J-A25039-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: C.N.

APPEAL OF: C.N., MOTHER AND 

B.N., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 682 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court at No(s): FID - 02-FN-000239-2021, 

No. CP-02-DP-0000201-2021

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED: JANUARY 21, 2022

C.N. (“Mother”) and B.N. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal from 

the May 4, 2021 order adjudicating dependent their daughter, C.N. (“Child”), 

born in January 2006, and removing her from their home. Upon careful 

review, we affirm. 

The record reveals that Allegheny Office of Children, Youth and Families 

(“OCYF”) received a referral about this family on March 14, 2021, at which 

time Child was in the protective custody of the Castle Shannon Police 

Department due to her allegation that her nineteen-year-old biological brother 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A25039-21

- 2 -

sexually abused her.

1

 Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 2; N.T., 5/4/21, at 5-6. 

Child also alleged inappropriate discipline by Parents.

2

 N.T., 5/4/21, at 5-6. 

By verbal order dated March 14, 2021,3the trial court placed Child in 

the emergency protective custody of OCYF. Child was then placed in the home 

of her maternal aunt. Id. at 7. On March 23, 2021, the court placed Child in 

shelter care and ordered supervised visits with Parents at Child’s discretion. 

On March 31, 2021, OCYF filed a dependency petition. The hearing occurred 

on May 4, 2021, via Microsoft Teams due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

4

It is undisputed that Child’s allegations of sexual abuse involve

inappropriate touching that occurred for approximately two years. Parents’ 

____________________________________________

1 Child’s brother is employed as a firefighter and lives in Parents’ home. N.T., 

5/4/21, at 27. 

2 Child testified on cross-examination that she first made the allegations 

against her brother and Parents in-person to her firefighter instructor. Id. at 

57-59. Child explained that a police department was located in the same 

building as the fire station. After she divulged her allegations, her instructor 

“went across the hall to grab a police officer. . . .” Id. at 59. Child testified 

that she was then interviewed by the police officer, who subsequently called 

Castle Shannon Police Department. Id.

3 The court confirmed this order in writing and entered it on the docket on 

March 15, 2021.

4 OCYF presented the testimony of Josette Pickens, the supervisor of the OCYF 

intake office, and Patrick Riley, who became the OCYF family services 

caseworker after the in-take office transferred the case at the end of March 

2021. N.T., 5/4/21, at 5, 7-8, 12. Mother and Father testified on their own 

behalf. In addition, Child, then fifteen years old, testified in camera in the 

presence of the parties’ counsel. 
J-A25039-21

- 3 -

brief at 6; OCYF brief at 4. Child testified, “it happened a lot, mainly when 

my parents like wouldn’t be home. . . .” N.T., 5/4/21, at 48. With respect to 

the last time her brother allegedly sexually abused her, Child testified, “it 

might have been a week or two before I left.” Id. Parents further state in 

their brief that Child alleged her brother touched her “over her clothes, on her 

‘butt, vagina and breasts.’”5 Parents’ brief at 6 (citing N.T., 5/4/21, at 5-6). 

As best we can discern, a ChildLine investigation of the sexual abuse 

allegation was pending against Child’s brother at the time of the dependency 

hearing. N.T., 5/4/21, at 6. A separate criminal investigation occurred 

involving Child’s brother and was closed the day before the dependency 

hearing. Id. at 8, 21. The parties do not dispute that Child’s brother will not 

be criminally charged. 

Parents testified during the dependency hearing that Child never told 

them that her brother was sexually abusing her, and she never expressed fear 

of being alone with him. N.T., 5/4/21, at 26, 35, 40. Child confirmed that 

she never told Mother or Father. Id. at 55. She explained she never told 

them “because the way that — in my opinion, the way that they favor him, 

the different things that like I would get yelled at for but he wouldn’t. . . .” 

Id. Parents testified that, had they known it, they would never have left Child 

____________________________________________

5 Upon review, the testimony cited by Parents does not include the facts they 

assert. Rather, the testimony merely categorizes Child’s allegation as “sexual 

abuse” and/or “sexual maltreatment.” N.T., 5/4/21, at 5-6. 
J-A25039-21

- 4 -

and their son alone together. Id. at 29, 39. Father further testified, “I would 

have done something about it myself. I would not have allowed it to go this 

far.” Id. at 29. 

