J-A05006-23

2023 PA SUPER 55

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.C.-G., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.C.-C., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2521 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2022

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

No(s): CP-51-DP-0000369-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 31, 2023

R.C.-C. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order adjudicating his 

daughter, R.C.-G. (Child) (born 5/08), dependent,

1

finding her to be the victim 

of child abuse,

2 and concluding that the abuse was due to Father’s failure to 

act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6303, 6381(d). After careful review, we affirm in 

part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Father and Child are Guatemalan immigrants. Child is Spanishspeaking. Father speaks a Guatemalan dialect known as Q’eqchi’.3

In April

2022, the Philadelphia Police Department received a third-party complaint 

____________________________________________

1 Father concedes that the evidence supports a finding of dependency. See 

N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse Hearing, 9/13/22, at 99-100; Father’s Brief, at 

10.

3 Mother resides in Guatemala. She participated in the hearing, with the aid

of an interpreter, via telephone.
J-A05006-23

- 2 -

alleging that Child was living with an adult4 male, J.T., and that she was 

pregnant.5 Officer Jose Viera of the Special Victim’s Unit visited Child at the 

Winston Street, Philadelphia, residence listed in the complaint. Two men in 

their thirties answered the door and, at first, denied knowing Child. Officer 

Viera testified that Child then “came down the steps from the second floor” of 

the residence. N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse Hearing, 9/13/22, at 29. Child 

confirmed her identity, pregnancy, and age (13 years old) to Officer Viera.

6

 

Id. at 31. Child also told Officer Viera that she had been living in the house 

with J.T. “prior to her 12th birthday,” id., and that she was not living with any 

family members in the residence. Id. at 32.

Following the officer’s investigation, a Child Protective Services (CPS) 

report was generated alleging that Child was the victim of statutory sexual 

assault.7 Id. at 55-56. Officer Viera transported Child to the Philadelphia 

____________________________________________

4 J.T. was 19-years-old at the time of the alleged incident.

5 Child was also not attending school. In fact, school records show that Child

was in school for only one month in 2020. N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse 

Hearing, 9/13/22, at 58-59.

6 Office Viera speaks Spanish. Once he determined that Child only spoke 

Spanish, he conversed with her in Spanish. Id. at 30. 

7 See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3122.1(a)(1) (statutory sexual assault defined, in

relevant part, as “a person [who] engages in sexual intercourse with a 

complainant to whom the person is not married who is under the age of 16 

years old and that person is either: (1) four years older but less than eight 

years older than the complainant[.]”).
J-A05006-23

- 3 -

Department of Human Services (DHS)8 where DHS investigator Serena 

Melendez interviewed Child, with the aid of a Spanish-speaking interpreter. 

Child reported to Melendez that she and Father moved to the United States 

from Guatemala three years ago, she had been dating J.T. for two years, and 

had been living with him “during that time.” N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse

Hearing, 9/13/22, at 58. Child also told Melendez that “[F]ather was aware 

[that she had been dating J.T. and living with him] and he was okay with it.” 

Id. Following the interview, DHS obtained an order of protective custody for 

Child and she was placed in foster care, where she currently resides. Id.9

Subsequently, Melendez interviewed Father with the aid of Father’s 

Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) social worker, Benjamin Gamarra, who is 

Spanish-speaking. Id. at 60. Melendez testified that Gamarra “was able to 

translate [their] conversation,” id., and that during the interview:

[Father stated he] was aware that [Child] was staying with J[.T.] 

However, he was concerned that she would be with somebody 

older, so he kind of seemed like it was okay. At first, he 

____________________________________________

8 Under the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) “[i]f the suspected child 

abuse is alleged to have been committed by a perpetrator and the behavior 

constituting the suspected child abuse may include a violation of a criminal 

offense, the appropriate county agency and law enforcement officials shall 

jointly investigate the allegation through the investigative team established in 

section 6365(c) (relating to services for prevention, investigation and 

treatment of child abuse) and as provided in this chapter.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6334.1(2).

