J-A10032-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.L., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: BRADFORD COUNTY 

CHILDREN & YOUTH SERVICES

No. 1824 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order entered September 29, 2014, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Braford County, Juvenile 

Division, at No(s): CP-08-DP-0000006-2014

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, and JENKINS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED AUGUST 10, 2015

Appellant, Bradford County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”), 

appeals from the trial court’s order entered on September 29, 2014, 

adopting the Master’s Recommendation finding that J.L. (“Mother”) did not

emotionally abuse B.L. (“Child”), and that aggravated circumstances against 

Mother did not exist.

1

 This finding followed a request by CYS at a 

September 24, 2014 permanency review hearing that the Master find Mother 

emotionally abused Child. We reverse and remand, with instructions.

On April 20, 2014, CYS received a report that Child, who was born in 

August, 2008, had been locked in his bedroom for three days, and was 

permitted out of his bedroom only to eat. The reporter informed CYS the 

room was bare except for a potty chair. CYS contacted the police 

department. When police officers arrived at the residence, Child was locked 

 

1 B.G., Child’s father (“Father”), was incarcerated at the time of the incident 

and remains incarcerated. Father is not a party to this appeal. 
J-A10032-15

- 2 -

inside the bedroom. Child’s bed was inside the closet, and the bed was 

soaked in urine. The officers found feces on Child’s bedroom floor and on 

the wall. 

On April 20, 2014, CYS filed an amended dependency petition2and, 

that same day, the trial court issued an emergency order temporarily placing 

Child in the protective custody of CYS. Emergency Order, 4/2-/2014. On 

April 23, 2014, following a shelter care hearing, the trial court ordered CYS 

to obtain custody of Child, and Child was placed in foster care. 

Mother testified at a May 22, 2014 adjudicatory hearing. Mother 

admitted Child was locked in the bedroom at night and several times during 

the day. Mother regularly left Child home with Mother’s girlfriend, A.W., 

whom Child feared. On May 22, 2014, Child was adjudicated dependent. 

The dependency order allowed Mother to have supervised visits with Child, 

but A.W. was not allowed to have contact with Child.

Following a June 26, 2014 dispositional hearing, the Master filed a 

Recommendation, which the trial court adopted on July 1, 2014 and which 

included the following findings: 

 

2 On February 10, 2014, CYS filed a dependency petition alleging Child was 

without proper care or control and alleging he remained in the home but was 

in imminent risk of placement in foster care absent preventive services. The 

petition filed by CYS followed a report that Child had unexplained injuries 

inconsistent with Child’s report of such injuries. The petition requested 

access to Child at school and home to assess Child’s safety. That same day, 

the trial court issued an order granting CYS access to Child to view the 

injuries and interview Child.
J-A10032-15

- 3 -

1. The report of Richard E. Dowell, Jr., Ph.D., clinical 

neuropsychologist, finds [Child] suffers from post 

traumatic stress disorder arising from the environment in 

which Mother has raised [Child]. 

2. The Child has extreme behavioral issues that have 

resulted in his having to repeat Kindergarten and his 

having an inability to interact appropriately with others.

Master’s Recommendation for Disposition, 6/26/2014, at 2; Order, 

7/1/2014.

On September 24, 2014, the Master held a permanency hearing. At 

the permanency hearing, Samantha Group, a foster care coordinator; G.K., 

Child’s foster mother (“Foster Mother”); and Nicole Pidcoe, a CYS 

caseworker, testified. At the hearing, CYS presented the written report of 

Richard E. Dowell, Jr., Ph.D., a clinical neuropsychologist. Dr. Dowell opined 

that Child suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). The trial 

court quoted the following portions of Dr. Dowell’s report:

According to available records/reports, 

[C]hild’s history is remarkable for the presence of 

multiple home environment risk factors including 

parental separation, paternal absences, reports of 

residing with multiple sexual perpetrators including 

biological father, paternal arrests/incarcerations 

(multiple), inconsistencies, unpredictability, foster 

care placement, multiple caretakers, possible abuse, 

neglect and deprivation. Biological (family history) 

risk factors are not clear, but likely include significant 

mental health issues. No child medical or biological 

risk factors were identified. Symptom onset was 

described as being gradual during early childhood 

with interval history being characterized by a trend 

for worsening of problems as a function of 

environmental demands.
J-A10032-15

- 4 -

Under the heading "FAMILY HISTORY,” Dr. Dowell included 

the following:

