J-A17031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G. A MINOR

APPEAL OF: L.G., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2967 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000908-2022

BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2023

Appellant, L.G. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which adjudicated his minor 

child, S.G. (“Child”) dependent. We affirm.

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this 

case as follows:

The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) 

first became aware of this family on October 5, 2022 when 

it received a General Protective Services (“GPS”) report 

alleging that [D.G. (“Mother”)] was visibly high when she 

came to the hospital and remained high throughout her 

delivery until the next day. Mother was unable to speak 

without significant slurring and was poorly responsive. 

Mother tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, and opiates. 

On October 13, 2022, DHS received another GPS report 

because Child tested positive for cocaine. Child had to 

remain in the hospital due to withdrawal symptoms. Father 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17031-23

- 2 -

denied drug and alcohol history, but refused to comply with

a drug and alcohol screen. DHS obtained an Order of 

Protective Custody (“OPC”) on October 17, 2022 for Child 

and placed Child into foster care. A shelter care hearing was 

held on October 19, 2022, at which time the court ordered 

that the Child remain in the temporary legal custody of DHS 

and in the home of her foster care. 

[The trial court] held the relevant adjudicatory hearing on 

November 10, 2022. Mother and Father were present at 

said hearing with court-appointed counsel. Paula Ward, 

DHS intake supervisor, testified that Child was one-month 

old during the adjudicatory hearing. Ms. Ward testified that 

on October 5, 2022 a GPS report was received which alleged 

that Mother arrived at the hospital extremely high, and she 

was high until the next day. She stated that initially only 

Mother tested positive for cocaine, opiates, and marijuana,

however, within a week, Child was showing signs of 

withdrawal. She testified that Child tested positive for 

cocaine. Ms. Ward testified that she personally spoke with

Mother who stated she was willing to go to Caring Together 

for a drug assessment and a drug program. She stated that 

Mother did enroll in the program. 

As for Father, Ms. Ward stated that she had drug and alcohol 

concerns with Father because of Mother’s high drug uses, 

there was a concern that if Father did not notice that Mother

was using drugs, he may be using drugs as well. Ms. Ward 

testified that Father stated he went for a drug test and 

completed the assessment but failed to provide confirmation

documents. As for Father’s employment, Ms. Ward testified 

that Father stated he owns a kennel and works with cars. 

She stated that Father said he would be able to work and

watch the baby at the same time. Ms. Ward further testified 

that if Father would have taken a drug test, the agency 

would have considered returning Child to his care. She

indicated that it would be wrong to return child to Father 

without a negative drug screen. 

Maya Wilson, Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”) case 

manager, testified that she referred Mother to the Clinical 

Evaluation Unit (“CEU”) for a screen. Ms. Wilson testified 

that the results of the drug screen dated 10/27/2022 [were]

positive for benzos and marijuana. She testified that she 
J-A17031-23

- 3 -

has seen Father’s home prior to Mother moving out but has 

not seen the home since Mother reportedly moved. Ms. 

Wilson stated that Father’s home was appropriate and that 

there were items for the Child to be properly cared for. She 

further stated that she did not have concerns with Father 

being the caregiver for Child because he was home during 

the day. Ms. Wilson also testified that she was aware of 

Mother being in a drug program and nothing has been 

reported to her regarding Mother. She stated that Mother 

told her she was on prescription drugs but failed to provide

any scripts. 

Kristen Abney, DHS Social Worker, testified that she was 

the worker that opened the case initially. Ms. Abney 

testified that she saw Mother in the hospital the next day,

following the birth of Child, so she could not confirm or deny 

whether or not Mother was extremely high. She stated that 

Mother told her she was in a drug and alcohol program prior 

to COVID and then the classes stopped. She also stated 

that Mother told her about a car accident she had in the 

beginning of 2022, which brought back the drug concern. 

Ms. Abney testified that she had an opportunity to speak 

with Father but did not have any concerns with him. She 

further testified that when she initially was assigned the 

case, Mother and Father lived together. She stated that 

Father told her he worked on cars and he worked from 

home. 

At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, [the] court 

adjudicated Child dependent based on present inability and 

ordered for Child to remain as committed and as placed. 