9 After speaking with Child, Melendez unsuccessfully attempted to contact 

Father by telephone. Melendez ultimately left Father a voicemail message, 

which Father returned three days later. Melendez testified that Child was 

unable to give her Father’s specific address, merely relaying that Father lived 

“in South Philly.” N.T Adjudicatory/Child Abuse Hearing, 9/13/22, at 71.
J-A05006-23

- 4 -

understood that in this country that that’s not allowed. But[,]

because he worked at night, and, you know, she was —it was kind 

of hard for him to supervise her, so, eventually, he came to an 

acceptance of her being with him.

Id. at 61. On cross-examination, however, Melendez acknowledged that she 

was unable to complete the interview with Father due, in part, to “some 

difficulty in translating the [interview in] full.” Id. at 68-69. In fact, Melendez 

acknowledged that during the interview, Mr. Gamarra suggested that 

Melendez interview Father with a Q’eqchi’ interpreter, id. at 69, but Melendez

ultimately concluded that it was too “difficult to find someone who was either 

available or could speak the specific language Father speaks.” Id. 

DHS found the report indicated, listing Father as a perpetrator of child 

abuse,

10 pursuant to section 6303(b.1)(4) of the CPSL, where he “caus[ed] 

sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any act/failure to act.”

11 On 

____________________________________________

10 Father does not contest that Child was the victim of “sexual abuse or 

exploitation” as defined by the CPSL. See Father’s Brief, at 10.

11 Pursuant to section 6303, an “indicated report” is defined as:

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), a report of child abuse

made pursuant to this chapter if an investigation by the 

department or county agency determines that substantial 

evidence of the alleged abuse by a perpetrator exists based 

on any of the following:

(i) Available medical evidence.

(ii) The child protective service investigation.

(iii) An admission of the acts of abuse by the perpetrator.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A05006-23

- 5 -

September 13, 2022, the trial court held an adjudicatory/child abuse hearing12

at which CUA case manager Joshua Hage, Officer Viera, DHS investigator 

Melendez, Father, and Child testified. A Q’eqchi’ interpreter translated for 

Mother and Father, and a Spanish interpreter translated for Child at the 

hearing. 

At the hearing, Child testified that at the time Officer Viera visited her 

in April 2022, she had known J.T. for two years and had been living with him

for five months. N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse Hearing, 9/13/22, at 42. 

Inconsistent with her prior statements to Melendez, Child testified at the 

hearing that she never told Father where she was living, id. at 45, and that 

when Father would ask where she was living, she would not tell him. Id. See 

also id. at 47 (Child testifying at hearing she did not recall telling Melendez 

that Father knew she was living with J.T. or that Father allowed her to live 

with J.T.). Father attempted to testify with the aid of a Q’eqchi’ interpreter. 

However, Father’s counsel quickly discontinued questioning, stating that she 

____________________________________________

(2) A report may be indicated under paragraph (1)(i) or (ii) for 

any child who is the victim of child abuse, regardless of the 

number of alleged perpetrators.

23 P.C.S.[A.] § 6303 (emphasis added). A perpetrator includes “[a] parent of

the child.” Id. Finally, a parent of the child may also be considered a 

perpetrator for failing to act. Id. 

12 DHS’ counsel indicated at the hearing that counsel had stipulated to 

adjudicate Child dependent “based upon present inability with a full commit 

to D[]H[]S.” N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse Hearing, 9/13/22, at 26. The 

court’s final order also permitted Father to have supervised, line-of-sight and 

line-of-hearing visits with Child at DHS. Order, 9/13/22, at 2.
J-A05006-23

- 6 -

“d[id]n’t believe [she] c[ould] proceed” because Father was unable to 

understand her questions, despite the use of the interpreter. Id. 78. See 

also id. at 75-78 (counsel repeatedly having to restate and rephrase 

questions because Father was unable to understand questions, even with 

interpreter); id. at 77 (counsel stating, “Your Honor, I’m not confident that 

the interpretation is translating fair[ly].”). Following argument by counsel, 

the court stated on the record that it was adjudicating Child dependent, id. at 

91, committing Child to the custody of DHS, id., and that Child was the victim 

of child abuse due to Father’s failure to act.13 Id. at 100-01.

