[Parents] also presented the testimony of psychologist 

Cheryl Walters who conducted a psychological evaluation of 

the Child in 2012. Based on her evaluation, she diagnosed 

the Child with reactive attachment disorder, attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and mood disorder not 

otherwise specified. The evaluation included observations, 

personal testing of the Child, and a behavioral history 

obtained solely from the adoptive mother.

Appellants also presented the testimony of the Child’s 

treating psychiatrist, Dr. Earl Bernstine. Dr. Bernstine noted 

that his role as psychiatrist was medication management, 

and he did not provide psychotherapy to the Child. Although 

he claimed to begin working with the Child as early as 2013, 

Dr. Bernstine indicated he never interacted with the Child 

privately but rather had brief observations of him while

[Mother] was present. Dr. Bernstine noted that he never

observed behavior concerns in the Child but rather relied 

entirely on [Mother’s] report regarding the Child’s alleged 

history and conduct. The doctor opined he would never 

have recommended isolation for the Child.

[Parents] next called the Child’s pediatrician as a witness. 

The pediatrician indicated that during annual physicals, he 

did not have any concern over the Child’s height or weight; 

however, he recognized the Child’s last exam was November 

26, 2019 when, at age 12, the Child weighed 83 pounds. 

Despite his lack of concern over the Child’s height and 

weight, the pediatrician acknowledged issuing a prescription 

for PediaSure “years ago.” He noted the prescription ended 

when it was rejected by the insurance company based upon 

a medical review that failed to indicate any medical barrier 

to the Child’s ability to consume and digest solid food. The 

pediatrician also acknowledged there was an ongoing 

prescription for diapers for the Child based upon a history 

provided by [Mother] rather than an independent medical

examination. He further indicated he never witnessed any

inappropriate behavior by the Child nor ever interacted with 

the Child unless [Mother] was present. The pediatrician
J-S28042-22

- 9 -

acknowledged he was personally unaware of the Child’s 

living conditions.

[Parents] also called Dr. Steven Garland Gray, a clinical 

neuropsychologist, to discuss the illness of reactive 

attachment disorder. Dr. Gray noted the Child was not his 

patient, he had not evaluated either the Child or his 

treatment records, and he was not making a diagnosis 

regarding the Child. Dr. Gray opined as to the causes, 

symptoms, and potential treatment for reactive attachment 

disorder. During cross-examination, Dr. Gray confirmed 

that he would not recommend the isolation of a child who 

suffers from reactive attachment disorder. He further 

conceded that using fear tactics as a deterrent to behavior 

is not helpful in addressing the needs of a child suffering 

from reactive attachment disorder. Finally, Dr. Gray 

conceded that poor nutrition is not a common symptom for 

one suffering from reactive attachment disorder.

Finally, [Parents] testified as to the Child’s history with them 

and their efforts to address their perceived concerns. They 

denied paddling the Child but acknowledged using “pushups” as a punishment based upon information discovered 

during their self-education on reactive attachment disorder. 

Despite their belief that PediaSure was necessary to 

supplement the Child’s nutrition, they acknowledged 

stopping the same once insurance refused to pay for it. 

[Parents] denied locking the Child in his room or forcing him 

to wear diapers. [M]other claimed that the Child was 

“wetting himself” at the age of three and began soiling 

himself “around nine years of age.” [Parents] acknowledged 

the Child resided in his bedroom in an unheated basement 

and was subject to a rule that he could only leave his 

bedroom with another family member. They also 

acknowledged that despite the Child’s allergy to cats, they 

permitted a dog, nine cats, a rabbit, and a rooster to reside 

within the home. 

(Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/22, 1-8) (some footnotes omitted).

On January 10, 2022, the Agency filed a motion for a finding of abuse. 

The Agency filed a motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances on 
J-S28042-22

- 10 -

January 12, 2022. The court conducted a hearing on these motions on March 

8, 2022.2 On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order, docketed April 1, 

2022, finding that Child had been the victim of abuse by both Parents. 

Specifically, the court found that Parents recklessly caused serious physical 

neglect of Child, and that their actions 

endangered the Child’s health; threatened his well-being; 

and impaired his health, development, and functioning 

through failure to provide adequate essentials of life 

including food, shelter, or medical care and by a repeated, 

prolonged, and egregious failure to supervise the Child in a 

manner that is appropriate considering the Child's 

developmental age and abilities.

(Order, 3/31/22, at 1). On April 29, 2022, Parents filed a timely notice of 

appeal together with a statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Parents present the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion or [err] as a matter 

of law in determining that the Parents/Appellants are 

perpetrators of child abuse against T.I.M.?

(Parents’ Brief at 4).