Father was ordered to go to CEU, forthwith screen and three 

randoms prior to the next court date. Father was also 

ordered to go to the Achieving Reunification Center (“ARC”) 

for parenting classes. Father was granted two weekly 

supervised visits at the agency, if unable to work out 

visitation with the resource parent. Additionally, this [c]ourt 

ordered, if Father’s screen after the hearing was negative, 

Father would be allowed unsupervised community visits or 

family school with Child.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/14/23, at 1-4) (internal citations omitted). Father 

timely filed a notice of appeal and contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) 
J-A17031-23

- 4 -

concise statement on November 28, 2022.

Father raises the following issues for our review:

Whether the trial court erred in deciding the evidence as 

having been sufficient for a finding of adjudication (for 

dependency). 

Additionally, whether the trial court had erred in 

determining the evidence to further have been sufficient for 

the removal of Child, resulting thereto for the placement 

into agency custody. 

From an evidentiary standpoint, whether the trial court had 

erred in admitting into evidence a certain out-of-court 

utterance concerning the supposed use of drugs by [Father]. 

Thus, whether the trial court had erred in requiring [Father] 

to undergo a forthwith drug and alcohol screen; as well as 

subsequent random screens. 

(Father’s Brief at 5). 

In his first two issues combined, Father asserts that although Mother 

has significant issues with alcohol and substance abuse, Mother no longer 

resides with Father. Father avers that his home was inspected by Ms. Wilson

and deemed appropriate, containing the necessities to properly care for Child. 

Father further claims that both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Abney testified that there 

were no concerns with Father’s ability to care for Child. Father contends that 

there is no reliable evidence that Father abuses drugs or alcohol and the court 

erred in holding him culpable for Mother’s addiction. Father concludes the 

court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence to warrant adjudicating 

Child dependent and placing Child in DHS custody. We disagree. 

The applicable scope and standard of review for dependency cases is as 
J-A17031-23

- 5 -

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 [trial] court’s inferences or conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion. 

In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 

9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)). 

We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge 

because [the court] is in the position to observe and rule 

upon the credibility of the witnesses and the parties who 

appear before [the court]. Relying upon [the court’s] unique 

posture, we will not overrule [its] findings if they are 

supported by competent evidence. 

In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 875 (Pa.Super. 2000). See also In re R.J.T., 

supra (explaining that appellate court is not in position to make “close calls” 

based on fact-specific determinations; trial judges observe parties during 

hearing and usually have presided over several other hearings with same 

parties and have longitudinal understanding of case and best interests of 

individual child involved; thus, even if appellate court would have made 

different conclusion based on cold record, we are not in position to reweigh 

evidence and credibility determinations of trial court).

The Juvenile Act defines a dependent child, in pertinent part, as follows:

§ 6302. Definitions

* * *

“Dependent child.” A child who:
J-A17031-23

- 6 -

(1) is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, 

education as required by law, or other care or control 

necessary for his [or her] 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, 

including evidence of the parent’s, guardian’s or other 

custodian’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance that 

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

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302.

A court may adjudicate a child as dependent if the child meets the 

statutory definition of a dependent child by clear and convincing evidence. In 

re E.B., 898 A.2d 1108, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2006). Additionally, “[a] finding of 

dependency can be made based on prognostic evidence and such evidence is 

sufficient to meet the strict burden of proof necessary to declare a child 

dependent.” In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 14 (Pa.Super. 2003). “The court 

must make a comprehensive inquiry into whether proper parental care is 

immediately available or what type of care [the parent] could provide in the 

future.” Id.

If the court finds that the child is dependent, then the court 

may make an appropriate disposition of the child to protect 

the child’s physical, mental and moral welfare, including 

allowing the child to remain with the parents subject to 

supervision, transferring temporary legal custody to a 

relative or a private or public agency, or transferring 

custody to the juvenile court of another state.

In re E.B., supra at 1112. 

Upon a finding of dependency, the court must focus on the child’s best 

interests and order a disposition best suited to the child’s safety and well-
J-A17031-23

- 7 -

being. In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 

782, 959 A.2d 320 (2008); In re L.C., II, 900 A.2d 378, 381 (Pa.Super. 

2006). The court may not separate the child from the parent unless it finds 

that the separation is clearly necessary. In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa.Super. 

2004). Such necessity is implicated where the child’s welfare, safety, or 

health demands he or she be taken from his or her parent’s custody. Id.; In 

re R.W.J., supra. 

