J

- S12003

- 22

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.P.

- I., A

MINOR

APPEAL OF: K.P., MOTHER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 50 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered December 14, 2021

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

No(s): CP

- 51

- DP

- 0001196

- 2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2022

K.P. ( “ Mother ” ) appeals from the order adjudicating K .P.

- I. ( “ Child ” ),

born in November of 2021, a dependent child and suspending Mother’s

visitation with Child until Mother met her mental health pr ogram objectives

for at least 90 days. After review, we affirm

.

The juvenile court provided the following summary in its opinion:

On December 14, 2021, the trial court held an adjudicatory

hearing for Child. Mother was present at this hearing. The trial

court heard testimony from the [Philadelphia Department of

Human Se rvices ( “ DHS ” ) ] Investigator, the [Community Umbrella

Agency ( “ CUA ” ) ] Supervisor, and Mother. Child was adjudicated

dependent[,] and she was fully committed to DHS. At this time

, Mother ’ s visits were suspended due to a finding of grave threat

. [ 1 ]

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 The trial court’s determination that Mother was a grave threat to Child was

based on the evidence presented at the dependency hearing. The court noted

that Mother’s involvement with DHS began in 2 012, which resulted in the

involuntary termination of Mother’s rights to three children. Additionally,

(Footnote Continued Next Page)J

- S12003

- 22

- 2

-

Mother ’ s visits could resume once she showed consistency in her

mental health treatment for at least ninety

- days, at which time

they could be modified to bi

- weekly one

- hour visits, line of

sight/line of hearing supervised at the agency. Mother was also

to provide an updated treatment plan and progress report prior to

visits being re

- implemented. Mother was also referred to the

Clinical Evaluation Unit ( “ CEU ” ) for a forthwith full drug and

alcohol screen, dual diagnosis assessment, monitoring, and five

ran dom screens prior to the next court date. Mother was ordered

to enroll in a dual diagnosis program, consistently attend such

program, and provide updated treatment plans and progress

reports. Mother was also referred to Behavioral Health Services

( “ BHS ” ) for evaluation and recommendations. Mother was

ordered to verify employment and provide proof of income to

... [CUA] monthly, comply with CUA, remain in contact with CUA, and

comply with a home assessment CUA was ordered to complete.

Mother ’ s referral to family school was also suspended until she

showed consistency in her mental health program. Mother was

also ordered to sign all necessary releases and consents. On

December 27

, 2021

, Mother ’ s [c] ounsel filed this appeal on behalf

of Mother.

Trial Court Opinion ( “ TCO ” ), 2/2/22, at 3

- 4

. As noted above, the court

adjudicated Child dependent and ordered that visitation be suspended until

Mother show ed consistency in the mental health program for a ninety

- day

period. Additionally, the court scheduled the next hearing to take place on

March 1, 2022.

On appeal, Mother raises the following issue for our review:

Whether the trial court committed reve r sible error when i t

suspended Mother’s visits with her minor [C]hild upon insufficient

evidence that Mother presents a grave threat to the [C]hild ?

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

another of Child’s sibling s and Mother tested positive for PCP at the time of

that sibling’s birth. T hat sibling died when in Mother’s care. These

occ urrences were only some of Mother’s actions that contributed to the court’s

determination that Mother presented a grave threat to Child. Some o ther

actions by Mother were her combativeness and aggressiveness.J

- S12003

- 22

- 3

-

Mother’s brief at 6.

Before we may address Mother’s issue, “we must determine whether the

order[] from which Mother appea led [is] appealable, because appealability

implicates our jurisdiction.” In the Interest of J.M. , 219 A.3d 645, 650 (Pa.

Super. 2019) (citing In Interest of N.M. , 186 A.3d 998, 1006 (Pa. Super.

2018) (quoting Kulp v. Hrivnak , 765 A.2d 796, 798 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(“[Since we] lack jurisdiction over an unappealable order, it is incumbent on

us to determine, ... whether the appeal is taken from an appealable order.”) ) )

.

“Jurisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review is de

novo and the scope of review plenary.” Id.

The issue of appealability was raised by the guardian ad litem (“GAL”)

in her brief and Mother has not responded to this allegation. Specifically, the

GAL asserts that the suspension of Mother’s visits with Child does not dispose

of all claims and all parties and that another hearing was scheduled for March

1, 2022. Therefore, the GAL contends that the order issued was not a final

order.

We must disagree with the GAL’s position in that we conclude that the

order appeal ed from is a final order. In the J.M. decision, this Court explained:

Generally, a final order is any order that disposes of all

claims and all parties. Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). Based upon the two

step procedure contemplated by the Juvenile Act for declaring a

child dependent ( i.e.

, an adjudication followed by a disposition,

see 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(c)), this Court has held that it is the

dispositional order following a dependency adjudication that is a

final appealable order. In Interest of C.A.M.

, ... 399 A.2d 786

(Pa. Super. 1979).J

- S12003

- 22

- 4

- Unlike other types of cases, dependency matters do not end

following a child ’ s disposition. See In re Tameka M.

