J. A04015/16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR :

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: N.M., MOTHER :

: No. 864 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Order Entered April 15, 2015, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County 

Civil Division at No. CP-62-DP-007 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., AND SHOGAN, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 24, 2016 

 N.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered April 15, 2015, in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, Civil Division, subsequent to the 

petition of Warren County Children and Youth Services (“Warren County 

CYS,” or “CYS”), adjudicating S.W. (“Child”), born in March of 2000, 

dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302, and removing Child from 

Mother’s home. After review, we affirm. 

 The factual history was summarized, in part, by the trial court as 

follows: 

[S.W.] is a 15-year-old child who has resided in her 

mother’s home her entire lifetime except for periods 

of hospitalization. Her father was identified by the 

mother as [K.M.], a resident of North Carolina whom

the mother believes died shortly after [S.W.]’s birth. 

The mother has moved repeatedly during [S.W.]’s 

lifetime having resided in North Carolina as well as 

other parts of Pennsylvania before residing in Warren 

County. [S.W.] suffers from a genetic, lifetime 

disorder that has resulted in global developmental 
J. A04015/16 

- 2 - 

delays, intellectual impairment, limited language 

development, limited motor skills, extremely short 

stature and low body weight and microcephaly. The 

condition was generally diagnosed as lactic acidosis 

and has resulted in a number of emergency 

hospitalizations. Most recently, [S.W.] was 

diagnosed with Pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency 

[PDD] or pyruvate dehydrogenase complex 

deficiency (PDCD), a neurodegenerative disorder 

associated with abnormal metabolism. [S.W.] 

operates on the level of an 18-24 month old. She 

attends Beaty Middle School and has an IEP that 

places her in the life skills classroom, as well as a 

medical plan in the school setting that includes 

constant nursing supervision and two meals per day 

at school. . . . Because of her condition, [S.W.] can 

require emergency medical care with a short onset of 

symptoms including lethargy, paleness, loss of 

appetite, irritability and extreme pain. As she cannot 

verbalize the onset of symptoms, [S.W.] has had 

numerous emergency hospitalizations. During her 

most recent hospitalization at Children’s Hospital in 

Pittsburgh, CYS intervened and obtained emergency 

custody of [S.W.] She was placed in foster care and, 

at the time of the hearing, was comfortable there. 

Medical appointments have been rescheduled by 

CYS. 

Order of Adjudication-Child Dependent, 4/14/15. 

 While Mother acknowledged that she and Child had been previously 

known to child welfare agencies in other counties, such as Columbia and 

Northumberland, Mother and Child had been known to Warren County CYS, 

receiving assistance since May of 2014. (Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 

117, 230-231, 237-238.) As a result of concerns regarding Mother’s care of 

S.W., on April 9, 2015, Warren County CYS filed an application for 

emergency custody. The application alleged various facts in support of the 
J. A04015/16 

- 3 - 

custody request, including numerous hospitalizations, a failure to administer 

medication properly, and a failure to provide adequate nutrition and 

hygiene. By ex parte order the same date, the trial court granted the 

exercise of emergency custody and scheduled a hearing for April 14, 2015. 

Also on the same date, April 9, 2015, CYS filed a petition for dependency. 

 On April 14, 2015, the trial court held an adjudicatory and dispositional 

hearing. Warren County CYS presented the testimony of former and current 

CYS caseworkers, Melissa Baxter and Katie McGraw, Child’s pediatrician, 

Dr. David M. McConnell, Jr., school nurse, Tina Zigler, and Child’s foster 

parent, W.S. Mother offered her own testimony, as well as that of Child’s 

attending physician and genetics expert, Dr. Gerald Vockley. At the 

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Child 

dependent without proper parental care and control, awarding legal and 

medical custody to Warren County CYS, and finding that the agency had 

made reasonable efforts to prevent removal. 

 On May 14, 2015, Mother filed a Motion to Add Entries to the Docket 

Statement, Reconsideration and Supplemental Relief, asserting the 

emergency custody order did not appear on the prothonotary’s docket 

statement, and the occurrence of multiple procedural violations, including 

the failure to conduct a shelter care hearing. By order dated May 15, 2015, 

the trial court denied Mother’s motion. On the same day, Mother, through 
J. A04015/16 

- 4 - 

appointed counsel, then filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). 

