J-S39011-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: L.W.

No. 1219 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order July 14, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County

Civil Division at No(s): CP-11-DP-0000120-2016

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 23, 2017

L.W. (Mother) appeals from the order, dated July 14, 2016, and 

entered on July 15, 2016, that adjudicated K.S. (Child), born in June of 

2016, a dependent child and set the goal for Child as adoption. After 

review, we affirm. 

The July 14, 2016 order was issued by the court after a hearing was 

held on July 11, 2016, in response to the dependency petition filed by 

Cambria County Children and Youth Services (CYS). In its opinion, the court 

set forth an abbreviated factual background involving this family, stating:

L.W., [M]other, has six children in addition to [Child]. The 

six other children range in age from 15 years to five years. The 

father of [Child], C.S., is also the father of five of the six of 

[Mother’s] other children. Cambria County Children and Youth 

Service (CYS) originally initiated services to this family on April 

4, 2005 through August 26, 2009 and April 26, 2011 through 

November 15, 2012. CYS indicated that throughout these times 

CYS had ongoing concerns regarding lack of supervision of the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39011-17

- 2 -

children, lack of parenting skills, defiant behaviors of the 

children, financial instability, and criminal issues and 

incarceration of father. CYS again initiated services with six of 

[Mother’s] children on June 21, 2013. Then, between August 

2013 and August 2014, all six children were removed from the 

custody of [Mother] and the [c]ourt further ordered that 

[Mother] and C.S. ... would “never be a placement option” for the 

children. On May 13, 2016 and June 17, 2016 Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights hearings were held regarding 

three of the children. At the time of the dependency hearing 

regarding [Child], a decision had not been rendered as to the 

Involuntary Termination of parental rights as to the other three 

children. 

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 9/12/16, at 2. The court then described the 

testimony provided by various witnesses at the hearing and explained its 

reasoning for concluding that the issues raised by Mother in her Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal were without merit. 

Specifically, in her Rule 1925(b) statement, Mother raised the 

following issues: 

1. [CYS] failed to sustain its burden of proving [that Child] was a 

dependent child pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6301 et seq. because 

there is insufficient evidence on the record upon which a clear 

and convincing finding could be based that natural [M]other was 

unfit and cou[ld] not provide care for [Child]. 

2. The [c]ourt’s finding that [Child] is a dependent child is 

against the weight of the evidence. [CYS] failed to produce clear 

and convincing evidence that [Child’s] [M]other was unfit to 

parent her newborn child. 

3. The [c]ourt’s opinion that placement and permanency through 

adoption is the safest and least restrictive placement for [Child] 

was made against the weight of the evidence. At the time of 

this order, no aggravated circumstances existed and [Mother] 

was ready to parent [Child]. 
J-S39011-17

- 3 -

4. The [c]ourt’s basis for its decision only reflected past events 

and previous conduct of [Mother]. At the time of the hearing, 

[CYS] did not review the cleanliness or habitability of the home, 

did not consider [Mother’s] ongoing parental services that were 

not offered by the State, and removed the child prior to 

[Mother’s] being able to take her home from the hospital. 

5. [Mother] requests that the right to supplement the Matters 

Complained of on Appeal be granted pending receipt of the 

transcript. 

Mother’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 8/11/16. 

Upon review of Mother’s brief however, we note that the Statement of 

Questions Involved section asserts an issue dissimilar to the ones she put 

forth in her Rule 1925(b) statement. Specifically, the issue as stated in 

Mother’s brief reads as follows: 

Whether the [c]ourt abused its discretion or committed an error 

of law when it granted the [p]etition for [d]ependency and 

ordered the permanency goal of adoption, without first 

attempting reunification under the Adoption and Safe Families

Act[,] 42 U.S.C. [§] 671 et seq. [?]

Mother’s brief at 4. However, the argument section of Mother’s brief sets 

out two distinct arguments: 

I. Whether the court either abused its discretion or committed 

an error of law when it granted the petition for dependency, 

thereby finding the child dependent[?]

II. Whether the court either abused its discretion or committed 

an error of law when it made the goal of K.S. adoption and not 

reunification, at the initial adjudication hearing, without 

aggravated circumstances[?] 