, ... 534 A.2d

782, 784 (Pa. Super. 1987) ( en banc ) (discussing [the] unique

ongoing nature of dependency matters), aff'd

, ... 580 A.2d 750,

752 (Pa. 1990) (approving of the Superior Court ’ s recognition of

the juvenile court ’ s “ continuing plenary jurisdiction in dependency

cases under 42 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 6351 ” ). The juvenile court is

statutorily required to review the case periodically and issue

orders relating to a variety of issues. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(3),

(f)

- (g). The purpose of the periodic review hearings is to

“ determin[e] or review[] the permanency plan of the child, the

date by which the goal of permanency for the child might be

achieved[,] and whether placement continues to be best suited to

the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of

the child. ” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(1). In many cases, it may be

months or years after the dependency disposition before the

Juvenile Court has occasion to enter an order that truly disposes

of all claims and all parties, such as by return to parents and the

cessation of dependency, termination of parental rights and

adoption of the child, transfer of custody to family or kin, or a

child ’ s aging out of the system.

Therefore, due to dependency ’ s unique nature, the fact that

further proceedings are contemplated is not dispositive of the

finality of the order. In the Interest of J.L.

, 216 A.3d 233, 236

n.1 (Pa. Super. 2019). In the dependency context, the court

“ must examine the practical consequences of the order to

determine if the party challenging it has effectively been put out

of court. ” In re Interest of M.B.

, ... 565 A.2d 804, 806 (Pa.

Super. 1989). Thus, “ this court acknowledges certain crucial

points of finality when review is appropriate despite the fact that

such determinations may later be modified by the trial court after

further statutorily[

- ]mandated review hearings are held. ” Id. at

808.

J.M.

, 219 A.3d at 650

- 52 (footnotes omitted). Thus, we conclude that the

dispositional order appealed from is a final order

. Id. (noting, “it is the

Dispositional order following a dependency adjudication that is a final

appealable order.”).J

- S12003

- 22

- 5

-

However, t he only issue raised by Mother involves the suspension of

visitation based upon the court’s determination that Mother presents a grave

threat to Child. As noted above in J.M.

, “dependency matters do not end

following a child’s disposition.” Id. at 651. Rather, the “ court is statutorily

required to review the case periodically and issue orders relating to a variety

of issues.” Id. (footnote omitted). Specifically, f ootnote 6 in the J.M. case

provides the following explanation:

In general, the “ [j]uvenile [c]ourt h as the duty to act to provide

for the ‘ protection and physical, mental and moral welfare ’ of a

dependent child. ” Tameka M.

, 580 A.2d at 755 (quoting 42

Pa.C.S. § 6351(a)). To that end, the Juvenile Act specifies 16

issues to be reviewed at each permanency review hearing. See

42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f), (f.1). Such issues include matters relating

to the child ’ s placement; the child ’ s permanency plan; the family ’ s

progress in all eviating the circumstances that brought the child

into care; the child ’ s placement goal; the timeframe to achieve

the goal; the agency ’ s reasonable efforts; the child ’ s safety;

services needed to transition the child to adulthood; whether the

agency should file a petition to terminate parental rights;

placement and visitation with the child ’ s sibling; and opportunities

for the child to participate in appropriate activities. 42 Pa.C.S. §

6351(f)(1)

- (12). Additionally, the juvenile court must determine

at ev ery permanency hearing if and when the child should be

returned, placed for adoption, placed with a legal custodian or fit

and willing relative, or placed in another planned permanent living

arrangement. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1). Finally, the court must

re ceive and evaluate any evidence of conduct by the parent that

places the health, safety, or welfare of the child at risk, including

evidence of the use of alcohol or controlled substance, whether or

not the conduct was the basis for the determination of

de pendency. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.2). Based on the foregoing, the

court shall order the continuation, modification or termination of

placement or other disposition which is best suited to the safety,

protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the c hild. 42

Pa.C.S. § 6351(g).J

- S12003

- 22

- 6

-

Id. at 651 n.6. Thus, the suspension of Mother’s visitation does not counter

the finality of the order at issue here.

Rather, the issue Mother raises regarding the temporary suspension of

her visitation pending the scheduled March 1, 2022 hearing does not warrant

immediate review. We conclude that the issue is premature because it could

be remedied at the scheduled hearing. Conversely, if the trial c ourt

subsequently extends the suspension indefinitely or adds additional

requirements after Mother has complied with the mental health program, she

could appeal that order as one of the “crucial points ... when review is

appropriate despite the fact that suc h determinations may later be modified

by the trial court.” Id. 652. Moreover, we note that

,

“[i]n rare instances, we have approved restricting or temporarily

suspending visitation even though there has been no showing of

such severe mental or moral defi ciencies in the parent as would

constitute a grave threat to the child’s welfare.” In re Damon

B. , ... 460 A.2d 1196, 1198 (Pa. Super. 1983) (holding reduction

of mother’s visitation rights was appropriate, even absent showing

of mother’s severe mental or m oral deficiencies which would

constitute grave threat to child’s welfare, where visits were

counterproductive to child’s development of any bond with

mother, and child experienced severe stress during visits; and

reduction of visitation was temporary and l imited in time, where

court scheduled review hearing within next seven months).J

- S12003

- 22

- 7

-

In the Interest of J.G.

, 1531 EDA 2019, unpublished memorandum at 3 (Pa.

Super. filed December 16, 2019)

. 2 Thus, we conclude that the issue Mother

raises is not ripe for review. Accordingly, we affirm the order from which she

has appealed.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/19/2022

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (unpublished non

- prec edential decisions of the

Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive

value).