Father and Mother testified that they do not believe Child’s allegations 

against her brother. N.T., 5/4/21, at 28-29, 32-33, 41-42. Mother stated she 

believes Child “has some mental issues going on right now.” Id. at 42. For 

instance, Mother testified that she found “two suicide letters in [Child’s] 

bedroom. . . .”6 Id. at 36. Despite disbelieving Child’s allegations, Parents 

testified they will keep Child safe in their home by never leaving her alone 

with her brother and by participating in family therapy. Id. at 30, 33-34, 38-

39. Parents were not questioned on direct or cross-examination whether they

will require their son to move out of the house for Child’s safety; however, it 

was undisputed during the hearing that Parents will not require it.

At the time of the dependency hearing, Child was receiving therapy. 

N.T., 5/4/21, at 29, 36. Mother testified, “I would like to see her get some 

more help than what she is getting now.” Id. at 36. Father and Mother 

requested a referral for Child to have a psychiatric evaluation. Id. at 18, 29. 

Further, Mother had commenced individual therapy. Id. at 38. Parents were

also searching for a family therapist. Id. at 29, 36-38.

____________________________________________

6 Mother did not testify further about the alleged suicide letters, including, but

not limited to, when she found them. In addition, Child was not questioned 

on this subject during her in camera testimony.
J-A25039-21

- 5 -

With respect to Child’s allegation of Parents’ inappropriate discipline, 

Child testified, “I never said that they physically laid a hand on me. I was in 

fear that it was going to get to that point.” N.T., 5/4/21, at 59. Supervisor 

Pickens confirmed that Child told her “nothing physical has ever happened[,] 

but she is fearful of something physical” happening. Id. at 9. For instance, 

Child testified that Mother sent her “a really nasty text message. [Mother] 

said like she wanted me gone, she wanted me dead. . . .” Id. at 47. Child 

explained that the argument with Mother had to do with their dog who “pooped 

on the floor” when Child was out of the house. Id. at 46. Child testified that, 

when she returned home, Mother “said, oh, you’re so done, I’m so done with 

you, I want you dead, I want you and this dog out of this house.” Id. 

Parents acknowledge parent/child conflict in the home. N.T., 5/4/21, at 

8-9, 13. Father testified, “I do believe [Child and I] have some issues to work 

on. You know, we all have our problems and our issues. Especially in light of 

what is going on, I think all four of us need counseling and need help.” Id. at 

34. Mother testified in more detail. Specifically, she stated that Child sent 

text messages to her friends “on how much she hates me, how she wants to 

punch me in the face, she can’t stand me. . . .”7 Id. at 36. Mother stated, “I 

did not know she felt like this towards me. I mean, she always said I love 

you. . . . I think she needs some help or there is something going on.” Id. 

____________________________________________

7 Mother testified that Child’s text messages also displayed the same anger 

against Father. N.T., 5/4/21, at 36.
J-A25039-21

- 6 -

Further, Mother explained, “this was all a big shock to us. I did not see none 

of this coming, none of this coming. . . . I don’t know who she is right now. 

I just see a lot of anger in her and madness.” Id. at 39. 

The trial court questioned Mother as follows regarding her shock over 

Child’s feelings about Father and her in relation to her disbelief that her son 

had sexually abused Child.

THE COURT: [Y]ou said that you were really shocked by some of 

the texts that you read on [Child]’s phone about her not liking you 

and wanting to punch you in the face and punch your husband, 

correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I think you testified the day before this happened 

you made her a big lunch and she said she loved you and left the 

house; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That’s correct.

. . .

THE COURT: You had no clue about how she felt about you until 

you read the texts, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Could it be that you didn’t see anything about what 

her brother was doing to her similar to you not knowing about 

anything until you [had] seen the text, could it be the same thing?

THE WITNESS: It could be.

Id. at 42-44. 