Mother’s brief at 5 and 8. 
J-S39011-17

- 4 -

Essentially, with regard to Issue I, Mother argues that the trial court 

accepted CYS’s evidence of Mother’s past conduct to establish dependency 

as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302 with regard to Child.1 She also asserts that 

she has not recently been provided with services by CYS and that, therefore, 

the agency could not present evidence that she failed to perform her 

parental duties. Specifically, Mother asserts it has been more than two 

years since services have been provided and that “with such a long period in 

between services, house visits, and hands on interaction, CYS cannot 

provide adequate testimony as to what knowledge [Mother] has gained as a 

parent, the appropriateness of housing conditions, or the skills she learned 

while not under the thumb of CYS.” Mother’s brief at 6. Thus, Mother 

____________________________________________

1 The definition of dependency states in pertinent part: 

“Dependent child.” 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, including evidence of the parent’s, 

guardian’s or other custodian’s use of alcohol or a controlled 

substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at 

risk[.] 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. 
J-S39011-17

- 5 -

contends that she has done all that she could do to ensure Child’s return to 

her. 

These arguments coincide to some extent with Mother’s fourth issue as 

stated in her Rule 1925(b) statement, but in no way comport with her 

statement of the issue in her brief on page 4. Under the circumstances 

here, this Court could conclude that Mother has not preserved any issue for 

our review. However, despite the errors enumerated above, we will attempt 

to respond to the arguments Mother has actually presented in the argument 

section of her brief. 

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)). “The 

burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to 

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets that 

statutory definition of dependency.” In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa. 
J-S39011-17

- 6 -

Super. 2004). Moreover, “the dependency of a child is not determined ‘as 

to’ a particular person, but rather must be based upon two findings by the 

trial court: whether the child is currently lacking proper care and control, 

and whether such care and control is immediately available.” In re J.C., 5 

A.3d 284, 289 (Pa. Super. 2010). 

As previously noted, the trial court discussed the testimony of various 

witnesses. Those witnesses included Brittney Corson, a CYS caseworker, 

Dennis M. Kashurba, a licensed psychologist, Martha Faust, program director 

and parent educator for Parents as Teachers through Beginnings, and 

Father. Then, based on this testimony, the court explained the reasons for 

finding Child dependent, stating:

Here, the court heard testimony from Corson that Mother’s 

house was clean in June 2016, one month before the hearing but 

that in the past when children lived with Mother the house was 

in a deplorable condition. Corson stated that she believed that 

Mother was able to keep her house clean in June 2016 because 

no children lived with [M]other. However, Mother was not able 

to care for children and keep a clean house at the same time. 

Corson stated that Mother was most likely overwhelmed by 

having such responsibilities at the same time. Although 

[Mother] alleges that the court did not consider the state of the 

home at the July 11, 2016 hearing, the record proves otherwise. 

Even more, the court considered the most recent state of the 

house in addition to Mother’s ability over time to keep a clean 

and habitable house. 

Next, the court heard testimony from Faust who stated 

that she rendered services to Mother through the Parents as 

Teachers program. The court considered this testimony, 

especially that Faust met with Mother for one hour once a week 

and had only conducted four sessions at the time of the hearing. 

Though Mother did initiate these non-state services, the record 
J-S39011-17

- 7 -

also reflects that Mother was receiving services through CYS for 

almost a decade to no avail. 

Weighing the evidence regarding Mother’s ability to keep a 

clean and habitable home (the state of her home as observed by 

Corson in June 2016 and the deplorable conditions that existed 

previously), the services that Mother was currently receiving and 

had received in the past, and her inability to parent over an 

extended period of time, together with the testimony of Corson 

and Kashurba who stated that Mother would never be able to 

parent any child, this court found that clear and convincing 

evidence proves that if custody of K.S. was given to Mother, 

proper parental care would not be immediately available. Thus, 

the court did not err in its consideration of the evidence of past 

events and conduct. 

TCO at 14-15. 

We agree. Based upon the law set forth above and a review of the 

record in this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in adjudicating Child dependent and placing her in the custody of 

CYS. The trial court’s findings are supported by the testimony and evidence 

presented at the hearing. Mother’s arguments are generally an attack on 

the trial court’s credibility determinations and she disregards the evidence 

before the court that contradicts her position regarding dependency. Thus, 

Mother is not entitled to relief. 

Mother’s second argument refers to the court’s determination that set 

the goal for Child as adoption. This argument centers on Mother’s 

contention that because aggravated circumstances did not exist, the court’s 

stated goal of adoption, without attempting reunification, was in error. We 

disagree with Mother’s position and again agree with the trial court. We rely 

on that portion of the opinion of the Honorable Tamara R. Bernstein of the 
J-S39011-17

- 8 -

Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, dated September 12, 2016. 

