J-S35033-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: H.G. AND 

A.G., MINOR CHILDREN 

APPEAL OF S.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 16 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered November 27, 2018

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Family Court at No(s): CP-51-DP-0001841-2018, 

CP-51-DP-0002147-2018

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2019

S.G. (Mother) appeals from the orders entered November 27, 2018, 

which adjudicated dependent her minor daughters, A.G., born in August 2012, 

and H.G., born in April 2014 (collectively, Children).1 The orders also found 

that Mother committed child abuse against both Children. Upon review, we 

quash this appeal. 

We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this matter. 

The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with 

Children most recently2 on August 5, 2018, when it received a child protective 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 A.G.’s putative father is P.F., while H.G.’s putative father is K.C. Neither 

putative father appealed the juvenile court’s orders.

2 The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) has a lengthy history 

of involvement with this family dating back to 2013. N.T., 11/27/2018, at 12. 

The record reveals that DHS was involved in 2014, because of Mother’s history 

of suicide attempts and inpatient hospitalization, and a report that she “had 

intended to cut [A.G.’s] limbs off, black[en] both her eyes, [and] toss her 
J-S35033-19

- 2 -

services report that Mother had injured H.G. while at the store. N.T., 

11/27/2018, at 12-17, 32. The report indicated that Mother struck H.G. in 

the chest because Children were bickering. Id. After a brief pause, H.G. fell 

to the floor, “appeared to be unconscious,” had blue lips, and had blood 

coming out of her mouth. Id. at 17-18. Mother sought medical attention for 

H.G., and an ambulance took her to the hospital. Id. at 20. During DHS’s 

investigation of this incident, Mother admitted that she hit H.G. and made 

other statements consistent with the report. Id. at 21. 

On August 7, 2018, DHS obtained emergency protective custody of H.G. 

The juvenile court entered a shelter care order on August 9, 2018, and DHS 

filed a dependency petition on August 20, 2018, at docket number CP-51-DP0001841-2018. DHS then filed a dependency petition as to A.G. on 

September 20, 2018, at docket number CP-51-DP-0002147-2018, in which it 

averred that A.G. was residing with her maternal great aunt pursuant to a 

safety plan. DHS did not check the boxes on either of the petitions indicating 

that Children were victims of child abuse. However, both petitions alleged 

that Children were “dependent and/or abused pursuant to the Juvenile Act ... 

____________________________________________

down the steps.” Id. at 22. DHS received a subsequent child protective 

services report on June 25, 2018, but determined that the report was 

unfounded. Id. at 16. The report resulted from an incident during which 

Mother was “attempting to discipline [H.G.] with a belt on her body. As [H.G.] 

was moving to get away, she was struck in the face with the belt.” Id. at 17.
J-S35033-19

- 3 -

and/or the Child Protective Services Law [(CPSL).]” Dependency Petition 

(H.G.), 8/20/2018, at ¶ 5; Dependency Petition (A.G.), 9/20/2018, at ¶ 5.

The juvenile court conducted a hearing on the dependency petitions on 

November 27, 2018, at which Mother appeared and received court-appointed 

counsel. That same day, the juvenile court entered orders adjudicating 

Children dependent and finding abuse as to both A.G. and H.G.3, 4 Mother 

timely filed a single notice of appeal on December 27, 2018, along with a 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Prior to reviewing the merits of Mother’s appeal, we must address 

whether she violated our Supreme Court’s holding in Commonwealth v. 

Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), by filing a single notice of appeal from two 

orders resolving issues relating to two different docket numbers.5

The Official Note to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 

provides as follows:

____________________________________________

3 Both orders included an identical provision, stating that the “Court makes a 

finding of [c]hild abuse as to Mother [S.G.]” Order of Adjudication and 

Disposition (H.G.), 11/27/2018, at 2; Order of Adjudication and Disposition 

(A.G.), 11/27/2018, at 2.

4 The orders continued H.G.’s placement in foster care, and legally removed 

A.G. from Mother’s care. 

5 On January 8, 2019, this Court issued a rule to show cause upon Mother to 

explain “why the above-captioned appeal should not be quashed in light of 

Walker.” Order, 1/8/2019. Mother timely responded, averring that the 

orders appealed from are identical, involved the same appellant (Mother), and 

that the issues raised on appeal are identical for Children. On January 15, 

2019, this Court deferred disposition to the merits panel.
J-S35033-19

- 4 -

Where ... one or more orders resolves issues arising 

on more than one docket or relating to more than one 

judgment, separate notices of appeals must be filed. 

Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 & n.3 

(Pa. Super. 2007) (quashing appeal taken by single 

notice of appeal from order on remand for 

consideration under Pa.R.Crim.P. 607 of two persons’ 

judgments of sentence).

Pa.R.A.P. 341, Official Note.

Recently, in Walker, our Supreme Court construed the 

above language as constituting “a bright-line mandatory 

instruction to practitioners to file separate notices of appeal.” [185 

A.3d] at 976-77. Therefore, the Walker Court held that “the 

proper practice under Rule 341(a) is to file separate appeals from 

an order that resolves issues arising on more than one docket. 

The failure to do so requires the appellate court to quash the 

appeal.” Id. at 977. The Court tempered its holding by making it 

prospective only, recognizing that “[t]he amendment to the 

Official Note to Rule 341 was contrary to decades of case law from 

this Court and the intermediate appellate courts that, while 

disapproving of the practice of failing to file multiple appeals, 

seldom quashed appeals as a result.” Id. Accordingly, the Walker

Court directed that “in future cases Rule 341 will, in accordance 

with its Official Note, require that when a single order resolves 

issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate 

notices of appeal must be filed. The failure to do so will result in 

quashal of the appeal.” Id. (emphasis added).

C.T.E. v. D.S.E., __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 3369078, at *2 (Pa. Super. July 26, 

2019).

“The Walker opinion was filed on June 1, 2018.” Id. Mother filed her 

appeal on December 27, 2018,6 “well after Walker was issued. In light of 

____________________________________________

6

In Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. 2019), a panel of this Court 

declined to quash a mother’s notices of appeal filed on August 17, 2018, in a 

termination-of-parental-rights case. In that case, “[i]t appear[ed] that Mother 
J-S35033-19

- 5 -

this fact, we are compelled to quash this appeal in accordance with Rule 341 

and Walker.” Id.

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/16/19

____________________________________________

attempted to comply with Walker’s mandate by filing separate notices of 

appeal for each child. However, she failed to file separate notices of appeal for 

her discrete challenges to the termination decree and goal change for each 

child.” Id. at 981. On appeal, this Court declined to quash the appeals 

because “decisional law may have been unclear to this point.” Id. Instantly, 

Mother did not even attempt Walker compliance. Unlike M.P., this appeal 

does not involve the termination of parental rights, or separate dockets 

relating to the same child (i.e. termination and dependency dockets); rather, 

this is a single appeal from separate dockets for different children. 

Accordingly, we decline to apply M.P. under these circumstances.