The record reveals that a minimum of three visits had occurred between 

Parents and Child by the time of the dependency hearing, which were 
J-A25039-21

- 7 -

supervised by Child’s aunt. N.T., 5/4/21, at 10, 21. The visits were difficult 

and short in duration. Id. at 10, 20. Child testified that the visits ended early 

because Mother “would just yell at me for the first 15 or 20 minutes, just put 

me down. . . .” Id. at 10, 48-49. Child stated, “right now I have a better 

relationship with my dad than I do with my mom. . . .” Id. at 49. She 

explained, “I can’t talk to my mom because she will get mad and go off.” Id.

at 50.

Caseworker Riley testified that Child prefers not to return home “at this 

time.” N.T., 5/4/21, at 13. He testified that his concern with sending Child 

home “would just be the parent/child conflict.” Id. However, he subsequently 

testified that, because Parents do not believe their son sexually abused Child, 

and their son continues to reside in the home, Child cannot safely go home 

“at this time.” Id. at 14-15. Caseworker Riley stated that, before Child can 

safely be returned home, there needs to be “some time for [P]arents and 

herself to be in therapy separately and together, probably some sort of inhome or homebuilders type service . . . to work toward finding out exactly . . 

. what occurred through the therapies and things like that.” Id. at 15. 

Child testified she did not feel safe at home “[b]ecause the way that 

they yelled at me, I thought it was going to get physical, at least with my 

mom.” N.T., 5/4/21, at 46. Child also testified she does not feel safe around 

her brother. Id. at 48.
J-A25039-21

- 8 -

At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties’ counsel presented closing 

arguments.8 N.T., 5/4/21, at 60-63. The court issued its ruling on the record 

in open court adjudicating Child dependent and maintaining her current 

placement with her aunt. Id. at 63-64, 68. The court stated, in part:

[Child] is telling me that she is afraid to come back to the house[,] 

and she won’t come back to the house. I won’t put her back in 

the house because I’m not sure what happened. Just like you two 

are saying that you’re not one hundred percent sure either, you 

don’t think [the sexual abuse] happened, but we really don’t 

know. I’m not going to wind up putting her back in that situation 

without trying to find out first. I think there is a safety issue. I 

think [O]CYF can put in services for the parent/child conflict or the 

therapy[,] and hopefully we’re going to be able to get down to the 

bottom of this. . . .

N.T., 5/4/21, at 63-64. Further, the court ordered, inter alia, (1) Child receive 

a mental health evaluation and follow all recommendations; (2) the family 

participate in parent/child conflict therapy; and (3) Parents and Child 

participate in supervised visitation, which, if it goes well, can become 

unsupervised at Child’s discretion. Id. at 68. By order dated and entered on

May 4, 2021, the court memorialized its adjudication based on lack of proper 

parental care or control pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1) and its disposition 

maintaining Child’s current placement with her aunt.

____________________________________________

8 The GAL argued that Child should be adjudicated dependent, and her safety 

at home could not be assured at that time. N.T., 5/4/21, at 62-63. 
J-A25039-21

- 9 -

On June 3, 2021, Parents timely filed a notice of appeal and concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal.9 The trial court issued an opinion 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on July 8, 2021.

On appeal, Parents present the following issues for review:

1. Did the trial court err in inferring that the Parents’ initial 

reluctance to discuss with OCYF staff allegations that the older 

brother had acted sexually inappropriately with [Child] to be a 

basis to find [C]hild dependent and to award custody to her 

maternal aunt, particularly given the [P]arents[’

]

full 

cooperation with OCYF staff since that initial visit, which was 

sprung on them, and given [P]arents’ agreement to participate 

in all individual or family therapy recommended by OCYF or 

ordered by [c]ourt?

2. Did the Commonwealth present insufficient evidence at the 

[a]djudicatory [h]earing to show that [Child] informed 

[P]arents that her older brother had been mistreating her 

which otherwise might demonstrate that [P]arents violated 

their affirmative duty to protect the child, as to render [Child] 

a dependent child within the ambit of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302?

3. Did the Commonwealth present insufficient evidence at the 

[a]djudicatory [h]earing to show that [P]arents violated their 

affirmative duty to protect [Child], where [C]hild’s older

brother only touched her over her clothes, thus failing to show 

any sexual abuse so as to render [Child] a dependent child 

within the ambit of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302?