See TCO at 8-13. Judge Bernstein’s extensive, well-reasoned opinion 

properly disposes of the “goal of adoption” issue presented by Mother on 

appeal and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Therefore, we 

adopt that portion of Judge Bernstein’s opinion as our own. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the July 14, 2016 

order adjudicating Child dependent and setting the goal as adoption. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/23/2017
1 Since the subject ofthis appeal is a juvenile the primnry parties will be referred to by their in itials 10 provide 

con fid entiality. 

unfit to parent the newborn child? 

sustained its burden of proving that K.S. was a dependent child us her mother is 

I. Did the Court err by finding that Cambria County Children and Youth Services 

three allegations of error: 

Appellants' Concise Statement lists· three matters complained of on appeal that raise these 

Appellate Procedure 905(a)(2) and 1925(n)(l). Pa.R.A.P. 905, 1925 {West 2016). 

of Errors Complained of on Appeal (Concise Statement) pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of 

On August 11, 2016, Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal and Concise Statement 

Care. The court also ordered that the goal be set as Adoption? 

physical custody of Cambria County Children and Youth Services and into Kinship Foster 

be a dependent child on July 14, 2016, at which time she was placed into the legal and 

Bernstein, J.: L. W., the appellant herein, is the natural parent of K.S.1 who was determined to 

RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 (a)(2) 

OPINION 

Appeal of L. W ., Natural Parent 

CAMBRIA CO CYS JJJ!J DIV 

2016 SEP 12 AH10:2ll 

* 

* 

* 

* 

K.S.,. Superior Court No. 12 J 9 WDA 2016 

* Trial Court No. CP-l l-DP-0000120-2016 IN THE MATTER OF: 

* 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DlVISION 
2 Although the parties and the court slated al hearing and In the order thot a goal change 10 Adoption was 

recommended or appropriate, such was a mistake as there had been no previous-goal with regard to K.S. Rather, 

CYS recommended, and the court ordered, that the initial goal he set as Adoption. 

Page Lof''l S 

rights as to the other three children. 

regarding K.S .. a decision had not been rendered as to the Involuntary Termination of parental 

hearings were held regarding three of the children. At the time of the dependency hearing 

children. On May 13, 2016 and June 17, 2016 Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights 

further ordered that L. W. and C.S., Father, would "never be a placement option" for the 

and August 2014, all six children were removed from the custody of L. W. and the Court 

initiated services with six of L.W.'s children on June 21, 2013. Then, between August 2013 

children, financial instability, and criminal issues and incarceration of father. CYS again 

regarding lack of supervision of the children. lack of parenting skills, defiant behaviors or the 

November I 5, 2012. CY S indicated that throughout these times CYS had ongoing concerns 

services to this family on April 4, 2005 through August 26, 2009 and April 26, 2011 through 

L.W. 's other children. Cambria County Children and Youth Service (CYS) originally initiated 

from 15 years lo five years. The father of K.S .. C.S., is also the father of five of the six of 

L.W., mother. has six children in addition to K.S .. The six other children range in age 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND3 

affirmed. 

For the reasons discussed below the appeal should be dismissed and the Court's Order 

of mother? 

3. Did the Court err by basing its decision only on past events and previous conduct 

the safest and least restrictive placement for K.S.? 

2. Did the Court err in finding that placement and permanency through adoption is 
i This summary is distilled from the transcripts without citation to specific portions of the record. 

Page 3 of 15 

evaluated mother in 2006 and March 2008 and has been involved with her over the past eight 

Dennis M. Kashurba (Kashurba), a licensed psychologist, testified at hearing that he 

drug charges which have not yet been disposed of: 

employment. Father's current incarceration was for a probation violation based upon new 

but slated that upon his scheduled · release on July 30, 2016 he planned to obtain legal 

he now claims to have overcome. Father was nol presently employed as he was incarcerated, 

testified that his failure to parent in the past was, in large part, based on his addiction which 

was incarcerated as he had frequently been during CYS's involvement with the family. Father 

At the time of the hearing, father testified via video from SCI Huntingdon where he 

June 2016, where mother then resided alone, Corson found it to be clean. 

mother's house was unclean in 2014, Corson testified that when she visited mother's home in 

benefits or income stemming from her disability. Although there had been reports that 

stated that she is disabled and has not been employed since 2009, but does not receive any 

income to include cash assistance from the Welfare Department and food stamps. Mother has 

Presently, mother's financial situation has not improved and she receives only a limited 

the past, CY$ attempted to provide services regarding financial instability, but to no avail. 