Instantly, the court concluded that Father was presently unable to 

properly care for Child or keep Child safe. Specifically, the court determined 

that Father either knew about Mother’s serious substance abuse while she was 

pregnant and failed to take action to protect Child, or Father participated in 

the substance abuse with Mother, both of which raise serious questions about 

Father’s ability to parent and keep Child safe. The court explained:

Father and Mother were a couple and lived together when 

Child was born. Mother was visibly high when she came to 

the hospital for childbirth and remained high throughout her 

delivery until the next day. Mother tested positive for 

cocaine, marijuana, and opiates. Child also tested positive 

for cocaine and experienced withdrawal symptoms while in 

the hospital. [Ms. Ward] stated that she had drug and 

alcohol concerns with Father because of Mother’s high drug 

uses. There was a concern that if Father did not notice that 

Mother was using drugs, he may be using drugs as well. 

Father has not provided the agency with a negative drug 

screen. DHS would have considered returning Child to 

Father’s care if he would have returned a negative drug 

screen. Furthermore, when Mother and Father lived 

together, Father worked from home and should have 

noticed Mother’s substance abuse prior to Child’s birth. 

Because of the seriousness of Mother’s substance abuse and 

Father’s failure to provide a negative drug screen, the court
J-A17031-23

- 8 -

does not believe Father or Mother can keep Child safe. 

(Trial Court Opinion at 6). 

The record supports the court’s findings. We agree with the court that

Father’s actions placed the health, safety or welfare of Child at risk. See 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6302; In re E.B., supra. Furthermore, Father’s refusal to provide 

the results of a drug screen, in light of Mother’s substance abuse while

pregnant with Child and living with Father, supports the court’s conclusion that 

separation from Father was necessary to keep Child, a vulnerable, substanceexposed newborn, safe. See In re G.T., supra. Accordingly, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the court’s adjudication of Child as dependent and 

placement of Child in DHS custody. See In re A.B., supra; In re A.H., 

supra. 

In his third issue, Father contends the court improperly relied on 

unreliable hearsay evidence to conclude that Father abused drugs and alcohol. 

Specifically, Father asserts that the court erroneously permitted Ms. Abney to 

testify that DHS had received previous reports about Father’s drug use. Father

argues that this out-of-court statement was offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted and was impermissible hearsay. Father insists the error was not 

harmless because the court raised concerns that Father was abusing drugs 

and alcohol as its rationale for concluding that Father could not presently keep 

Child safe. Father concludes the court erred in relying on impermissible 

hearsay evidence as the basis for adjudicating Child dependent. We disagree. 
J-A17031-23

- 9 -

“The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and 

such decisions will be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion.” 

Interest of I.R.-R., 208 A.3d 514, 519 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting In re 

Adoption of R.K.Y., 72 A.3d 669, 675 (Pa.Super. 2013)). “The Rules of 

Juvenile Court Procedure provide that in adjudications, each party shall have 

an opportunity to present evidence subject to the rules of evidence.” Id.

(citing Pa.R.J.C.P. 1406(C), cmt.)

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by a declarant, which a party 

seeks to offer into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the 

statement. Pa.R.E. 801(c). Generally, hearsay is not admissible except as 

provided by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, by other rules prescribed by 

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or by statute. Pa.R.E. 802. Nevertheless, 

“[a]n out-of-court statement is not hearsay when it is introduced purely for 

the purpose of establishing that the statement was made and not to establish 

its truth. Likewise, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is offered to 

explain a course of conduct or to reflect the declarant’s state of mind.” 

Interest of I.R.-R., supra. 

Here, counsel for Mother asked Ms. Abney if any concerns of substance 

abuse by Father were brought to her attention. Father’s counsel objected on 

the grounds that any response would be hearsay, and the court overruled the 

objection. The following exchange then took place:

Ms. Abney: ─so, yes, there were previous concerns that 

we discussed as a team, due to previous reports, but 
J-A17031-23

- 10 -

nothing─

[Father’s Counsel]: Objection: hearsay. 

Ms. Abney: ─nothing current.

The Court: Overruled.

[Father’s Counsel]: “Previous reports”

[Mother’s Counsel]: And you said nothing current?

Ms. Abney: (Unintelligible) like, right now. I know there 

was ─ they were supposed to take the drug test, but I 

believe, even in the last court, that was up to him, and I 

haven’t heard anything more since then. 

(N.T. Dependency Hearing, 11/10/22, at 29-30). The court determined that 

the statement was “not considered hearsay because it [was] within the 

personal knowledge of the DHS worker who initiated the investigation and 

[was] not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” (Trial Court Opinion 

at 10). Moreover, the court explained that its concerns over Father’s potential 

substance abuse did not stem from this statement but from the 

uncontroverted evidence of the circumstances surrounding Child’s birth and 

Father’s failure to present the results of a drug screen in light of those 

circumstances. (See id.). Thus, the court stated that even if it improperly 

admitted the reference to “prior reports” about Father’s drug use, any error 

was harmless. (Id.) We agree with the court that even if the evidentiary 

ruling was improper, any error was harmless. See Interest of K.P., Nos. 