4. Did the Commonwealth present insufficient evidence at the 

[a]djudicatory [h]earing to show that [P]arents violated their 

affirmative duty to protect [Child], simply due to their 

____________________________________________

9 On August 20, 2021, this Court issued a rule to show cause order because it 

was unclear whether Father was an appellant. Following Father’s response 

that he intended to appeal, we ordered Parents to file an amended notice

stating that the appeal is taken by Mother and Father. On September 16, 

2021, Parents filed an amended notice, as directed. Thereafter, this Court 

changed the caption to reflect that Father is also an appellant, and we 

discharged the show cause order.
J-A25039-21

- 10 -

reluctance to make the older brother — the alleged perpetrator 

— available for OCYF questioning as the older brother is an 

adult, and therefore not within the legal control and custody of 

his parents, thus militating against a finding that [Child] is a 

dependent child within the ambit of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302?

5. Did the Commonwealth present insufficient evidence at the 

[a]djudicatory [h]earing to show that [P]arents used 

inappropriate physical discipline upon [Child], as to render 

[Child] a dependent child within the ambit of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 

6302?

6. Did the trial court err in declining to find the dismissal of the 

criminal charges initially lodged against the older brother 

demonstrated that [P]arents did not violate their affirmative 

duty to protect [C]hild, as to otherwise render [Child] a 

dependent child within the ambit of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302?

7. Did the fact that the ChildLine accusation initially lodged 

against the older brother was deemed unfounded 

demonstrated that [P]arents did not violate their affirmative 

duty to protect the child, as to render [Child] a dependent child 

within the ambit of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302?

Parents’ brief at 4-5.

Our standard of review for dependency cases is as follows.

[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 R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).

A dependency hearing is a two-stage process governed by the Juvenile

Act (“Act”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6365. This Court has explained:

The first stage requires the juvenile court to hear evidence on the

dependency petition and determine whether the child is

dependent pursuant to the standards set forth in section 6302. 42
J-A25039-21

- 11 -

Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(a). If the court finds clear and convincing

evidence that the child is dependent, it may move to the second

stage, in which it must make an appropriate disposition based

upon an inquiry into the best interests of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 6351(a); In re B.S., 923 A.2d 517, 521 (Pa. Super.

2007). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is “so clear,

direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to

come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the

precise facts at issue.” In the Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840,

843 (Pa. Super. 1997).

To adjudicate a child dependent based upon lack of parental care 

or control, a juvenile court must determine that the child:

is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, 

education as required by law, or other care or control 

necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or 

morals. A determination that there is a lack of proper 

parental care or control may be based upon evidence of 

conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that 

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

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).

In accordance with the overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act “to

preserve family unity wherever possible,” see 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

6301(b), a child will be declared dependent only when he is

presently without proper parental care or control, and when such

care and control are not immediately available. In the Interest

of R.T., 592 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super. 1991). This Court has

defined “proper parental care” as “that care which (1) is geared

to the particularized needs of the child and (2) at a minimum, is

likely to prevent serious injury to the child.” C.R.S., 696 A.2d at

845.

In re M.B., 101 A.3d 124, 127-128 (Pa. Super. 2014).

If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence that the child is 

dependent, then the second stage of the dependency process requires that 

the court make an appropriate disposition based on an inquiry into the best 

interests of the child pursuant to Section 6351(a) and (b). 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 
J-A25039-21

- 12 -

6341(c); In re B.S., 923 A.2d at 521. Regarding when a child should be 

removed from parental custody, this Court has stated:

The law is clear that a child should be removed from her parent’s 

custody and placed in the custody of a state agency only upon a 

showing that removal is clearly necessary for the child’s wellbeing. In addition, this [C]ourt had held that clear necessity for 

removal is not shown until the hearing court determines that 

alternative services that would enable the child to remain with her 

family are unfeasible.

In Interest of K.B., 419 A.2d 508, 515 (Pa. Super. 1980) (citations 

omitted). In addition, we have stated, “it is not for this [C]ourt, but for the 

trial court as factfinder, to determine whether [a child’s] removal from her 

family was clearly necessary.” In the Interest of S.S., 651 A.2d 174, 177 

(Pa. Super. 1994). 