 On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review: 

I. Was the trial court’s finding that CYS met their

burden of proof of clear and convincing 

evidence that the minor was without adequate 

parental care and control unsupported by the 

record established at trial, and were the trial 

court’s inferences and deductions from the 

record an abuse of discretion? 

II. Was the trial court’s finding that Warren 

County Children and Youth Services took 

reasonable steps to avoid removal from the 

home unsupported by the record; did the 

agency meet the applicable burden of proof of 

clear necessity; and were the inferences and 

deductions in support of this finding an abuse 

of discretion? 

III. Did the trial court’s failure to conduct a Shelter 

Care Hearing and attendant procedural 

irregularities [sic] violations [of] the mother’s 

constitutional rights to substantive due 

process, procedural due process, and effective 

counsel? 

Mother’s brief at 7-8. 

 As set forth, our standard of review for dependency cases is as 

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 lower 

court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Accordingly, 

we review for an abuse of discretion. 
J. A04015/16 

- 5 - 

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010), quoting In re D.P., 972 A.2d at 

1225. 

 Further, to adjudicate a child dependent, a trial court must determine, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that the child: 

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.A. § 6302. “Clear and convincing” 

evidence has been defined as testimony that is “so 

clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable

the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction, 

without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in 

issue.” In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super. 

1997) (citation omitted). 

 In accordance with the overarching purpose of 

the Juvenile Act “[t]o preserve the unity of the family 

wherever possible,” see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(1), 

“a child will only be declared dependent when he is

presently without proper parental care and when 

such care is not immediately available.” In re R.T.,

405 Pa. Super. 156, 592 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super. 

1991) (citation omitted). This Court has defined 

“proper parental care” as “that care which (1) is 

geared to the particularized needs of the child and

(2) at a minimum, is likely to prevent serious injury 

to the child.” In re C.R.S., supra at 845 (citation 

omitted). 

In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013). 
J. A04015/16 

- 6 - 

 With respect to when a child should be removed from parental 

custody, we have explained: 

The law is clear that a child should be 

removed from her parent’s custody and 

placed in the custody of a state agency 

only upon a showing that removal is 

clearly necessary for the child’s 

well-being. In addition, this court had 

held that clear necessity for removal is 

not shown until the hearing court 

determines that alternative services that 

would enable the child to remain with her 

family are unfeasible. 

In re K.B., 276 Pa.Super. 380, 419 A.2d 508, 515 

(1980) (citations omitted). In addition, this Court 

has stated: “[I]t is not for this [C]ourt, but for the 

trial court as fact finder, to determine whether [a

child’s] removal from her family was clearly 

necessary.” In re S.S., 438 Pa.Super. 62, 651 A.2d 

174, 177 (Pa.Super. 1994). 

A.B., 63 A.3d at 349-350. 

 With her first issue, Mother challenges the finding of dependency as 

supported by the record. In adjudicating Child dependent, the trial court 

stated as follows: 

 All right. Thank you. All right, obviously this 

is an extremely difficult case with [S.W.]’s diagnosis 

of PDD. And, that medical condition alone could be

the cause, certainly the cause of her failure, her 

brain to grow, her intellectual impairment, her failure 

to thrive. Her developmental delays. All of that,

obviously, could be caused by the PDD. 

 And, therefore, the agency had the burden 

coming into court showing by clear and convincing 

evidence that [S.W.]’s out [sic] not with appropriate 

care and control in the mother’s home. 
J. A04015/16 

- 7 - 

. . . . It’s clear that the mother did not follow up 

with the CP specialist in a timely manner. I don’t

buy the comments that it was about some type of 

group to help each other out. 

 Other families that suffer from that. Clear, it’s

a medical appointment. [S.W.] has cerebral palsy 

and she needed to see that specialist in a timely 

manner. 

 The delay in the genetic testing that could very 

well have resulted in this diagnosis four or five years 

ago, and could have changed the track of [S.W.]’s 

medical treatment. 

 There is just no, I saw a recommendation in 

2009 for that. I don’t understand why that wasn’t 

complied with. 

