J-S63002-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.G., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.G., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2120 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered July 8, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002511-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 08, 2020

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

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas that extended the dependency 

adjudication of J.G. (“Child”) and found Father was the perpetrator of child 

abuse against Child. We affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. 

Father and N.H. (“Mother”) are the natural parents of Child, born in August 

2017. On September 18, 2017, the Philadelphia Department of Human 

Services (“DHS”) filed a dependency petition for Child based on a lack of 

parental care and supervision. The court adjudicated Child dependent on 

September 26, 2017, but permitted Child to remain at home with Father and 

Mother. A few months later, on December 20, 2017, Child was admitted to 

St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children based on his pediatrician’s concerns 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S63002-19

- 2 -

regarding Child’s failure to thrive. At four months old, Child was severely 

underweight and malnourished. Child was also dirty and had multiple rib 

fractures in various stages of healing. Due to Child’s condition, the hospital 

referred Child to DHS. 

On December 27, 2017, DHS filed an application for an order of 

protective custody of Child, which the court subsequently granted. Following 

a shelter care hearing on December 28, 2017, the court placed Child in foster 

care upon his release from the hospital. DHS filed a second dependency 

petition on January 18, 2018, requesting a finding of abuse against Father and 

Mother. Following hearings on April 2, 2019, and July 8, 2019, the court 

entered an order extending the dependency adjudication of Child and finding 

Father and Mother had committed child abuse against Child. On July 25, 2019, 

Father filed a timely notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.1 

Father raises the following issues for our review:

DID THE TRIAL JUDGE RULE IN ERROR THAT THE 

PHILADELPHIA CITY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE [MET] ITS 

BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THERE SHOULD BE A FINDING OF 

CHILD ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES 

ACT, 23 PA.C.S. SEC. 6303[?]

DID THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE ERR IN ALLOWING FATHER’S 

CRIMINAL DOCKET AND CRIMINAL COURT SUMMARY IN AS 

PART OF THE CHILD ABUSE HEARING[?]

____________________________________________

1 Mother filed a separate appeal from the order, which is docketed at No. 2119 

EDA 2019 (J-S63001-19). 
J-S63002-19

- 3 -

(Father’s Brief at 2).2 

Our standard of review from an adjudication of dependency:

[R]equires 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) (internal citation omitted). In 

other words: “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.” In 

re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 618 (Pa.Super. 2002) (en banc). 

During the course of dependency proceedings, a trial court may find a 

parent to be the perpetrator of child abuse as defined under the Child 

____________________________________________

2 Concerning his second issue, Father’s appellate brief contains only a singleparagraph argument with no citations to any supporting legal authority. 

Father’s failure to develop his issue on appeal compels waiver. See Lackner 

v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining arguments must adhere 

to rules of appellate procedure and arguments which are not appropriately 

developed are waived; arguments not appropriately developed include those 

where party has failed to cite relevant authority to support contention); 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Moreover, even if properly preserved, Father’s claim would 

merit no relief for the reasons stated in the trial court’s opinion. (See Trial 

Court Opinion, filed August 28, 2019, at 5) (finding: testimony indicated 

Father was with Child often because he was under house arrest; Father’s 

criminal summary was also relevant to show if Father was incarcerated in 

December 2017, which could have negated finding of child abuse against 

Father; Father showed no prejudice from admission of criminal summary). 
J-S63002-19

- 4 -

Protective Services Law (“CPSL”). In Interest of J.M., 166 A.3d 408, 421-

22 (Pa.Super. 2017). The “CPSL does not create or include a separate action 

for child abuse, and, under the Juvenile Act, a finding of abuse can only be 

made as part of a dependency proceeding in which abuse is alleged.” In 

Interest of R.T., 592 A.2d 55, 59 (Pa.Super. 1991). See also 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 6370(b)(2)(i) (stating that if county agency deems it appropriate in 

dependency or delinquency proceeding, including instance in which alleged 

perpetrator has access or poses threat to child, county agency may petition 

court for finding of child abuse). 