supervision, lack of parenting skills, financial instability, and incarceration of father C .S. In 

reverted to just as it had been before the services were provided, which included lock of 

home services. After the cessation of those intensive services, the situation declined and 

had been short periods of time when there wns improvement, but only during intensive inAt the heating on July 11, 2016, CYS Caseworker Brittney Corson (Corson) testified 

that during the extended periods that CYS had been providing services to L.W. and C.S. there 
Pugc 4 of 15 

( 1996). 

child is without proper parental care. In ;·e; R.R., 455 Pa. Super. I. 686 A.2d 1316, 1317-18 

Appellant's first allegation of error is that the Court erred in determining that K.S. was a 

dependent child. In order to support an adjudication or dependency, the Juvenile Act does not 

require proof that the parent has committed or condoned abuse, but merely evidence that the 

I. Did the Court err in its determination that Cambria County Children and 

Youth Services sustained its burden of proving that K.S. was A dependent 

child as her mother is unfit to parent the newborn child'! 

DISCUSSION 

the initial goal be set as Adoption. 

Youth Services. The Court further ordered that K.S. be placed in Kinship Foster Care and that 

as to both parents, and placing her in the care and custody Cambria County Children and 

At the conclusion of testimony the court entered an order adjudicating K.S. dependent 

discipline, other parenting behaviors, and family well-being. 

a week. Faust stated that the program aimed to teach parents about health, nutrition. safety, 

organization and completed four in-home sessions. These sessions occurred for one hour once 

Teachers through Beginnings, testified that on May 3, 2016, mother initiated sessions with the 

Finally, Martha Faust (Faust). Program Director and Parent Educator for Parents as 

let alone all of her children. 

children and that mother could never appropriately independently parent any of her children, 

form his opinion. Kashurba ultimately opined that mother will never be able to parent her 

evaluation as the evaluation combined with mother's extensive history is more than enough to 

that although he evaluated mother almost a decade ago, he would not need to conduct another 

years as a member of the treatment team at Independent Family Services. Kashurba testified 
Page 5 of !5 

principal applies equally where a judge sits as fact finder. Commonwealth v. Davis, 491 Pa. 

witnesses." Commonwealth v .. Simmons, 54 l Pa. 211. 229, 662 A.2d 621, 630 (l 995). This 

who is free to believe oil, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the 

It is well settled that "[tlhe weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact 

from prison on July 30, 2016, he again had additional criminal charges pending. 

render services to the family. Testimony also showed that, although Father was to be released 

and had been frequently incarcerated during the past decade during which CYS attempted to 

was without parental care from Father as Father was incarcerated at the time of the hearing 

children or show any signs of improvement in her parenting skills. The Court found that K.S. 

provided almost n decade of services by CYS, but has continually failed to parent her other 

rent, food, or any other items necessary to the children. Furthermore, Mother has been 

based on the failure of the Mother to maintain a home or income adequate to pay for utilities, 

Here the court concluded that K.S. was without proper parental care as to Mother 

Super.2013). 

A.2d 840, 843 (Pa.Super. 1997) ( citation omitted). See also, In re: A. B., 63 AJd 345, 349 ( Pa. 

conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In re: C.R.S., 696 

clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. "Clear and convincing" evidence has been defined as testimony that is "so 

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 Jock 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. 

determine, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child: 

To adjudicate a child dependent due lo lack of parental care, a trial court must 
evidence relied on to reach the decision was so inherently improbable or at variance with the 

Page 6 of 1·5 

For a decision to be against the weight of the evidence it must be· shown that the 

prejudice, bias, or jJ1 will. Harman v. Borah, 562 Pa. 455, 756 A.2d 11 l 6 (2000). See also, 

Van Dine v. Oyuriska, 552 Pa. 122, 713 A.2d J l04 (1998)~ Rcbert.v. Rebert, 757 A.2d 981 

(Pa. Super. ·2000). 

or capricious, or where the court has failed to apply the lnw or was motivated by partiality. 

only when the trial 'court has rendered a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable; arbitrary, 

rn, l2 (Pa. Super. 2003)). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error in judgment but exists 

In r.e:.E.P·., lP .. & A.P., 841 A.2d 128, 131 (Po .. Super. 2003) (quoting In re: R.W.J., 826 A.2d 

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. 

held that 

375, 378 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted). Further, our Superior Court has consistently 

as found by the trial court unless they are not supported in the record. In re: A.P., 728 A.2d 

In reviewing a decision for abuse of discretion, appellate courts are bound by the facts 

evidence requires a showing of an abuse of discretion. 

