J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1111 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000088-2022

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1113 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000142-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1115 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000070-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR :

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA
J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

- 2 -

APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 1118 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000143-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1120 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000069-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1112 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000088-2022

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S, A MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA
J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

- 3 -

:

:

:

: No. 1114 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000142-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1116 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000070-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1117 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000143-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.S., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1119 WDA 2022
J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

- 4 -

Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered September 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-DP-0000069-2016

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 3, 2023

T.S. (“Mother”) and C.S. (“Father”) appeal from the dispositional orders, 

dated August 26, 2022, and entered on September 7, 2022, in which R.S (born 

in January of 2022), J.S. (born in November of 2019), D.S. or DZ.S. (born in 

February of 2018), D.S. (born in October of 2014), and Z.S. (born in October 

of 2013) (collectively “Children”) were adjudicated dependent together with a 

finding of aggravated circumstances and were to remain in their current 

placement.1 These orders were the result of the dependency actions brought 

by the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (“WCCB” or “Agency”). After 

review, we affirm. 

Mother’s brief contains the following list of issues:

I. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its 

discretion in finding clear and convincing evidence existed to 

support [that] the children were without proper care or control, 

subsistence, education as required by law, or other control 

necessary for the child’s physical, mental or emotional health, 

or morals?

____________________________________________

1 This Court by order dated October 27, 2022, consolidated Father’s five 

appeals identified at Nos. 1112 WDA 2022, 1114 WDA 2022, 1116 WDA 2022, 

1117 WDA 2022 and 1119 WDA 2022. This Court by order dated November 

9, 2022, consolidated Mother’s five appeals identified at 1111 WDA 2022,

1113 WDA 2022, 1115 WDA 2022, 1118 WDA 2022 and 1120 WDA 2022. 

Additionally, this Court now consolidates both Father’s and Mother’s appeals

in that these appeals involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. 
J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

- 5 -

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting 

evidence of Mother’s prior bad acts to allow the Agency to show 

that Mother acted in accordance with the character or trait? 

III. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in finding the Agency made 

reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children from 

their home?

Mother’s brief at 4. 

Father’s brief contains the following list of issues:

1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit an error of law or abuse[] its 

discretion in finding that the five (5) children were without 

proper care or control, subsistence, education as required by 

law, or other care or control necessary for the children’s 

physical, mental or emotional health, or morals; and did the 

[t]rial [c]ourt commit an error of law in finding children, D.S. 

(No. 1114 WDA 2022), J.S. and R.S. each met the definition in 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302, of “Dependent Child” (10), as the 

termination of Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 2511 was not within three years immediately preceding the 

dates of birth of these children? 

2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse it discretion in admitting evidence 

of Father’s[] prior bad acts and other wrongs to allow the 

Agency to prove that Father acted in accordance with the 

character or trait of neglect of children?

3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that the Westmoreland 

County Children’s Bureau made Reasonable Efforts to prevent 

the removal of the five (5) children from the Father’s home? 

Father’s brief at 4. 

Mother’s and Father’s issues are essentially comparable and a single

opinion provided by the trial court sets forth its response to both parents’

issues on appeal. However, in Father’s first issue he adds an argument 

involving subsection (10) of the definition of a “Dependent Child,” which he 
J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

- 6 -

did not include in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) statement. Nor did he indicate

where in the record he raised this issue with the trial court. Thus, Father 

waived that portion of his first issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues 

not included in the [s]tatement ... are waived.”); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues

not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time 

on appeal.”). Notably, the trial court specifically acknowledged that Father 

raised his first issue in conjunction with subsection (1) of the definition of a 

“Dependent Child.” See 23 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1). Father made no reference to 

subsection (10). Thus, it is evident that both parents are raising the same 

issues. 

Our scope and standard of review in dependency cases is as follows:

We must accept the facts as found by the trial court unless they 

are not supported by the record. 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. We review for abuse of discretion. Our scope of review, 

accordingly, is of the broadest possible nature. It is this Court’s

responsibility to ensure that the record represents a 

comprehensive inquiry and that the hearing judge has applied the 

appropriate legal principles to that record. Nevertheless, we 

accord great weight to the court’s fact-finding function because 

the court is in the best position to observe and rule on the 

credibility of the parties and witnesses. 

In the Interest of A.N., 39 A.3d 326, 330 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting In re 

C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted)). “The 

burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to 

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets that 
J-S05004-23

J-S05005-23

- 7 -

statutory definition of dependency.” In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa.

Super. 2004). Moreover, “the dependency of a child is not determined ‘as to’ 

a particular person, but rather must be based upon two findings by the trial 

court: whether the child is currently lacking proper care and control, and 

whether such care and control is immediately available.” In re J.C., 5 A.3d 

284, 289 (Pa. Super. 2010). 

The trial court directly addressed the three issues raised by the parties, 

providing facts testified to by various witnesses. We have reviewed the 

certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough, 

well-written opinion authored by the Honorable Justin M. Walsh of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, dated November 9, 2022. We 

conclude that Judge Walsh’s opinion accurately disposes of the issues 

presented by Mother and Father on appeal, and we discern no abuse of 

discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Walsh’s opinion as our 

own and affirm the September 7, 2022 orders on that basis. 

Orders affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/3/2023
Circulated 04/13/2023 10:21 AM