On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our consideration: 

(1) Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its 

discretion by finding Father to be a perpetrator of child 

abuse[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6303(b.1)(4)[,] in 

the absence of clear and convincing evidence that Father 

acted with at least reckless intent, as required by the Child 

Protective Services Law?

(2) Can the trial court’s finding of child abuse against Father be 

affirmed[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6381(d)[,] in the 

absence of clear and convincing evidence that Child 

suffered abuse of such a nature as would ordinarily not be 

sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions 

of the parent?

(3) Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its 

discretion by allowing witnesses to testify as to the Child’s 

hearsay statements over the objection of Father’s counsel, 

and relying on those hearsay statements as substantive 

evidence?

Father’s Brief, at 3.

____________________________________________

13 The court also deemed J.T. a perpetrator of Child’s abuse.
J-A05006-23

- 7 -

In In the Interest of La.-Ra. W., 266 A.3d 1071 (Pa. Super. 2021), 

our Court set forth the standard of review in child dependency cases as 

follows:

Our scope of review in child dependency cases is limited in a 

fundamental manner by our inability to nullify the fact-finding of 

the trial court. We accord great weight to the hearing judge’s 

findings of fact because the judge is in the best position to observe 

and rule upon the credibility of the witnesses. Given this unique 

posture, we will not overrule the findings of the trial court if they 

are supported by competent evidence and our well-settled 

standard of review “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 trial court’s inferences or conclusions 

of law.”

Id. at 1089 (citation omitted). 

“[Although] dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act 

(Act),[14]. . . the CPSL[15]. . . controls determinations regarding findings of 

child abuse, which the juvenile courts must find by clear and convincing 

evidence.” In re L.V., 209 A.3d 399, 417 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations 

omitted; see also In the Interest of X.P., 248 A.3d 1274, 1276 (Pa. Super. 

2021) (same). The CPSL “does not provide for legal determinations of abuse; 

it is mainly a vehicle for reporting abuse and bringing quickly into play those 

services (including court hearings) available through county protective service 

facilities for the care of the child.” In the Interest of J.R.W., 631 A.2d 1019, 

1022 (Pa. Super. 1993). “[T]he Act and the [CPSL] must be applied together 

____________________________________________

14 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6475.

15 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387.
J-A05006-23

- 8 -

in the resolution of child abuse complaints under the [CPSL and] reference 

must be made to the definition sections of both the [Act] and the [CPSL] to 

determine how that finding [of child abuse] is interrelated.” Id. at 1023. 

“‘As part of [a] dependency adjudication, a court may find a parent [or 

caregiver] to be the perpetrator of child abuse[]’ as defined by the . . . CPSL.” 

In re S.L., 202 A.3d 723, 728 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation and quotations 

omitted). Section 6381 of the CPSL, which governs evidence in court 

proceedings, states that “[i]n addition to the rules of evidence . . . relating to 

juvenile matters, the rules of evidence in this section shall govern in child 

abuse proceedings in court[.]” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6381(a). Specifically, section 

6381(d) “provides for an ‘attenuated’ standard of evidence in making a legal 

determination as to the abuser in child abuse cases [where] a child has 

suffered serious physical injury . . . as would ordinarily not be sustained 

or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the parent or other 

person responsible for the welfare of the child.” J.R.W., supra at 1023

(emphasis added); 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6381(d).