 And, I should note that it’s very easy to sit 

back and say what a parent should be doing when 

they have a child with this type of medical condition. 

And the lifetime commitment a parent has to make 

to that child. 

 But, these are specific findings that cause me 

concern. The noncompliance with the recent 

medication prescription. Clearly, strongly 

recommended or was indicated it’s very important 

that [S.W.] receive that around lunch time in the 

school setting. 

 The school put the wheels in motion to do that. 

The mother went there three days to do that. And, 

then changed her mind on that. I don’t buy the 

explanation as to why that was done. 

 That was a clear recommendation. It’s on the 

bottle. It’s in the contract from Children’s Hospital. 

So, there is noncompliance with her medications. 

The mother’s lack of presenc[e] at some or all of 

[S.W.]’s appointments or hospitalizations causes a 

concern. 
J. A04015/16 

- 8 - 

 The business about [S.W.] being ready in the 

morning from discharge, for discharge from Warren 

General; I don’t know what other pressing business 

the mother had, but she certainly didn’t reach out to 

the hospital from the morning until the evening when 

she showed up. 

 And, I believe the testimony, and the medical 

records support, that they couldn’t communicate 

with her. Similarly, the mother going down to 

Children’s on December 16th, last year, and deciding 

that [S.W.] would stay there, driving back home. 

 The agency came back with her a few days 

later to get her home. But, the testimony was also

clear that large chunks of these hospitalizations in 

Pittsburgh, the mother wasn’t at. 

 And, certainly, she understood that the agency 

would drive her there, because the caseworker did in 

December of 2014. She was provided either gas 

cards or other methods to get down there. And, she

wasn’t there. 

 I reviewed records from Geisinger where the 

mother wasn’t available to provide medical history or 

wasn’t at a consult or appointment to provide that 

history. 

 I understand some of it is based upon the 

mother’s economic circumstances, and that can’t be 

the sole basis for that finding of dependency, but 

certainly it’s played a part in this. 

 Medical records I reviewed indicate that all or 

most providers have incomplete records because of 

the number of moves the motherly [sic] made with 

[S.W.] 

 That her own testimony about her 

transportation issues very precluded her from full 

involvement. Her current circumstances are that she 
J. A04015/16 

- 9 - 

is $1700 behind on rent and in the middle of an 

eviction action. 

 Again, those are economic factors. But, they 

are playing a part in [S.W.]’s treatment. Her 

consistent, thorough medical treatment suffered 

because of the relocations, the lack of medical 

records. 

 The lack of follow up, whether it’s because of 

financial issues or otherwise, it’s interfered with

[S.W.] receiving full handled, consistent treatment. 

 Two school districts, two school settings have 

avised [sic] the same complaint with weekend 

weight loss. The school in the Columbia area, via 

the medical record, indicated consistent weight loss 

over the weekend. 

 The mother testified [S.W.] was getting meals 

at school there, as well. Ms. Zigler’s testimony 

about the same concern in Warren County for this 

school year, that’s two school years and two schools 

that have the same concerns about this weight loss 

over the weekend. 

 The sporadic weight gains and weight losses 

that [S.W.] has had, the 14 and a half pound weight

gain late 2009, early 2010. The eight and half or 

nine pound weight loss more recently. Those are 

concerning. 

 I don’t understand why the school has to bathe 

[S.W.]. The mother is at home. She is not working. 

I don’t know why two times a week school personnel 

has to interfere with the regular routine for [S.W.] 

by bathing her or showering her. 

 I believe the testimony of Ms. Zigler that 

[S.W.] comes to school dirty, sometimes with a bad 

odor. Sometimes with diapers that would indicate 

long-term failure to change. 
J. A04015/16 

- 10 - 

 Those hygiene issues are concerns. All those 

provide a concern, particularly when you are dealing 

with somebody with the type of condition that [S.W.] 

has and the constant need for addressing any 

changes in her condition. 

 For those reasons, I do find that the agency 

has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing

evidence that [S.W.] is presently without appropriate 

parental care and control. She is adjudicated 

dependent. 

Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 248-254. 

