J-S09002-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.B.-W. AND 

D.A.-S., MINOR CHILDREN

APPEAL OF: V.A., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1355 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 25, 2021

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

No(s): CP-51-DP-0001116-2020, 

CP-51-DP-0001268-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MAY 25, 2022

V.A. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s June 25, 2021 order, entered 

on two separate dockets (CP-51-DP-1268-2020 and CP-51-DP-1116-2020),

after a finding of dependency, the existence of aggravating circumstances, 

and a determination that Mother is a perpetrator of child abuse. After careful 

review, we remand for the nunc pro tunc filing of corrective notices of appeal.

These dependency actions arose from the death of Mother’s four-yearold child, A.A., while in the care of Mother’s older child, ten-year-old N.B.-W. 

Mother left A.A., who suffered from cerebral palsy1 and needed a medicallytrained caregiver to attend to his needs full-time, in the care of N.B.-W for ten 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Child also had been diagnosed as suffering from infantile spasms, chronic 

lung disease, encephalomalacia, microcephaly, hydrocephalus, and seizures.
J-S09002-22

- 2 -

to twelve hours a day up to three to four days a week2 while Mother was in 

the hospital due to pregnancy complications.3 A.A. died of aspiration due to 

pneumonia. 

On June 25, 2021, after a virtual adjudicatory and child abuse hearing, 

the trial court entered an order finding: N.B.-W. and D.A.-S. are dependent,

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1); A.A. was the victim of child abuse at the hands of 

Mother, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6303, 6381(d); and aggravating circumstances existed 

with regard to the abuse. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341.

Before we turn to Mother’s issues on appeal, we must first address a 

procedural hurdle that implicates our jurisdiction. In contravention of 

Pa.R.A.P. 341(a), as interpreted in Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 

(Pa. 2018),4 Mother has erroneously filed one notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s two dependency docket numbers. Recently, however, our Supreme 

Court held:

Now that [Pa.R.A.P.] 902 is squarely before us, we take it on its 

terms, notwithstanding any effect its application here may have 

on the bright-line rule of Walker. In doing so, we conclude the 

____________________________________________

2 D.A.-S.’s father (Father), who is Mother’s paramour, was the alleged 

caregiver for A.A. while Mother was in the hospital. However, A.A. was left 

alone with N.B.-W. for prolonged times. Notably, A.A. was alone with N.B.-

W. when he died.

3

In October 2020, Mother gave birth to another child, D.A.-S, A.A.’s and N.B.-

W.’s half-brother. A.A. and N.B.-W. are also half-siblings with different 

biological fathers.

4 See id. at 976 (“[W]hen ‘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[.]’”).
J-S09002-22

- 3 -

relationship between Rule 341(a) and [Rule] 902 is clear. Rule 

341 requires that when a single order resolves issues arising on 

more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed 

from that order at each docket; but, where a timely appeal is 

erroneously filed at only one docket, Rule 902 permits the 

appellate court, in its discretion, to allow correction of the error, 

where appropriate. Accordingly, as there were two timely-filed 

notices of appeal in this case, one for each defendant, that listed 

additional docket numbers for each defendant, we reverse the 

Superior Court’s order quashing the appeals and, pursuant to Rule 

902, we remand to that [C]ourt to reconsider the 

Commonwealth’s request to remediate its error, “so that the 

omitted procedural step may be taken.” Pa.R.A.P.902. 

Commonwealth v. Young, 265 A.3d 462, 477-78 (Pa. 2021). Young has 

been applied in the context of termination of parental rights and adoption, as 

well as in dependency matters. See In the Int. of A.J.R.O., 270 A.3d 563

(Pa. Super. 2022); see also In the Int. of P.S.-Q.S.-L., 940-941 WDA 2021 

(Pa. Super. filed Jan. 25, 2022) (unpublished memorandum).

Although counsel in the instant case failed to respond to this Court’s 

rules to show cause for his alleged Walker violation, the trial court, upon 

remand, determined on November 5, 2021, that he had not abandoned his 

client, Mother. On November 9, 2021, this Court entered a discharge order 

noting that counsel should be prepared to address in his appellate brief any 

concerns that this panel may have concerning the Walker issues raised by 

our Court’s Rules to Show Cause. Order, 11/9/21.

In a letter to this Court, dated December 2, 2021, counsel explained 

that he initially filed a timely notice of appeal, but incorrectly captioned the 

notice. To rectify the error, he states that he “attempted to withdraw the 

pleading and refile [it], however [his] petition to withdraw the pleading was 
J-S09002-22

- 4 -

entered as a petition to withdraw as counsel[,] and [his] corrected appeal was 

untimely.” Letter from Pierre E. Simonvil, Esquire, 12/2/21. Then, he explains 

his request to refile the notice of appeal nunc pro tunc was denied by the trial 

court on November 4, 2021. Counsel “humbly request[s] that [his] third, 

corrected appeal, be allowed to proceed, nunc pro tunc.” Id.

In compliance with our Supreme Court’s holding and directive in Young, 

supra, we remand to the trial court to permit counsel to file, nunc pro tunc, 

separate, amended, corrective notices of appeal in each dependency action in 

compliance with Walker. See Pa.R.A.P. 902 (appeal permitted by law as of 

right from lower court to appellate court “shall be taken by filing a notice of 

appeal with the clerk of the lower court within time allowed for by Rule 

903”) (emphasis added); see also id. (“any step other than the timely filing 

of a notice of appeal . . . is subject to such action as the appellate court deems 

appropriate, which may include . . . remand of the matter to the lower court

so that the omitted procedural step may be taken”) (emphasis added). 

Counsel shall file these notices of appeal within 14 days of the date of this 

decision.

Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.
J-S09002-22

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/25/2022