In In the Interest of N.B.-A., 224 A.3d 661 (Pa. 2020), the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated the appropriate standard of proof for 

a finding of child abuse:

The requisite standard of proof for a finding of child abuse 

pursuant to [s]ection 6303(b.1) of the CPSL is clear and 

convincing evidence. [A] petitioning party must demonstrate the 

existence of child abuse by the clear and convincing evidence 

standard applicable to most dependency determinations[.] 42 

Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6341(c)[]. Clear and convincing evidence is 

“evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to 
J-A05006-23

- 9 -

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without 

hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” [] However, 

in certain situations, the identity of the abuser need only be 

established through prima facie evidence. As an appellate court, 

we are required to accept the findings of fact and credibility 

determinations of the trial court, if they are supported by the 

record; however, th[is] [C]ourt is not bound by the lower court’s 

inferences or conclusions of law.

Id. at 668 (citations omitted). Moreover, in section 6831(d) cases where “the 

fact of abuse suffices to establishes prima facie evidence of abuse” by a 

parent, “a petitioning party is not required to establish that the parent 

perpetrated the abuse ‘intentionally, knowingly[,] or recklessly.’” In the 

Interest of C.B., 264 A.3d 761, 773 (Pa. Super. 2021) (en banc).16 See In 

the Interest of L.Z., supra at 1184 (“The Legislature [] carved out a very 

limited exception to these more stringent evidentiary standards, allowing for 

the possibility of identifying the perpetrator of abuse based on prima facie

evidence in cases where the abuse is ‘of such a nature as would ordinarily not 

be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the 

parent[.]’”).

____________________________________________

16 Section 6381(d) provides:

(d) Prima facie evidence of abuse. — Evidence that a child has 

suffered child abuse of such a nature as would ordinarily not be 

sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the 

parent or other person responsible for the welfare of the child shall 

be prima facie evidence of child abuse by the parent or other 

person responsible for the welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6381(d).
J-A05006-23

- 10 -

Under section 6381(d), a parent or other responsible caregiver may 

rebut the prima facie presumption with evidence

[d]emonstrating that the parent or responsible person did not 

inflict the abuse, potentially by testifying that they gave 

responsibility for the child to another person about whom they had 

no reason to fear or perhaps that the injuries were accidental 

rather than abusive. The evaluation of the validity of the 

presumption would then rest with the trial court evaluating the 

credibility of the prima facie evidence presented by . . . [DHS] . . 

. and the rebuttal of the parent or responsible person.

Id. at 1185. See id. at 1176 n.15 (section 6381(d) presumption may be 

rebutted with evidence that parent or responsible person was absent at time 

of injury and not otherwise responsible for injury by failing to secure proper 

care for child); see also In re S.L., 202 A.3d 723, 728 (Pa. Super. 2019) 

(section 6381(d) presumption “can be rebutted, like other statutory 

presumptions, with countervailing competent, substantial evidence”) 

(citations omitted). 

Father first claims that the trial court erred by finding that he was a 

perpetrator of child abuse, under section 6303(b.1)(4), when there was no 

clear and convincing evidence that he “acted with at least reckless intent.”17 

Father’s Brief, at 3. Father asserts that DHS was unable to prove that he was 

a perpetrator of child abuse where, due to the language barrier and lack of 

“appropriate interpreter services,” he was unable to accurately convey to both 

____________________________________________

17 Child abuse is defined, in relevant part, as “intentionally, knowingly or 

recklessly . . . [c]ausing sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any 

act or failure to act.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(4).
J-A05006-23

- 11 -

caseworker Melendez and the trial judge exactly what he knew with regard to 

Child’s whereabouts and living arrangements with J.T. Id. at 11. We find that 

his argument has merit. 

It is well-established, in the criminal context, that “[a] defendant’s 

ability to use an interpreter encompasses numerous fundamental rights. The 

failure to understand the proceedings may deny him his right to confront 

witnesses against him, his right to consult with his attorney, or his right to be 

present at his own trial.” Commonwealth v. Pana, 364 A.2d 895, 898 (Pa. 

