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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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 program 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 Services (“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 2012, 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 

random 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 showed 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 reversible error when it 

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 siblings and Mother tested positive for PCP at the time of 

that sibling’s birth. That sibling died when in Mother’s care. These 

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

determination that Mother presented a grave threat to Child. Some other 

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 appealed [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 appealed 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 twostep 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, the 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, footnote 6 in the J.M. case

provides the following explanation: 

In general, the “[j]uvenile [c]ourt has 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 alleviating 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 every 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 

receive 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 

dependency. 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 child. 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 court 

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 such 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 deficiencies 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 moral 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 limited 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-precedential decisions of the 

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

value).