 However, in asserting a lack of clear and convincing evidence to 

establish medical neglect, Mother questions that it was proven that Child 

regularly experienced weight loss over the weekend. (Mother’s brief at 

15-16.) Mother contends that such a finding not only ran contrary to recent 

inquiry, but failed to consider Child’s activity level over the weekend and the 

possibility of IV fluid retention while hospitalized. (Id. at 16-17). Moreover, 

Mother indicates that the reliance on Child’s failure to gain weight in finding 

dependency disregarded the testimony of Dr. Gerald Vockley regarding the 

standard medical care for a patient with PDCD, the relation between Child’s 

delay and her medical diagnosis, and significance of Child’s failure to gain 

weight. (Id. at 18-21.) In addition, Mother highlights a lack of clear and 

convincing evidence as to her failure to address Child’s diet. (Id. at 21.) 

Mother argues that she understood and was involved with regard to Child’s 

diet. (Id. at 21-23.) Further, according to Mother, the court’s other 

findings and underlying inferences and deductions related to failure to 
J. A04015/16 

- 11 - 

provide adequate care and control were not supported by the record. (Id.

at 23.) Mother references findings related to hygiene and medication. (Id.

at 23-28.) Mother also alleges that the trial court committed an abuse of 

discretion by making findings of fact which were not alleged in the petition 

for dependency. (Id. at 28.) In the alternative, Mother suggests such 

findings were not supported by the record and did not meet the burden of 

proof. (Id.) Mother discusses findings related to truancy, communication, 

appointments and genetic testing, and eviction. (Id. at 28-33.) 

 Upon careful review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion. 

We find that the competent evidence of record supports the trial court’s 

order adjudicating Child dependent. For example, the evidence exposes a 

history of Mother’s failure to follow medical advice and recommendations 

regarding appropriate testing and follow-up, affecting Child’s diagnosis and 

treatment. Although genetic testing was first requested by those treating 

Child in 2009, testing resulting in diagnosis was not accomplished until 

March 2015, with Child’s sample being supplied on December 9, 2014, while 

hospitalized.1 (CYS Exhibit 1 at 40, 51, 87-88, 171; notes of testimony, 

4/14/15 at 136-137, 213, 216-217; Mother’s Exhibit 3; Mother’s Exhibit 4.) 

Likewise, Mother failed to keep suggested medical appointments for Child, 

such as with the Cerebral Palsy Clinic at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, as 

 

1

 Mother’s sample, while not necessary, was not supplied until April 10, 

2015. (Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 136-137.) 
J. A04015/16 

- 12 - 

well as others. (Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 123-124; 132-134, 145, 

224-225; CYS Exhibit 1 at 51, 78.) Additionally complicating and frustrating 

Child’s diagnosis and treatment were Mother’s frequent relocations with 

Child, which resulted in incomplete medical records and history, as well as 

Mother’s history of lack of availability to medical providers during Child’s 

hospitalizations, which again resulted in deficient medical records and 

history and the Child being held in the hospital beyond readiness for 

discharge. (CYS Exhibit 1 at 1, 3, 87, 96, 103, 106, 109, 114, 117, 118, 

119, 128, 139, 144, 158, 162, 171, 172; notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 17, 

24, 55, 74, 126-127, 138-139, 142-145.) Child’s pediatrician, Dr. David 

McConnell, Jr., testified on this point as follows:

Q. Have there been any times when, since [S.W.] 

has been under your service, that she has 

been hospitalized and you had difficulty 

communicating with her, with mother? 

A. We have, at some times, tried to call her, and 

got, get responses, when we had her 

hospitalized at Warren General, and were 

discharging her in the morning, weren’t able to 

reach the mother until the evening, for her to 

go home. 

Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 55. In addition, Mother failed to 

appropriately follow medication protocol for Child, opting not to have the 

school give Child a dose of erythromycin before lunch, as prescribed. (CYS 

Exhibit 4; notes of testimony 4/14/15 at 22-23, 53, 60-62, 82-85, 98-99, 

107-109, 183-184, 201, 225-226.) 
J. A04015/16 

- 13 - 

 Further, the medical records and testimony of CYS case worker, 

Melissa Baxter, and school nurse, Tina Zigler, reveal concerns by two 

separate schools regarding Child’s weight. (CYS Exhibit 1 at 87, 143-44, 

165, 170-171; notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 77-78, 100-102, 117-118, 

229-230.) Specifically, record from GMC-Geisinger Medical Center from 

November 1, 2013 states, “There has [sic] been significant concerns from 

school regarding her nutrition and they feel that she gains weight during the 

week but looses [sic] every weekend.” (CYS Exhibit 1 at 165.) Moreover, 

record from November 15, 2013 indicates, in part, “It appears prolonged 

fasting and dehydration as a reason for [S.W.]’s metabolic decompensation. 