Instantly, with respect to Child being dependent based upon her sexual 

abuse allegations against her brother, the court found:

The court recognizes that there are many factors that can play 

into a family’s decision to remove one of the children from the 

family home. However, [P]arents have remained steadfast in the 

belief that [Child] concocted the story. It appears that they 

attribute [Child]’s admissions to mental health issues. At the 

onset of the investigation, OCYF Supervisor, Josette Pickens, 

testified that she attempted to speak with [P]arents about the 

magnitude of the allegations and the effects on [Child]. The 

current caseworker, Patrick Riley, also attempted to speak to 

[P]arents about the allegations. It is concerning that [P]arents 

have been so rigid in their response to [Child]’s claims. [P]arents 

argue that [the] court should not have considered their reluctance 

to discuss the sexual abuse allegations with OCYF. This court 

disagrees, as it is a parent’s duty to provide for their child’s health, 

safety and well-being. Parents should take claims of sexual abuse 

seriously, especially when the allegation results in the child being 

removed from the family home. The court finds that [P]arents 
J-A25039-21

- 13 -

have never taken the allegations seriously[,] and[,] as such, have 

not taken any steps to ensure [Child]’s safety in the family home.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 6. Based on these findings, the court 

concluded:

[P]arents lack the capacity to understand the seriousness of the 

allegations made by [Child]. Quite frankly, [P]arents have not 

done anything to address the circumstances surrounding the 

allegations. They have not made arrangements for their son to 

live outside of the family home, even on a temporary basis. 

Mother reported to having a safety plan in place in which [C]hild 

would have no unsupervised contact with her brother. However, 

the court was not satisfied that she would follow through with the 

plan. . . . The court finds that [P]arents simply do not have the 

capacity to provide for [Child]’s health, safety or welfare at this 

time or in the immediate future. It is clear to this court that the 

family needs therapeutic services to resolve the parent/child 

conflict and to address [Child]’s allegations of sexual abuse.

Based upon these concerns, the court found that separating 

[Child] from her parents was clearly necessary until such a time 

that her safety and well-being could be adequately assured.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 9-10 (citation omitted). 

With respect to Child being dependent based upon the parent/child 

conflict, the court found:

Mother’s assessment of her relationship with [Child] was markedly 

different than that of [C]hild. Mother reported having a calm, 

happy household with no issues until recently. However, [Child] 

reported frequent yelling and arguing in the family home. ([N.T., 

5/4/21,] at 48). The court found [Child]’s testimony to be credible 

in her report of intense verbal altercations with Mother. The court 

also found it credible that [C]hild feared that these altercations 

would become physical. Despite being removed from [P]arents’ 

care, the parent/child conflict was ongoing as evidenced by 

[Child]’s reports that her visits with [P]arents had to be cut short 

on each occasion. ([Id.]). 

Id. at 7.
J-A25039-21

- 14 -

On appeal, Parents argue that the order of adjudication and disposition 

is not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The crux of their argument 

is that the court erred in finding unreasonable their disbelief of Child’s sexual 

abuse allegations and not requiring their son to leave the house as result of 

the allegations. Nevertheless, Parents argue that they are committed to 

Child’s safety and health, and that they can ensure her safety while their son 

remains in the house. Therefore, they argue that the court abused its 

discretion in issuing the order of adjudication and disposition.

With respect to Parents’ first issue, that the court erred to the extent it 

based the subject order on their initial reluctance to discuss Child’s allegations 

against her brother with OCYF, they failed to include it in the argument section 

of their brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (providing “[t]he argument shall be divided 

into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the 

head of each part — in distinctive type or in type of distinctively displayed —

the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation 

of the parties as are deemed pertinent”). Pa.R.A.P. 2101 underscores the 

seriousness with which this Court takes deviations from the procedural rules, 

as it permits us to quash or dismiss an appeal for procedural noncompliance. 

Here, we address this issue even though Parents make only passing reference 

to it in the argument section of their seventh and final issue. Parents’ brief at 

25-26. 
J-A25039-21

- 15 -

Parents acknowledge initially being unwilling to discuss the allegations 

with OCYF because “they were stunned. . . . [They] needed to digest the 

information. . . .” Parents’ brief at 26. Further, Parents assert that they 

subsequently discussed Child’s sexual abuse allegations with OCYF. Id. at 25 

(citing N.T., 5/4/21, at 7). 