1735 EDA 2021, 1736 EDA 2021 (Pa.Super. filed Apr. 5, 2022) (unpublished 
J-A17031-23

- 11 -

memorandum)1 (holding even if caseworker’s comment that mother tested 

positive for drugs on “more than one occasion” was improper hearsay 

testimony, error was clearly harmless where court did not rely on challenged 

evidence to reach its decision). 

In his fourth issue, Father argues the court had no authority to order 

him to submit to a drug test. Father contends the court erred in considering 

the fact that Father did not produce the results of a drug screen as a factor in 

determining adjudication because “nothing under the law would have required 

[Father]’s submission [to a drug test.]” (Father’s Brief at 15). Father 

concludes “that as a general proposition, refusal to [submit to a] drug screen

may not be considered as a basis for dependency” and accordingly, we should 

vacate the court’s adjudication of dependency. (Id. at 15). We disagree. 

Once a child is adjudicated dependent, a court may enter “orders of 

disposition best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental, and 

moral welfare of the child.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6351(a). The court shall include in 

its order “[a]ny orders as to any aids in disposition that may assist in the 

preparation of the dispositional hearing.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 1409(c). “[A]ids in 

disposition may include, but are not limited to, any services, investigations, 

evaluations, studies, treatment plans, and any other appropriate reports that 

may aid the court in making its determination at the dispositional hearing.” 

____________________________________________

1 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions of this 

Court filed after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).
J-A17031-23

- 12 -

Id., cmt.

Instantly, after the court adjudicated Child dependent, it established the 

permanency goal as “return to parent or guardian.” In furtherance of this 

goal, the court referred both parents to the CEU for a forthwith drug screen 

and three random drug screens, and to the ARC for parenting classes. These 

dispositional orders were made to facilitate a safe reunification of Child with 

parents and to assist the court with making decisions best suited to Child’s 

safety, protection, and welfare. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 1409(c). As such, we see no 

merit to Father’s argument that the court was without authority to order 

Father to submit to a drug screen after Child’s adjudication of dependency. 

Additionally, Father’s claim that the court could not consider his refusal 

to submit the results of a drug screen as a factor in its dependency 

determination is also without merit. Father relies on In Interest of DR, 216 

A.3d 286 (Pa.Super 2019) to support his assertion. In In Interest of DR, 

the Fayette County Children and Youth Services Agency (“CYS”) petitioned the 

court to order the father to submit to a drug test as a part of its investigation, 

prior to filing a dependency petition. This Court held that “in a CYS 

investigation conducted prior to a dependency adjudication—there is no 

legislative underpinning that authorizes the court to order the drug testing of 

a parent.” Id. at 296 (emphasis added). Here, DHS did not petition the court 

to order Father to submit to drug test nor did the court enter such an order 

prior to adjudicating Child dependent. Father was merely asked by DHS to 
J-A17031-23

- 13 -

voluntarily submit to a drug screen to eliminate concerns of drug use. Thus, 

Father’s reliance on In Interest of D.R. is misplaced. 

While the court considered Father’s refusal to submit the results of a 

drug test as part of the evidence presented before it, the court did not make 

its determination on this fact alone. Rather, the evidence shows that Father 

was living with Mother, who was visibly high when giving birth to Child. 

Testing revealed that Mother was under the influence of cocaine, opiates and 

marijuana at the time of Child’s birth and Child was exposed to amphetamines, 

benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, marijuana, cocaine, oxycodone and Percocet

in utero. Additionally, Ms. Ward testified that Father stated that he took a 

drug test but failed to present the results of such a drug test to DHS or the 

court to eliminate concerns of drug use, even though DHS stated that it would 

consider returning Child to Father’s care if he presented a negative drug 

screen. Under these circumstances, we see no merit to Father’s claim that 

the court was not permitted to consider this evidence. Such evidence was 

relevant to the court’s determination of whether Child was without parental 

care or control. Therefore, Father’s final issue merits no relief. Accordingly, 

we affirm the order adjudicating Child dependent. 

Order affirmed. 
J-A17031-23

- 14 -

Date: 11/7/2023