The applicable scope and standard of review for dependency cases is as 

follows:

____________________________________________

2 The hearing on March 8, 2021 was not transcribed. Generally, the failure to 

request a transcript for a hearing results in waiver of any claims that cannot 

be resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript. See Commonwealth 

v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super.2006) (en banc), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 

663, 916 A.2d 632 (2007) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a)). Here, however, the 

record is sufficient based on the evidence contained in the transcribed notes 

of testimony for the other hearings to review the trial court’s finding of abuse. 

Accordingly, we do not find waiver. 
J-S28042-22

- 11 -

[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.

In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 

9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)). 

We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge 

because [the court] is in the position to observe and rule 

upon the credibility of the witnesses and the parties who 

appear before [the court]. Relying upon [the court’s] unique 

posture, we will not overrule [its] findings if they are 

supported by competent evidence.

In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 875 (Pa.Super. 2000). See also In re L.Z., 631 

Pa. 343, 360, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015) (stating that standard of review in 

dependency cases requires appellate court to accept trial court’s findings of 

fact and credibility determinations if record supports them, but appellate court 

is not required to accept trial court’s inferences or conclusions of law). In 

addition, we have observed:

In dependency proceedings our scope of review is broad.... 

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.

In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287, 294 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted), appeal 

denied, 582 Pa. 692, 871 A.2d 187 (2005).

Parents contend that the evidence introduced at the hearing does not 

support a finding of abuse. They claim that the court erred in relying on the 
J-S28042-22

- 12 -

testimony of Dr. Frasier, whose testimony they claim was contradictory, and 

ignored the testimony of other medical experts who opined that Parents 

diligently strived to meet Child’s unique needs. Specifically, parents claim that 

Child’s weight and feeding issues were known by Child’s treating physicians 

for years, and those professionals never alleged abuse by Parents. (Parents’ 

Brief at 25-26). Parents assert that they obtained a prescription for PediaSure 

for Child and, after insurance denied the prescription, they asked for a referral 

to a nutritionist. (Id. at 26-27). Parents further argue that nothing in the 

record supports a finding that they withheld food from Child, and that the 

court erroneously relied on a single forensic interview to find otherwise. (Id.

at 32-33). 

Additionally, Parents claim that the trial court erred when it found that 

Child was a victim of abuse based on the location of his basement bedroom 

and the security arrangements for that room. Parents maintain that Child was 

not isolated in the basement; rather, Parents insist that location happened to 

be the location of his bedroom where he only spent time in the room while 

sleeping or resting. (Id. at 35-37). They contend that the lock on the door 

was to keep out cats, whereas the monitors were for Child’s protection. 

Parents deny that Child was ever kept from using the bathroom. 

Finally, Parents deny that they knowingly or recklessly failed to secure 

mental health services for Child. They explain that Child has unique and 

special needs stemming from early childhood trauma and contend that they 
J-S28042-22

- 13 -

have constantly worked with Child’s pediatrician and psychiatrist regarding 

these needs. (Id. at 41-42). We disagree.

Dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act,

3 which

provides that a dependency petition may allege that there are “aggravated 

circumstances” relating to an allegedly dependent child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6334(b). The Act defines “aggravated circumstances” as “[a]ny of the 

following circumstances”:

(1) The child is in the custody of a county agency and either:

(i) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is 

unknown and cannot be ascertained and the parent 

does not claim the child within three months of the 

date the child was taken into custody; or

(ii) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is 

known and the parents have failed to maintain 

substantial and continuing contact with the child for a 

period of six months.

(2) The child or another child of the parent has been the 

victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, 

sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the 

parent.

(3) The parent of the child has been convicted of any of the 

following offenses where the victim was a child: [list of 

offenses omitted].

(4) The attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of 

the offenses set forth in paragraph (3).

(5) The parental rights of the parent have been involuntarily 

terminated with respect to a child of the parent.

____________________________________________

3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6475.
J-S28042-22

- 14 -

(6) The parent of the child is required to register as a sexual 

offender...or to register with a sexual offender registry in 

another jurisdiction or foreign country.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. Aggravated physical neglect is defined as “[a]ny 

omission in the care of a child which results in a life-threatening condition or 

seriously impairs the child’s functioning.” Id.

Determinations regarding findings of child abuse are governed by the 

Child Protective Services Law (CPSL).4 The CPSL defines “child abuse” to 

include “any recent act or failure to act” which causes bodily injury, “any act 

or failure to act” which causes or “substantially contribut[es] to serious mental 

injury to a child,” “any recent act or failure to act” that creates a “reasonable 

likelihood of bodily injury to a child,” “[c]ausing serious physical neglect of a 

child,” and “unreasonably restraining or confining a child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§

6303(b.1)(1), (3), (5), (7), (8)(ii). The CPSL defines serious physical neglect 

as follows:

“Serious physical neglect.” Any of the following when 

committed by a perpetrator that endangers a child’s life or 

health, threatens a child’s well-being, causes bodily injury 

or impairs a child’s health, development or functioning:

(1) A repeated, prolonged or egregious failure to 

supervise a child in a manner that is appropriate 

considering the child’s developmental age and 

abilities.