1976). To protect these rights, our Commonwealth has enacted the following 

statute:

It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Commonwealth to 

secure the rights, constitutional and otherwise, of persons who 

because of a non-English speaking cultural background . . . are 

unable to understand or communicate adequately in the English 

language when they appear in court or are involved in judicial 

proceedings. It is the intent of this chapter to provide for the 

certification, appointment[,] and use of interpreters to secure the 

rights of person with limited English proficiency . . . in all judicial 

proceedings.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4401. “Judicial proceedings” are defined as “[a]ny action, 

appeal or proceeding in any court of this Commonwealth.” Id. at § 4402

(emphasis added). 

In D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 2 A.3d 712 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), 

our sister appellate court extended the right to interpretive services to noncriminal, administrative proceedings. There, the Commonwealth Court 

concluded that a hearing officer’s decision to permit the mother of a disabled 

student to use an interpreter, whom she had requested, was not an abuse of 
J-A05006-23

- 12 -

discretion. Id. at 721-22. Similarly, we conclude that Father, a non-English 

speaker, was also entitled to assistance from a competent interpreter during 

the juvenile court’s proceedings. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6338 (under Juvenile 

Act, party in juvenile matter entitled to opportunity to introduce evidence and 

otherwise be heard on his own behalf and cross-examine witnesses); see also 

id. at § 6301(b)(4) (one of stated purposes of Juvenile Act is “[t]o provide 

means through which the provisions of this chapter are executed and enforced 

and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and 

other legal rights recognized and enforced”). Moreover, it logically follows 

that the right to use an interpreter assumes that the individual effectively 

interprets. M.O. v. F.W., 42 A.3d 1068, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“The right 

of a litigant to in-court presentation of evidence is essential to due 

process[.]”).

While the court purported to provide a Q’eqchi’ interpreter for Father

and went to great lengths to ensure that the interpreter could clearly hear 

counsel’s questions,18 it is nonetheless apparent that Father’s interpreter did 

____________________________________________

18 In particular, the trial judge: told counsel to repeat questions, “speak up,”

and spell words; asked remote parties to mute devices and background 

noises; asked parties to wait for the interpreter to finish interpreting before 

asking another question; and asked all parties to pause between questions 

and responses to allow interpreters to interpret. N.T. Adjudicatory/Child 

Abuse Hearing 9/13/22, at 14-77.
J-A05006-23

- 13 -

not successfully translate for him at the child abuse hearing.19 Quite literally, 

Father’s testimony was “lost in translation.”20 As a result, Father was unable 

to testify on his own behalf. Under section 4401 of the Judicial Code, it was 

incumbent upon the court to provide a suitable interpreter for Father at the 

child abuse hearing so that he could testify and be given the opportunity to 

rebut the prima facie presumption21 that he was a perpetrator of Child’s abuse. 

____________________________________________

19 Although we recognize that the DHS investigation is not a “judicial 

proceeding” as defined in section 4402, we nonetheless would be remiss if we 

did not point out that Father was provided a Spanish-speaking interpreter 

during his interview with caseworker Melendez and that a Q’eqchi’ interpreter 

was never afforded to Father throughout DHS’ investigation—an investigation

that ultimately led to an indicated CPS report. See infra at n.11. However, 

we also realize that different evidentiary standards govern agency 

determinations and judicial adjudications. Compare J.F. v. Dep’t of Human 

Servs, 245 A.3d 658, 667 (Pa. 2021) (agency may enter “indicated report” of 

child abuse under substantial evidence standard) with Interest of J.M., 166 

A.3d 408, 421-22 (Pa. Super. 2017) (child abuse must be proven by clear and 

convincing evidence). The CPSL defines “substantial evidence” as “evidence 

which outweighs inconsistent evidence and which a reasonable person would 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303. 