According to parental reports, family history is 

remarkable for significant problems/conditions 

including problems with aggression, attentional 

problems, learning disability, depression, anxiety or 

adjustment problems, alcohol abuse, substance 

abuse, antisocial behavior, arrests/incarceration, 

physical abuse (victim), sexual abuse (victim) and 

sexual abuse (perpetrator).

The Dowell report also included the following under 

"PSYCHOSOCIAL HISTORY”:

According to parental reports, the home 

environment throughout infancy, early childhood is 

remarkable for the presence of multiple home 

environment risk factors including parental 

separation, paternal absences, reports of residing 

with multiple sexual perpetrators including biological 

father, paternal arrests/ incarcerations (multiple), 

inconsistencies, unpredictability, foster care 

placement, multiple caretakers, possible abuse, 

neglect and deprivation. Recent social history has 

been remarkable for significant problems including 

sibling rivalry, aggression, argumentativeness, 

having few friends and difficulties making friends.

Dr. Dowell’s neuropsychological test results and 

interpretation yielded the following conclusions:

While no specific etiology can be identified 

based solely on this profile, children with similar 

presentations commonly have histories of exposure 

to significant home environment stressors (i.e., 

abuse, neglect, deprivation, exposure to domestic 

violence, multiple moves, inconsistencies, placement 

outside the home, etc.) or limited support (i.e., 

parental arrests/ incarcerations, limited parental 

support for education, parental egocentricity, etc.).

Dr. Dowell further opines:
J-A10032-15

- 5 -

This discrepancy between abilities and skills is 

common among children with histories of neglect, 

deprivation, limited parental supervision and/or 

elevated distress levels secondary to multiple 

caretakers, inconsistencies, abuse or unpredictable 

conditions.

The Dowell Report continues:

The validity scale profile of the PIC-R is 

remarkable for an open and honest response style 

with evidence of significant parental distress (T = 

98). In contrast, parental report on the Family 

Relations (T = 67) scale is suggestive of a relatively 

predictable and stable current home environment. 

The observed discrepancy between home 

environment (low) and parental (high) distress levels 

is atypical and, when present, tends to be associated 

with parental feelings of being overwhelmed by the 

demands of parenting this child and/or parental 

requirements to compensate for child weaknesses 

particularly with respect to higher level executive 

functions or coping resources. Findings imply that 

parent education, training and/or support to assist 

the family in implementing intervention programs or 

plans may be of benefit in assisting them in 

generalizing their understanding of intervention 

strategies into the real world setting. Parents with 

similar presentations also often receive community 

or home-based therapies.

Dr. Dowell concludes:

The child P1C-R profile is remarkable for 

clinically significant elevation on an overall measure 

of adjustment (Adj T = 114). This level of child 

distress is about 6.4 standard deviations above the 

norm. Children with similar distress levels typically 

display elevated limbic system-driven “fight or flight” 

distress responses for which they perceive very 

limited control. As noted above, no specific 

biological/neurological etiologies are identified on 

testing. Therefore, an environmental explanation or 
J-A10032-15

- 6 -

etiology appears likely. This presentation is 

consistent with a [PTSD]. 

Comparison of Externalizing (average T 96) vs. 

Internalizing (average T = 98) coping resources 

reveals balance. This balanced coping style is 

generally associated with low levels of distress. The 

coincidence of high levels of distress despite 

balanced coping resources is atypical and, when 

present, is almost universally associated with a 

history of victimization or exposure to life stressors 

for which the child has control.

Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 11/10/14, at 1-3. 