(2) The failure to provide a child with adequate 

essentials of life, including food, shelter or medical 

care.

____________________________________________

4 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387.
J-S28042-22

- 15 -

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a). A finding of child abuse must be established by clear 

and convincing evidence. In re L.Z., supra at 360, 111 A.3d at 1174.

Instantly, in addressing Parents’ claim, the trial court reasoned:

This [c]ourt’s findings, as addressed above and supported 

by the evidence, clearly establish [Parents] engaged in 

conduct that intentionally, or at least recklessly, threatened 

the Child’s well-being and impaired his health, development, 

and functioning through a repeated failure to provide 

adequate essentials of life including food, shelter, or medical 

care in a manner appropriate for his developmental age and

abilities.

Dr. Frasier credibly opined that the Child suffered nutritional 

and emotional abuse at the hands of [Parents]. Despite 

[Parents’] complaints of some discrepancy in the medical 

testimony of witnesses, Dr. Frasier was unwavering in

expressing her opinion. Dr. Frasier’s opinion is corroborated 

by undisputed evidence that the Child: (1) lived in semiisolation from other family members in an unheated 

basement bedroom; (2) was significantly underweight for a 

child of equivalent age; (3) was required to wear diapers 

when there was no verifiable medical or psychological 

reason for the same; (4) was specifically advised against,

and physically and emotionally deterred from, 

independently leaving the confines of his bedroom; and (5) 

suffers significant mental health issues which, as recognized 

by [Parents’] own expert, were likely compounded by his 

isolation. 

Dr. Frasier’s opinion is supported by the credible testimony 

of trauma art therapist Amanda Evans-Freet, who opined 

that the Child’s observed behavior suggested [Parents]

neglected the Child in favor of their natural children.

Specifically, Ms. Evans-Freet credibly described the Child’s 

depiction of going hungry so other family members could be 

fed. She also expressed concern over the Child’s physical 

treatment in [Parents’] home.

The foregoing opinions are corroborated by the Child’s 

consistent statements to various people. Those statements 

include allegations of being hit with a stick, being “locked”
J-S28042-22

- 16 -

in a bedroom, being forced to wear diapers, being punished 

for eating Cheerios intended for the animals, being isolated, 

and being required to ask permission before using the 

bathroom.

Although the Child has extraordinary needs, the record is 

replete with instances of [Parents’] repeated, prolonged, 

and egregious mistreatment of the Child in light of his 

developmental age and abilities. [Parents] responded to the

Child’s special needs by isolating the Child in an unheated 

basement room containing little, if any, age-appropriate 

decor or access to activities; placing him in diapers in lieu 

of access to bathroom facilities; subjecting him to discipline; 

and depriving him of sufficient nutritional intake.

[Parents’] claim throughout this litigation that they were 

repeatedly denied access to requested services is incredible 

and irrelevant to the finding of abuse. While there is no 

doubt as to the Child’s extraordinary needs, the more 

pertinent focus is on [Parents’] response to those needs. It 

is true that [Parents] occasionally sought treatment 

alternatives during the years that the Child was under their 

care. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the record as 

to what treatment actually was provided and the success, if 

any, that resulted. Rather, the record paints a picture of 

recommendations never brought to conclusion as [Parents] 

faulted the alleged unavailability of services or the lack of 

insurance coverage for the same. For instance, throughout 

the litigation, [Parents] highlighted the insurance denial of 

payment for the nutritional supplement PediaSure. 

However, [Parents] were unable to explain why the $ 1,200 

monthly adoption subsidy that they received for the 

adoption of the Child was insufficient to cover the cost of the 

supplement. Rather, they simply discontinued providing a 

health item they previously considered to be critical to the 

Child’s well-being. [Parents’] attempt to deflect 

responsibility simply ignores the reality that [Parents]

subjected the Child to terrible mistreatment.

(Trial Court Opinion at 9-11) (footnote omitted).

We agree with the trial court’s analysis. Here, the Agency presented 

clear and convincing evidence that Parents intentionally or at least recklessly 
J-S28042-22

- 17 -

engaged in conduct that threatened Child’s well being and impaired his health 

through repeated failures to provide the adequate essentials of life. See In 

re L.Z., supra. Therefore, we conclude there was no abuse of discretion in 

the trial court’s finding of child abuse by Parents’ serious physical neglect of 

Child. See id.; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303. Parents’ claim merits no relief. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/2/2022