J-S69010-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.F., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.F., MOTHER

No. 1000 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-22-DP-0000059-2018

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 24, 2018

T.F. (Mother) appeals from the May 16, 2018 dispositional order that 

continued placement of C.F. (Child), born in May of 2005, in the care of 

Dauphin County Children and Youth Services (Agency). Following our review, 

we affirm.

This dependency matter arose out of an extended custody battle 

between Mother and M.F. (Father) that began in 2011.1 As to the present 

situation, the May 16, 2018 order, currently on appeal, provides for legal 

custody of Child to remain with the Agency, that Child remain in foster care, 

and that visitation with each parent is to be supervised by the Agency.2 The 

court also ordered parents to engage in individual as well as family therapy 

____________________________________________

1 An early custody order issued in 2012 provided for joint legal custody with 

Mother having primary physical custody and Father having partial physical 

custody. 

2 Previously, on March 28, 2018, the Agency had filed a dependency petition, 

and following an adjudicatory hearing held on April 3, 2018, the court 

determined that Child was a dependent child and legal and physical custody 

was placed with the Agency. Neither parent objected to the dependency 

order, nor was an appeal taken from the dependency order. 
J-S69010-18

- 2 -

and to create a custody schedule together through the family therapy 

sessions. Additionally, the court found that this disposition would be “best 

suited to the protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of [C]hild.” 

Order, 5/16/18, at 2. 

Mother filed a timely appeal and a statement of matters complained of 

on appeal. In her brief, Mother’s questions, which essentially mirror those set 

forth in her statement, are as follows:

[1.] Whether the court abused its discretion in removing the 

minor [C]hild from Mother’s home?

[2.] Whether the court abused its discretion in finding that 

remaining in the home is contrary to the welfare, safety, and 

health of [C]hild when Mother has not been found to be in any 

way a threat to [C]hild?

[3.] Whether the Agency and the court failed to make reasonable 

efforts to eliminate removal of [C]hild from the home prior to 

placement of [C]hild?

[4.] Whether lack of preventive services being offered to prevent 

[C]hild from emergency placement was unreasonable?

[5.] Whether reasonable efforts were not made to return [C]hild 

home after emergency placement was made?

Mother’s brief at 2.3

____________________________________________

3 We recognize that a large portion of Mother’s argument relating to her first 

issue involves her contention that her due process rights were violated. 

Nothing contained in her statement as to issue one even hints that she is 

claiming a due process violation. Nor does Mother indicate where in the record 

she raised this issue with the trial court. Therefore, we are compelled to 

conclude that this argument is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues 

not included in the [s]tatement ... are waived.”); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues 
J-S69010-18

- 3 -

Our scope and standard of review in dependency cases is as follows:

We must accept the facts as found by the trial court unless they 

are not supported by the record. Although bound by the facts, we 

are not bound by the trial court’s inferences, deductions, and 

conclusions therefrom; we must exercise our independent 

judgment in reviewing the court’s determination, as opposed to 

its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice 

dictate. We review for abuse of discretion. Our scope of review, 

accordingly, is of the broadest possible nature. It is this Court’s 

responsibility to ensure that the record represents a 

comprehensive inquiry and that the hearing judge has applied the 

appropriate legal principles to that record. Nevertheless, we 

accord great weight to the court’s fact-finding function because 

the court is in the best position to observe and rule on the 

credibility of the parties and witnesses. 

In the Interest of A.N., 39 A.3d 326, 330 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting In re 

C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348, 351 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted)). 

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the thorough, well-written 31-page opinion authored by 

the Honorable William T. Tully of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin 

County, dated August 3, 2018. We conclude that Judge Tully’s extensive 

opinion accurately disposes of the issues presented by Mother on appeal and 

we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge 

Tully’s opinion as our own and affirm the May 16, 2018 order on that basis.

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________

not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time 

on appeal.”). 
J-S69010-18

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/24/2018