J-A10005-18  

___________________________________ 

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37  

IN THE INTEREST OF: Q.F.-H., A MINOR 

APPEAL OF: P.F.-H., MOTHER 

: : 

: : 

: : 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF            PENNSYLVANIA 

No. 3464 EDA 2017 

Appeal from the Order Entered September 22, 2017 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County  Family Court at No(s):  CP-51-DP-0002047-2017,  

FID: 51-FN-001874-2017  

BEFORE:  GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2018 

 Appellant, P.F.-H. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which adjudicated Q.F.-H. 

(“Child”) dependent.  We affirm. 

 In its opinion, the Family court fully and correctly set forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case.  Therefore, we have no reason to 

restate them.   

 Mother raises the following issue for our review: 

WHETHER THE [FAMILY] COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION 

AND ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN RELYING ON THE 23 PA.C.S.A. § 6381(D) PRESUMPTION TO FIND ABUSE AS TO 

MOTHER WHERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED A FINDING THAT THE PRESUMPTION HAD BEEN REBUTTED?[1] 

____________________________________________ 

1 To the extent Mother argues on appeal that the court effectively prohibited her from testifying during the dependency hearing, her argument is waived 

because Mother failed to include it in her Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) statement.  See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating generally that 

J-A10005-18 

- 2 - 

 (Mother’s Brief at 6). 

[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an 

appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the [Family] court if they are supported 

by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the [Family] 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, 9 A.3d 1179, 1990 (2010)).   

 After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daine Grey, 

Jr., we conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief.  The Family court’s opinion 

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.  

(See Family Court Opinion, filed December 1, 2017, at 7-11) (finding: at 

dependency hearing, Dr. Bennet testified that Child could not generate enough 

force during his daily activities to cause his injuries, thus Child’s injuries were 

inconsistent with accidental trauma; Dr. Bennet testified that three linear 

bruises on Child’s stomach were consistent with child abuse because small 

children should not bruise on their stomach; skeletal survey showed many of 

Child’s injuries, which indicated severity and non-accidental nature of injuries; 

several physicians at hospital ruled out any type of medical condition as cause 

____________________________________________ 

issues not raised in Rule 1925 statement will be deemed waived for appellate 

review).  Moreover, the record makes clear the court appointed Fifth Amendment counsel out of an abundance of caution for Mother before she 

made her decision not to testify.   

J-A10005-18 

- 3 - 

of Child’s injuries; court found Dr. Bennet’s testimony credible; court found 

Mother’s lack of plausible explanation for Child’s injuries suspicious; clear and 

convincing evidence supported court’s finding of child abuse; Mother and 

Father were Child’s only caregivers at time of Child’s injuries; hematoma on 

Child’s left leg and linear bruises on Child’s stomach could not have been 

sustained absent abuse by parents; prima facie evidence established 

presumption that Mother perpetrated abuse; even if Mother did not physically 

inflict injuries, she committed abuse by omission; Mother failed to rebut 

presumption of abuse by presenting evidence to establish Child was not in her 

care when injuries occurred or that she had no reason to believe Child would 

be unsafe in Father’s care; court properly adjudicated Child dependent after 

it found Mother perpetrated child abuse).2  Accordingly, we affirm on the basis 

of the Family court’s opinion.   

 Order affirmed.   

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/21/18 

____________________________________________ 

2 Mother included in her reproduced record three documents, which are not 

contained in the certified record on appeal.  This Court will only consider documents which have been duly certified in the record on appeal.  Pa.R.A.P. 

1921.   

J-A10005-18 

- 4 - 

Circulated 06/06/2018 10:49 AM 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

IN RE: Q.F.-H., a Minor 

APPEAL OF: P.F.-H., Mother 

DAINE GREY JR., J. 

OPINION 

SUPERIOR COURT 3464 EDA 2017 

13 

0 -:7 

c rr .70 C-") 111 

1 0 ,":7 m 

COURT OF COMMON PLASH? -r- 

CP-51-DP-0002047-2017 -7 671 

FID: 51 -FN -001874-201Z 

DATE: December 1, 2017 

P.F.-H. ("Mother") appeals this Court's order entered on September 22, 2017 

adjudicating her child, Q.F.-H. (the "Child"), dependent based on present inability and finding 

child abuse as to Mother.' Jordan M. Rand and Stephanie Stecklair, counsel for Mother, filed a 

timely Children's Fast Track Appeal from the September 22, 2017 order, with attached Concise 

Statement of Errors, Affidavit of Service, and other related documents necessary to perfect this 

appeal. 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTS 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows: The Child was born 

on December , 2016. (Trial Court Order 9/22/17 at 1). On July 29, 2017, Mother and C.T. 

("Father") brought the Child to the emergency department of the Children's Hospital of 

Based on the testimony that both parents were the primary custodians of the Child at the time the Child's injuries were discovered, this Court found that Father was also a perpetrator of child abuse. Father, however, is not a party to this appeal. 

1