Supervisor Pickens was from the OCYF intake office which initially 

handled the referral, and she transferred the case to the family services unit 

of OCYF at the end of March 2021. In explaining OCYF’s request for Child’s 

emergency placement on March 14, 2021, Supervisor Pickens testified:

Q. What dependency concerns [did] the agency have as it relates 

to [Child]. . . separate and apart from the CPS [Child Protective 

Services] allegations?

A. The only concern that had initially presented itself was that 

[P]arents initially were not willing to discuss the allegations of the 

sexual abuse[;] therefore[,] we could not assure safety.

Q. Have they agreed to or have they since discussed with you the 

sexual abuse allegations?

A. Yes, they have.

N.T., 5/4/21, at 7. Supervisor Pickens and Caseworker Riley testified that 

Parents do not believe the allegations, and Parents explained their reasoning

to the court. Id. at 9-10; 14, 17, 28-29, 32-33, 41-42. 

Upon careful review, we conclude the trial court did not solely base its 

decision to adjudicate Child dependent and remove her from Parents’ custody 

on their initial reluctance to discuss the sexual abuse allegations. Rather, the 

court considered Parents’ initial reluctance as part of its overall finding that 
J-A25039-21

- 16 -

they “have been so rigid in their response to [Child]’s claims.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 7/8/21, at 6. In fact, the court found Parents’ response does not 

take Child’s allegations against her brother seriously. See id. (“The court 

finds that [P]arents have never taken the allegations seriously. . . .”). It 

follows that the court was not convinced that Parents “would follow through 

with the plan” to never leave Child alone with her brother. Id. at 9. These

findings are based on the court’s factual and credibility determinations in favor 

of Child, which are supported in the record, and we will not disturb them. See 

R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 (“[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. . . .”). 

We discern no abuse of discretion by the court with respect to Mother’s first 

issue.

Related to the foregoing argument are Parents’ sixth and seventh issues. 

Parents assert, in essence, that they reasonably disbelieve Child’s allegations

because of “the dismissal of the criminal charges initially lodged against

[Child’s] brother,” and “the ChildLine accusation initially lodged against 

[Child’s] brother was deemed unfounded. . . .” Parents’ brief at 5. 

Contrary to Parents’ assertion, criminal charges were never lodged 

against Child’s brother. To the extent Parents argue that the court should 

have weighted the lack of criminal charges in their favor, the court stated it 

“did not give much weight to the contention that criminal charges were not 
J-A25039-21

- 17 -

filed against [Child]’s brother.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 9. The court 

explained, “there are a number of reasons why criminal charges are and are 

not filed. Whether criminal charges are filed against an alleged perpetrator of 

sexual abuse is not a requirement to a finding of dependency. This is one of 

a number of factors the court considered when determining . . . [Child]’s 

credibility and ultimately her dependency.” Id. We discern no abuse of the 

court’s discretion.

In addition, contrary to Parents’ assertion, as best we can discern, the

ChildLine investigation was still pending at the time of the dependency 

hearing. N.T., 5/4/21, at 6 (Supervisor Pickens testified that the ChildLine 

investigation “has not been submitted to Harrisburg. We’re in the final 

stages.”). The trial court stated that the OCYF witnesses did not have 

“significant information about the status nor outcome of the ChildLine 

investigation. The court did not consider any evidence as it related to the 

results of the ChildLine investigation into its decision to find the child 

dependent.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 8-9. We likewise discern no abuse 

of discretion. As such, Mother’s sixth and seventh issues fail.

Turning to Parents’ second issue, they assert that, because Child did not 

disclose her sexual abuse allegations to them, “there is no evidence to support 

a finding that there was ‘a lack of proper parental care or control’” pursuant 

to Section 6302 of the Act. Parents’ brief at 14. We disagree. 
J-A25039-21

- 18 -

The trial court explained that because Child “failed to disclose sexual 

abuse to them does not disprove OCYF’s contention that she was a dependent 

child. . . . The court has presided over hundreds of cases involving sexual 

abuse that went unreported for years. Failure to report sexual abuse is not 

dispositive as to whether it actually occurred. As such, this court did not 

consider [Child]’s failure to disclose the alleged abuse earlier.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 7/8/21, at 8. We discern no abuse of discretion by the court 

regarding this issue. 