The CPSL defines “child abuse,” in relevant part, as follows:

§ 6303. Definitions

(b.1) Child abuse.—The term “child abuse” shall mean 

intentionally, knowingly or recklessly doing any of the 

following:

(1) Causing bodily injury to a child through any 

recent act or failure to act. 

* * *

(5) Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily 

injury to a child through any recent act or failure 

to act. 

* * *

(7) Causing serious physical neglect of a child. 

* * *

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(1),(5),(7). “Bodily injury” is defined as

“[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 
J-S63002-19

- 5 -

6303(a). “Serious physical neglect” is defined as, inter alia, “[t]he failure to 

provide a child with adequate essentials of life, including food, shelter, or 

medical care” which “endangers a child’s life or health, threatens a child’s wellbeing, causes bodily injury or impairs a child’s health, development, or 

functioning.” Id. The existence of “child abuse” pursuant to Section 

6303(b.1) must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re L.Z., 631

Pa. 343, 361, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015). Under certain circumstance, 

however, the identity of an abuser may be established by prima facie

evidence. Id. See also In re L.V., 127 A.3d 831, 837-38 (Pa.Super. 2015). 

[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...agency and 

the rebuttal of the parent or responsible person. 

In re L.Z., supra at 379, 111 A.3d at 1185 (internal footnote omitted). 

Significantly, courts do not require a parent’s physical presence during 

the injury for “abuse” to occur. Id. at 377, 111 A.3d at 1184. To the contrary, 

our Supreme Court has stated, “parents are always responsible for their 

children, absent extenuating circumstances....” Id. Moreover, “[t]he inclusion 

of ‘omissions’ encompasses situations where the parent or responsible person 
J-S63002-19

- 6 -

is not present at the time of the injury but is nonetheless responsible due to

his...failure to provide protection for the child.” Id. 

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Vincent 

Furlong, we conclude Father’s remaining issue merits no relief. The trial court 

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. 

(See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 28, 2019, at 3-5) (finding: Dr. Marita 

Lind, Director of Child Protection Program at St. Christopher’s Hospital and 

expert in child abuse, testified that Child was underweight because Child was 

not being fed properly; Dr. Lind additionally testified that there were no 

medical explanations for Child’s fractured ribs other than compression, 

squeezing, or direct blows to Child’s body; Mother admitted to DHS 

representative that she had “trouble” mixing Child’s formula; neither parent 

offered explanation for Child’s fractured ribs; court found credible testimony 

of child abuse expert and DHS representatives; Father spent extended periods 

of time with Child and should have known how to feed Child properly; Father 

also should have noticed Child’s obvious discomfort from fractured ribs; 

furthermore, Child recovered after placement in foster care; evidence was 

sufficient to show Father was perpetrator of abuse based on his acts or 

omissions). The record supports the court’s decision; therefore, we see no 

reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion. 

Order affirmed. 
J-S63002-19

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/8/20
Circulated 12/23/2019 01:33 PM

·, 

THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

J.G, a Minor 

D.O.B. 0�/ 7-.Dt+ 

Appellant J.G., Father 

FAMILY COURT DIVSIO�""° ";•1 CP-51-DP-0002511-2017 � �- �·· ... · 

FID # 51-FN-001198-20:ttS � ; :\ 

2119 EDA 2019 i �

C; -n 

-; :J: 

OPINION 

:..'C 

- .. 

N 

N 

PROCEDURAL IDSTORY 

On April 2, 2019 and July 8, 2019, the trial court held hearings to determine 

if Father was a perpetrator of child abuse as to Child J. Gt. ("Child"). Father was 

present at the hearing and represented by counsel. After extensive testimony, the 

court made a finding of child abuse versus Father. A Notice of Appeal was filed by 

Father on July 25, 2019. 

STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL 

Father's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal is set forth below 

in verbatim: 

1. The Judge ruled in error that the Philadelphia City Solicitor's Office met 

its burden of proof to prove that he was a perpetrator of child abuse 

under 23 Pa.C.S. §6303. The burden in a child abuse hearing is clear 

and convincing. At the hearing the City and DHS did not put on enough 

evidence to meet its burden of proof that Father should be considered a 

perpetrator of child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. §6303. 

2. The Judge ruled in error by allowing Father's criminal docket and 

summary in as evidence as part of the child abuse hearing. The evidence 

was not relevant. If there was any relevance the prejudicial effects 

greatly outweighed the relevance. Father's criminal record had nothing 

to do with the child abuse allegations. 

Page 1 of 7 
FINDINGS OF FACT 

On December '24, 2017, following an examination by his pediatrician, Child 

was referred to St. Christopher's Hospital for Children and a subsequent report was 

made to the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") based on 

observations of Child's failure to thrive. Child was also foul smelling and dirty. 

(Statement of Narrative-DBS Exhibit 6). DHS issued a Child Protective Services 

("CPS") Report which indicated that Mother was not properly mixing Child's 

formula causing the Child to be severely underweight and malnourished. Upon 

further medical examination, it was determined that Child had multiple fractured 

ribs. Based upon these findings, Child was hospitalized for several of weeks during 

which time Child gained significant weight and Child's fractures healed. Child was 

placed in a foster care home and since placement has never incurred a fractured 

bone and is well nourished and thriving. Neither Mother nor Father offered a 

satisfactory explanation for Child's fractured ribs or why Child was severely 

underweight. After extensive testimony, the court made a finding of child abuse 

versus Father on July 8, 2019. A Notice of Appeal was filed by Father on July 25, 

2019. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS 

In order for the court to determine if a parent is a perpetrator of child 

abuse pursuant to the Child Protective Services Law ("CPSL"), DRS, as the 

moving party, must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the 

statute is satisfied. Since proof of child abuse is often circumstantial, the 

CPSL permits evidence that would normally be barred under the Juvenile 

Page 2 of 7 
Act. Evidence that a child has suffered abuse of such a nature as would 

ordinarily not be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions 

of the parents

1• 

I. The trial court did not commit reversible error when it 

made a finding of child abuse against Father 

During the hearing on April 2, 2019, the trial court heard testimony 

from Dr. Marita Lind, the Director of the Child Protection Program at St. 

Christopher's Hospital for Children in Philadelphia and an expert in child 

abuse. (N.T. April 2, 2019 Page 7). Dr. Lind concluded that the Child was 

underweight due to the Child not being properly fed. This appeared unusual 

to Dr. Lind since this was Mother's fifth child. (N.T. April 2, 2019 Pages 30- 

32). Dr. Lind indicated that there was probably no other medical cause for 

Child being underweight and noted ( 1) Child's weight increased dramatically 

1 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6381 General rule. --In addition to the rules of evidence provided under 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 63 

(relating to juvenile matters), the rules of evidence in this section shall govern in child abuse proceedings in court or 

in any department administrative hearing pursuant to section 6341 (relating to amendment or expunction of 

information). 

(b) Reports of unavailable persons. -Whenever a person required to report under this chapter is unavailable due to 

death or removal from the jurisdiction of the court, the written report ofthat person shall be admissible in evidence 

in any proceedings arising out of child abuse other than proceedings wider Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses). 

Any hearsay contained in the reports shall be given such weight, if any, as the court determines to be appropriate 

under all of the circumstances. However, any hearsay contained in a written report shall not of itself be sufficient to 

support an adjudication based on abuse. 

(c) Privileged communications.-Except for privileged communications between a lawyer and a client and between 

a minister and a penitent, a privilege of confidential communication between husband and wife or between any 

professional person, including, but not limited to, physicians, psychologists, counselors, employees ofhospitals, 

clinics, day-care centers and schools and their patients or clients, shall not constitute grounds for excluding evidence 

at any proceeding regarding child abuse or the cause of child abuse. 

( 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. 