Apart from her possible working metabolic diagnosis, her repeated 

decompensation at home are concerning.” (Id. at 131.) Interestingly, 

Mother relocated shortly after these concerns were noted in November 2013. 

(Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 186-187.) Finally, testimony from 

Ms. Zigler confirms additional concerns related to Child’s hygiene. (Id. at 

80-81, 96-98, 102-103, 110-111.) As such, the record substantiates the 

lack of parental care and control and finding of dependency and we will not 

disturb this finding. 

 Next, in Mother’s second issue, she disputes the finding of reasonable 

efforts to avoid Child’s removal from the home. In finding reasonable efforts 

were made to avoid Child’s removal from Mother’s home, the trial court 

stated: 
J. A04015/16 

- 14 - 

 The agency has made all reasonable efforts to 

try to avoid this. I heard from two separate 

caseworkers that have been providing a number of 

services in the hopes to avoid placement. 

 All of the in-school services that [S.W.] is 

receiving. The medical plan. The individualized 

education program for her. So, reasonable efforts 

have been made to prevent this placement from 

occurring. 

Id. at 254. 

 Nonetheless, Mother argues that the record “showed failures of 

communication by service providers that hindered her ability to understand 

and comply with expectations.” (Mother’s brief at 37.) Mother references 

hygiene and weight and diet. (Id. at 38-42.) Mother likewise avers that 

Child’s removal from the home was premature, as Child’s diet was 

experimental and had been altered. Mother, therefore, proffers that she was 

not given the opportunity to employ the new diet prior to CYS obtaining 

custody. (Id. at 43-44). Further, the truancy plan had only been 

implemented one week prior to CYS’ application for emergency custody. 

(Id. at 44.) 

 After review of the record, we again discern no abuse of discretion. 

We find that the competent evidence of record supports the trial court’s 

order removing Child from Mother’s home. CYS caseworker, Melissa Baxter, 

testified to assisting Mother with coordinating insurance coverage for diapers 

for Child and re-establishing insurance coverage for nutritional supplements 

for Child, the latter of which had ceased due to relocation, scheduling 
J. A04015/16 

- 15 - 

medical appointments, facilitating and/or providing transportation, and 

conducting a family team meeting in order to create the family service plan. 

(Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 121-128, 138-139.) CYS caseworker, 

Katie McGraw, testified to aiding Mother with truancy concerns and 

transportation, as well as the agency attempting to assist with inspection of 

Mother’s vehicle. (Id. at 170-171, 174-176.) Further, school nurse, 

Tina Zigler, testified to the school via a nurse assisting Child with daily needs 

such as with hygiene, meals, and ambulating through hallway. Although not 

part of Child’s medical plan, the school bathed Child approximately twice per 

week. (Id. at 77-78, 80-81, 88-89, 102-104, 110-111.) However, these 

services were in jeopardy as Mother expressed her desire to homeschool 

Child and to yet again relocate, as she was dealing with eviction 

proceedings. (Id. at 147, 172-173; CYS Exhibit 3.) Hence, when viewed in 

context of Mother’s intentions, the record corroborates the trial court’s 

finding of reasonable efforts to prevent removal and we will not disturb this 

finding. 

 Lastly, Mother raises violations of her constitutional rights to 

substantive due process, procedural due process, and effective counsel as a 

result of the trial court’s failure to conduct a shelter care hearing and 

attendant procedural irregularities. The trial court suggested that Mother 

waived these issues “by failing to raise those issues in a timely manner.” 

(Trial court opinion, 5/22/15 at 1.) The court stated: 
J. A04015/16 

- 16 - 

At no point prior to the filing of a Motion for 

Reconsideration approximately one (1) month after 

the hearing did Appellant raise these issues. 