In their third issue, Parents argue that Child’s allegation that her brother 

“only touched her over clothes,” even if true, does not rise to the level of 

sexual abuse so as to render her a dependent child under the Act. We 

disagree. Parents’ brief at 16. 

As stated above, it is undisputed that Child’s allegation involves her 

brother inappropriately touching her; however, there is no support in the 

certified record that Child alleged her brother touched her “over her clothes.” 

Assuming arguendo that Child’s brother touched her only over her clothes, 

Parents assert, “the conduct becomes more ambiguous and undefined. . . . 

And given some ambiguity, [P]arents’ reaction of disbelieving their daughter 

but yet ensuring her safety becomes wholly reasonable.” Id. at 17.

The trial court reasoned that it “takes any allegation of sexual 

maltreatment seriously. While the conduct in question may not have risen to 

the level of a sexual assault, it does not negate [the] fact that [Child]’s brother 
J-A25039-21

- 19 -

may have inappropriately touched her on numerous occasions. Parents 

certainly have an obligation to protect [Child] from any form of abuse in their

home.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 8. We again discern no abuse of 

discretion by the court in adjudicating Child dependent even if her allegations 

consisted of her brother touching her only over her clothes. Parents’ third 

issue fails.

Parents argue in their fourth issue that “their reluctance to make the 

older brother — the alleged perpetrator — available for OCYF questioning as 

the older brother is an adult” does not support a finding of dependency. 

Parents’ brief at 18. The trial court responded in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that 

it “did not hear any evidence that Parents precluded [Child]’s brother from 

speaking with OCYF during their investigation.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, 

8. Therefore, the court stated that it did not consider this in its determination 

of dependency. Id. We discern no abuse of discretion. Indeed, upon review, 

there is no testimonial evidence regarding whether Child’s brother spoke to 

OCYF about the allegations or not. 

Parents also argue in their fourth issue that they “were unfairly 

characterized as neglectful of their daughter because of their inability —

termed as a refusal — to force their adult son to participate in police 

questioning and their reasonable decision not to force their son to leave the 

family home.” Parents’ brief at 20-21. In their Rule 1925(b) statement, 

Parents allege only that their son did not participate in OCYF questioning. 
J-A25039-21

- 20 -

Thus, their argument involving their son not participating in police questioning

is waived. See Krebs v. United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 

A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that any issue not raised in a concise 

statement of errors complained of an appeal is deemed waived). Parents’ 

fourth issue fails.

Finally, in their fifth issue, Parents argue that the court erred in basing 

its dependency ruling “on an unsubstantiated theory that they used 

inappropriate physical discipline against their daughter. . . .” Parents’ brief at 

21. This issue is without merit. The trial court aptly stated, “there was no 

evidence presented by OCYF that [P]arents used any physical discipline. The 

only testimony that the court considered was [C]hild’s fears that arguments 

between her and [M]other could ‘become physical.’ As such, this court did not 

consider any evidence relating to the discipline of [C]hild in reaching its 

decision to adjudicate [C]hild dependent.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/4/21, at 8. 

Indeed, Parents’ argument fails because the testimony of both Child and 

Supervisor Pickens, set forth above, is that Child never alleged that Parents 

physically disciplined her, but that she was afraid it would become physical, 

especially with Mother. N.T., 5/4/21, at 9, 46, 59. Thus, this issue fails.

In conclusion, the record supports the trial court’s determination that 

Parents are unable “to understand the seriousness” of Child’s allegations 

against her brother. Trial Court Opinion, 7/8/21, at 9. Based on this finding, 

we deem reasonable the court’s legal determination that Parents “simply do 
J-A25039-21

- 21 -

not have the capacity to provide for [Child]’s health, safety or welfare at this 

time or in the immediate future. . . . [S]eparating [Child] from her parents 

was clearly necessary until such a time that her safety and well-being could 

be adequately assured.” Id. at 9-10. As such, the court did not abuse its 

discretion.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 01/21/2022