(e) Child victims and witnesses. --In addition to the provisions of this section, any consideration afforded to a child 

victim or witness pursuant to 42 Ph.C.'s. Ch. 59 Such. D (relating to child victims and witnesses) 1 in any 

prosecution or adjudication shall be afforded to a child in child abuse proceedings in court or in any department 

administrative hearing pursuant to section 6341. 

Page 3 of 7 
as result of proper feeding; (2) there was no indication that the Child was born 

unhealthy; and (3) the Child had adequate calcium and Vitamin D levels and 

had no symptoms of acid reflux. (N.T. April 2, 2019 Pages 16-21). Dr. Lind 

also indicated that the Child's bone density was normal. (N.T. April 2, 2019 

Page 36). Additionally, there was no medical explanation for the Child's 

fractured ribs other than compression, squeezing or direct blows to the 

Child's body. (N.T. April 2, 2019 Pages 28-29). Dr. Lind testified that she 

expected that someone familiar with the Child would have noticed the Child 

experienced discomfort from the rib fractures because Dr. Lind noticed the 

Child's discomfort during her initial examination of the Child. 

During the hearing on July 8, 2019, Ms. Amanda Aquila, a DHS 

Representative, testified that she interviewed Mother who indicated that she 

was having trouble mixing the Child's formula and that she and Father were 

providing care proper care for the Child. (N.T. July 8, 2019 Page 13-14). Ms. 

Aquila also testified that she interviewed Father and he was not cooperative 

during the interview. Ms. Aquila indicated during her testimony that Father 

was with the Child for extended periods of time because he was under house 

arrest for a criminal matter. Both parents indicated that other family members 

also took care of the Child. The Parents, however, could offer no explanation 

for the Child's fractured ribs. MS. Aquila testified that she believed that it 

happened during a period oftime when Mother and Father and possibly other 

family members had access to the Child. Mr. Francis James, a DHS 

Page 4 of 7 
Representative, testified that Child experienced no fractured bones after 

being placed in foster care. 

The testimony of Dr. Lind and Ms. Aquila and Mr. James was 

accorded great weight by the trial court. Special deference was given to Dr. 

Lind's conclusion that the rib fractures were not accidental and that Child's 

weight gain was immediate and significant upon being properly fed. Father 

was a caregiver who spent entire days with the Child, who should have 

properly fed the Child and noticed the Child's discomfort from his fractured 

ribs. 

Counsel for Father alleges that the introduction of the Father's 

criminal record and conviction was not relevant. Testimony indicated Father 

spent time with Child because he was under house arrest for a criminal matter. 

Moreover, the trial court also wanted to determine if the Father was in 

custody in December 2017, which would have actually become evidence 

tending to negate the charge of child abuse as to Father. Furthermore, this 

was not a jury trial and Counsel for the Father has offered no evidence that 

the trial court's ability to reason the facts and laws applicable to this case was 

prejudiced by the introduction of Father's criminal history. Although no 

person ever admitted to striking the Child or depriving the Child of food, the 

Child's fractured ribs, poor health and poor hygiene and immediate recovery 

when placed in foster care were indications of child abuse based upon both 

Parents' acts or omissions. 

Page 5 of 7 
. . 

. CONCLUSION 

After review of the testimony and supporting documentation, the trial 

court finds it determined correctly that there be a finding of child abuse versus 

Father. For the foregoing reasons, this court requests that the July 8, 2019 

Order be AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT 

Page 6 of 7 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above-captioned 

Opinion was filed on the undersigned date in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Philadelphia County Family Court Division and served by first class mail 

upon the following: 

Paul McLaughlin, Esquire 

Philadelphia Law Department 

One Parkway 

1515 Arch Street-16

111. Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Attorney for DBS 

Mary Beth Cherniak, Esquire 

P.O. Box 6972 

Wyomissing, PA 19610 

Ruth Mabel Brice, Esquire 

1800 JFK Blvd Suite 300 

Philadelphia, PA 

Jeffrey C. Bruch, Esquire 

1515 Market Street Suite 1200 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Page 7 of 7