It is axiomatic that without proof of Father’s understanding and ability to 

communicate through the use of a Spanish-speaking interpreter, all of the 

conclusions and much of the testimony of the DHS investigators is suspect or 

at the very least unreliable. We recognize the difficulty of providing an 

accurate Q’eqchi’ translation, but due process requires no less. We caution 

DHS to be cognizant of these difficulties, whenever communicating with a nonEnglish speaking party. 

20 We also question the extent to which Father understood the testimony of 

the other witnesses, thus, potentially impacting any effective crossexamination on Father’s behalf.

21 To the extent that DHS contends Father presented rebuttal testimony, we 

disagree. DHS states that Father’s “rebuttal testimony . . . consisted simply 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A05006-23

- 14 -

See In re S.L., supra at 730 (finding of prima facie evidence against parent 

pursuant to section 6381(d) “did not end the analysis;” due process dictates 

parent entitled to present rebuttal evidence). See also Pana, supra at 898 

(court’s refusal to permit use of interpreter denied appellant right to testify

effectively on own behalf and, thus, constituted prejudicial error). 

We, therefore, conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by not 

ensuring that Father was provided an effective interpreter during the child 

abuse hearing and that, under these circumstances, it amounted to prejudicial 

error. City of Phila. v. Pien, 224 A.3d 71 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (appellate 

court reviews trial court’s decision to use interpreter for abuse of discretion). 

Father was denied the right to testify on his own behalf, a right that is 

especially vital where Father’s credibility was a critical factor in the case.

22

Pana, supra. 

____________________________________________

of den[ying] that [Child] ever left his home and lived elsewhere.” DHS’ Brief, 

at 15. However, due to the ineffectiveness of the interpretation of Father’s 

limited testimony, we do not agree that this was a reliable translation.

22 The trial judge stated, at the conclusion of the hearing:

The testimony today showed consistency between the testimony 

of Officer Viera, as well as the DHS social worker, Ms. Melendez. 

And this is as to relation of the interview of [Child], as well as with 

the interview of Father, limited though it may have been.” 

I find that where there’s a departure in [Child’s] testimony, it’s 

her attempt to protect her Father against a finding of child abuse.

N.T. Adjudicatory/Child Abuse Hearing, 9/13/11, at 100 (emphasis added).
J-A05006-23

- 15 -

Thus, we vacate that portion of the court’s order finding Father is a 

perpetrator of child abuse, and remand for a new child abuse hearing, to be 

held within 60 days of the date of this decision. At that hearing, Father is to 

be provided with an effective/accurate interpreter so that he has the 

opportunity to meaningfully testify and present section 6381(d) rebuttal 

evidence.

23

 Whether or not Father’s rebuttal evidence is credible or 

persuasive is within the trial court’s ultimate purview. In re S.L., supra.

24

Order affirmed in part and vacated in part. Case remanded with 

instructions.25 Jurisdiction relinquished.26

____________________________________________

23 Although this result may prolong Child’s permanency placement, we note 

that Child is in a Spanish-speaking foster home where she is thriving and 

which may be an adoptive resource. 

24 Because we have remanded for a new hearing, Father’s final issue regarding 

the admissibility of alleged hearsay statements is moot.

25 Our decision today does not downplay or disregard a parent’s fundamental 

duty to protect one’s child, a duty that necessarily includes knowing the 

whereabouts and living arrangements of his or her minor child.

26 Father also claims that because the section 6381(d) presumption was “not 

raised or litigated at trial,” the presumption did not make any of the “factual 

findings necessary to apply the presumption.” Father’s Brief, at 27. In In 

La.-Ra. W., supra, our Court found that the presumption is “self-executing 

where DHS’ evidence clearly and convincingly provided the requisite elements 

under section 6381(d) and where Parents were given the opportunity to 

present rebuttal evidence[.]” Id. at 1081.
J-A05006-23

- 16 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/31/2023