At the hearing, CYS requested that the Master find that Mother 

committed emotional abuse of Child. N.T., 9/24/2014, at 25-26.3 Following 

the hearing, the Master recommended that:

[B]ased upon Dr. Dowell’s report it [cannot] be found by 

clear and convincing evidence that Mother perpetrated 

emotional abuse [of Child]. It is only clear someone or 

some combination of persons within that environment 

committed the abuse. The actor may have been a third 

party or parties. Mother clearly neglected to protect this 

[C]hild from this environment, but [cannot] be found to 

have actually perpetrated the abuse. The Master finds that 

based upon this record the requested finding [cannot] be 

made applying the applicable burden of proof to the facts.

Master’s Recommendation – Permanency Review, 9/24/2014, at 1-2.4 On 

September 29, 2014, the trial court adopted the Master’s Recommendation 

in an order.

 

3

It appears CYS made a similar request at a prior hearing. N.T., 9/24/2014, 

at 25-26. At that time, the trial court withheld judgment. Id. at 26. The 

certified record does not contain the notes of testimony from the prior 

hearing.
J-A10032-15

- 7 -

On October 24, 2014, CYS filed a timely notice of appeal from the 

order, along with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). CYS raises the following issues 

on appeal:

1. Did the lower court err in failing to find that [M]other’s failure 

to protect [Child] caused non-accidental serious mental injury 

to [Child]?

2. Did [CYS] fail to properly preserve this matter for appeal?

CYS’s Brief at 6.

We will address CYS’s second issue first, as it questions whether CYS 

has waived its first claim. The trial court maintained that CYS waived any 

challenge to the Master’s Recommendation because it failed to file a 

challenge to the Recommendation within three days of receipt of the 

recommendation. See Pa. R.J.C.P. 1191 (“A party may challenge the 

master’s recommendation by filing a motion with the clerk of courts within 

three days of receipt of the recommendation”). The Master did not make a 

finding regarding whether Mother perpetrated emotional abuse at the 

hearing, N.T., 9/24/2014, at 25-27, and the trial court docket indicates the 

Recommendation, which was dated September 24, 2014, was not entered on 

the docket until September 29, 2014. Further, the docket does not contain 

any notation that the Recommendation was served on CYS. Because the 

 

4 The Master further recommended, inter alia, that the court find that Child 

continues to be dependent, legal and physical custody of Child continue to 

be with CYS, and Child’s foster-care placement shall continue. 
J-A10032-15

- 8 -

court did not serve CYS with a copy of the Master’s Recommendation, CYS 

did not waive its issues for failure to file a challenge.5 In re L.M., 923 A.2d 

505, 509 (Pa.Super.2007) (“Where there is no indication on the docket that 

Rule 236(b) notice has been given, then the appeal period has not started to 

run.”).

CYS challenges the Master’s recommendation, adopted by the trial 

court, which found CYS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence 

Mother abused Child. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently set forth 

our standard of review in a dependency case as follows.

“The standard of review in dependency cases requires an 

appellate court to accept 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 

lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law.” In re R.J.T., 

608 Pa. 9, [27], 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). We review for 

abuse of discretion[.]

 

In Interest of: L.Z., A Minor Child, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015).

Section 6341 of the Juvenile Act governs dependency hearings and 

provides:

(c) Finding of dependency.--If the court finds from clear 

and convincing evidence that the child is dependent, the 

court shall proceed immediately or at a postponed hearing, 

which shall occur not later than 20 days after adjudication 

if the child has been removed from his home, to make a 

proper disposition of the case.

 

5 Because CYS was not served with the Master’s Report, we need not 

determine whether CYS would have waived its issue for failure to challenge 

the report. 
J-A10032-15

- 9 -

(c.1) Aggravated circumstances.--If the county agency 

or the child’s attorney alleges the existence of aggravated 

circumstances and the court determines that the child is 

dependent, the court shall also determine if aggravated 

circumstances exist. If the court finds from clear and 

convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist, 

the court shall determine whether or not reasonable efforts 

to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child 

from the home or to preserve and reunify the family shall 

be made or continue to be made and schedule a hearing as 

required in section 6351(e)(3) (relating to disposition of 

dependent child).

42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(c)-(c.1).

Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a “dependent child” as:

[a] child who:

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

education as required by law, or other care or control necessary 

for his 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[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. The Juvenile Act’s definition of “Aggravated 

circumstances” includes:

(2) The child or another child of the parent has been the victim 

of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, sexual 

violence or aggravated physical neglect by the parent.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. The Juvenile Act, in turn, defines “aggravated physical 

neglect” as, “[a]ny omission in the care of a child which results in a lifethreatening condition or seriously impairs the child’s functioning.” Id. 

Further, “[t]he Juvenile Act must be applied together with the Child 

Protective Services law in resolution of child abuse complaints.” In re R.P., 
J-A10032-15

- 10 -

957 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Super.2008). In September of 2014, Section 6303(b) of 

the Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”), provided that “child abuse” shall 

mean any of the following:

(i) Any recent act or failure to act by a perpetrator which causes 

nonaccidental serious physical injury to a child under 18 years of 

age.

(ii) An act or failure to act by a perpetrator which causes 

nonaccidental serious mental injury to or sexual abuse or sexual 

exploitation of a child under 18 years of age.

(iii) Any recent act, failure to act or series of such acts or failures 

to act by a perpetrator which creates an imminent risk of serious 

physical injury to or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a 

child under 18 years of age.

(iv) Serious physical neglect by a perpetrator constituting 

prolonged or repeated lack of supervision or the failure to 

provide essentials of life, including adequate medical care, which 

endangers a child’s life or development or impairs the child’s 

functioning. 

 

23 Pa.C.S. § 6303. The CPSL was amended, effective December 31, 2014, 

to broaden the term “child abuse,” as explained in In Interest of: L.Z., 111 

A.3d at 1168 n.3. 

The identity of the perpetrator(s) of abuse may be established by 

prima facie evidence that the abuse normally would not have occurred 

except by reason of acts or omissions of the caregivers. Section 6381 of the 

CPSL provides a presumption of abuse as follows:

6381. Evidence in court proceedings.

(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 
J-A10032-15

- 11 -

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. § 6381(d).

In In Interest of: L.Z., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated

[e]vidence that a child suffered injury that would not 

ordinarily be sustained but for the acts or omissions of the 

parent or responsible person is sufficient to establish that 

the parent or responsible person perpetrated that abuse 

unless the parent or responsible person rebuts the 

presumption. The parent or responsible person may 

present evidence demonstrating that they 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 the CYS agency and the rebuttal of the 

parent or responsible person.

In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1185. 

CYS argues that the trial court should have found that Child was the 

victim of child abuse by Mother for her failure to protect Child and that 

aggravating circumstances exist. CYS’s Brief at 11-14. CYS contends that 

Mother’s omission caused Child a nonaccidental serious mental injury, PTSD. 

Id. The Master’s recommendation stated:

[i]t cannot be found by clear and convincing evidence that 

Mother perpetrated the abuse of [C]hild. It is only clear 

someone or some combination of person within that environment 

committed the abuse. The actor may have been a third party or 

parties. Mother clearly neglected to protect [C]hild from this 

environment, but cannot be found to have actually perpetrated 

the abuse. 
J-A10032-15

- 12 -

Master’s Recommendation, 9/24/15, at 2-3. The trial court, in adopting the 

Master’s Recommendation, found, “in the absence of a specific etiology 

attributable directly to Mother, the Master cannot find an omission in care 

that results in serious impairment of [Child]’s functioning.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 11/10/14, at 5. 

The Master found “someone or some combination of person within 

[Child’s] environment committed the abuse” and Mother failed to protect 

Child from an abusive environment, but the Master failed to apply the 

presumption or to explain why the presumption would not apply. Based on 

our Supreme Court’s instructions in In Interest of: L.Z. regarding the 

proper application of the presumption set forth in section 6381(d) of the 

CPSL, we find that the trial court erred. We direct the trial court to address 

the section 6381(d) presumption as it applies to Mother. 

The trial court must also address the issue of whether the PTSD that 

Dr. Dowell diagnosed is nonaccidental serious mental injury. Further, on 

remand, the trial court must consider whether Child’s PTSD seriously impairs 

Child’s functioning as to be aggravated physical neglect pursuant to section 

6302 of the Juvenile Act, and, if so, make a finding that aggravated 

circumstances exist as to Mother. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand 

for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum.
J-A10032-15

- 13 -

Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/10/2015