Appellant appeared for a six (6) Hour hearing 

represented by counsel. At no time did Appellant 

assert the alleged procedural violations, ask for a

continuance, or otherwise assert any objection 

whatsoever to the Court conducting an adjudicatory 

hearing. In fact, all counsel were present in 

chambers for a pre-hearing conference and 

Appellant’s counsel requested he be permitted to call 

a medical expert out of order at the start of the 

proceeding. The hearing was clearly announced at 

the commencement of the hearing to be a 

“dependency” hearing. 

Id.

 Mother, however, argues that not only do the Rules of Juvenile Court 

Procedure allow a broad motions practice, but that the issue was raised and 

appealed within 30 days. (Mother’s brief at 49.) Mother avers that no 

shelter care hearing or contested proceeding to allow for findings of fact 

pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1242(C) was contemplated, scheduled, or conducted, 

which resulted in multiple procedural irregularities. (Id. at 50-51.) Mother 

further indicates that the process as a whole severely compromised her 

ability to present her case. (Id. at 51.) Moreover, Mother posits that the 

procedural irregularities were so deficient, and the process so rapid, that a 

finding of waiver for failure to preserve by objection may not be equitable. 

(Id. at 53.) 
J. A04015/16 

- 17 - 

 We agree with the trial court and adopt its opinion as our own with 

regard to this issue. For the reasons set forth by the trial court, these issues 

are waived.

 Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record, including the notes 

of testimony of the April 14, 2015 hearing, the extensive exhibits presented, 

the trial court opinion, as well as the parties’ briefs, as we discern no abuse 

of discretion, we affirm the order of the trial court adjudicating Child 

dependent, and removing Child from Mother’s home. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 5/24/2016 
rrn 

r::, 

- 

In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and 

specific objection at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial court. 

Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of 

the issue. On appeal the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not 

called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed w.ould have 

to be a "dependency" hearing. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held: 

start of the proceeding. The hearing was clearly announced at the commencement of the hearing 

and Appellant's counsel requested that he be permitted to call a medical expert out of order at the 

adjudicatory hearing. In fact, all counsel were present in chambers for a pre-hearing conference 

continuance, or otherwise assert any objection whatsoever to the Court conducting an 

counsel. At no time did the Appellant assert the alleged procedural violations, ask for a 

Appellant raise these issues. Appellant appeared for a six (6) Hour hearing represented by 

the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration approximately one (I) month after the hearing did 

not give Appellant adequate notice of the type of hearing to be conducted. At no point prior to 

conducted an adjudicatory hearing in violation of Pa.RJ.C.P. 1363 and the scheduling order did 

those issues by failing to raise those issues in a timely manner. Appellant argues that the Court 

With respect to Matters Complained of on Appeal I and II, clearly the Appellant waived 

remaining two Matters Complained of on Appeal challenge the sufficiency of evidence. 

issues. The first two Matters Complained of on Appeal allege due process violations. The 

Appellant's, the mother, Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal raises four 

MEMORANDUM OPINION PURSUANT ·ro P A.R.A.P. 1925(A) 

SABRINA WRIGHT 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

OF THE 37th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WARREN COUNTY BRANCH 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

Circulated 05/04/2016 10:05 AM
2 

~ 

<= 

~~)~ c.n 

. ~),,- :ic ..,, ~ (:ill :::v > 

5:-171 -< 

':?:i-; N - r GD C!t• 7.: N '"'11Zc, 

~-., 1::;:> ,...~- ~ rn __ ,, .... , 

<;:) J> c; :x 

<=:.:t..,Z 

::;o -t' _., ~ CJ 

-;-l '·< er» CJ1 

°' 

matter. No further opinion shall follow. 

opinion on the record following the hearing and in its Order of Adjudication entered in this 

With respect to the errors asserted in III and IV, the Court addressed these issues in its 

Appellant has waived these issues for purposes of appeal. 

dependency proceedings. In re J.A., 107 A.3d 799, 820 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). Therefore, 

In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762, 767 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). This rule has been applied specifically to 

been corrected. In this jurisdiction ... one must object to errors, improprieties or 

irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the 

jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid 

an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.