229, 662 A.2d at 630. Where the court is sitting as fact finder a challenge to the Weight of the 

unless it is "so contrary to evidence as to shock one's sense oflustice." Simmons, ·541 Pa. nt 

305, 308, 507 A.2d 1212, 1213 (1986). A court may not reverse the fact finders determination 

contains support for the verdict, it may not be disturbed. Comntonwcalth v. Mllrdick, 510 Pa. 

evidence, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder; if the record 

363. 372, 421 A.2d l 79, 183 (1980). When reviewing for sufficiency or weight of the 
Page 7 of 15 

admitted. or proven facts. or with ordinary experience, that it resulted in a decision that is 

shocking to the court's sense of justice. Thomas v. E.B. Jcmwn Lodge No. 2, 693 J\.2d 974 

(Pa. Super. 1997). While an appellate court will review the evidence, determinations 

pertaining to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to assign evidence arc matters within 

exclusive province of the fact finder and may not be disturbed by the appellate court. See, 

Weir by Gasper v. Estate of Ciao, 551 Po. 491, 556 A.2d 819 ( 1989). 

Here, the evidence supports the finding that both Mother and Father were unfit to 

parent K.S. and, as a result, K.S. was without proper parental control, subsistence, or other 

control necessary for her physical, mental, emotional health, or morals. First, Mother testified 

that she had minimal income and, since she is disabled, she is unable to obtain employment. 

Next, Corson testi lied that Mother had been receiving services for almost a decode and, 

although there were periodic improvements, Mother could never sustain these improvements 

after services ceased. These problems manifested themselves in that Mother's other six 

children had been previously removed from her home. Corson did testify that in June 2016 

she had a chance to sec Mother's housing and it was clean, but Corson attributed this to the 

fact that Mother was currently living alone as opposed lo the past when Mother had custody 

of her other children and lived in deplorable and dirty conditions. 

Importantly, Kashurba testified that it was his professional opinion that Mother "will 

never be able to appropriately parent on rm independent basis any child." N.T. 7111/2016 pp. 

15~24. Kashurba initially evaluated Mother in 2006 and then again in 2008. Although these 

evaluations took place between eight and ten years ago. Kashurba has been involved in the 

intervening years when he participated in her treatment team meetings with Independent 

Family Services. Ultimately, Kashurba stated that a new psychological evaluation would not 
Page 8 of 15 

contrary to the safety or well-being of the child or sibling; 

child to place the siblings together or whether such joint placement is 

whether reasonable efforts were made prior to the placement of the 

(3) If the child hos a sibling who is subject to removal from the home, 

restrictive alternative available; 

the needs of the child, supported by reasons why there is no less 

(2) The child's placement is the least restrictive placement that meets 

welfare, safety, or health of the child; 

(1) Continuation of the child in the home would be contrary to the 

court shall state on the record in open court the following specific findings: 

Prior to entering a dispositional order removing a child from the home, the 

pursuant to Rule 1514, if the child is placed.', Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 1514 further requires that, 

on the record in open court or enter into the record through the dispositional order, findings 

Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure (Pa.R.J.C.P) No. 1512 requires that, "The court shall state 

Appellant further asserts that no aggravated circumstance existed at that time. Pennsylvania 

and permanency through adoption is the safest and least restrictive placement for K.S. and the 

Appellants' second allegation of error is that the Court erred in finding that placement 

JI. Did the Court err in finding that placement and permanency through 

adoption is the safest and least restrictive placement for K.S.? 

emotional health, or morals. Accordingly, there is no merit to this allegation of error. 

education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or 

complete knowledge. Thus, K.S. is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, 

prove useful as he is familiar with Mother and her history and opined based upon such 
Pnge 9 of 15 

(4) The county agency has reasonably satisfied the requirements of 

Rule 1149 regarding family finding; and 

(5) One of the following: 

(a) Reasonable efforts were made prior to the placement of the 

child to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child 

from the home, if the child has remained in the home pending 

such disposition: or 

(b) If preventive services were not offered due to the necessity 

for emergency placement, whether such lack of services was 

reasonable under the circumstances; or 

(c) If the court previously determined that reasonable efforts 

were not made to prevent the initial removal of the child from 

the home, whether reasonable efforts are under way to make it 

possible for the child to return home. 

Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 1514. Furthermore, where the court has "previously found aggravated 

circumstances to exist and that reasonable efforts to remove the child from the home or to 

preserve and reunify the family are not required, a finding under paragraphs (A){5)(a) through 

(c) is not necessary." Pn.R.J.C.P. No.1514(8). Thus, the court is required to state specific 

findings as to each element at Pa.R.J.C.P(A)(l H4). However, at Pa.R.J.C.P.(A)(S), the court 

is required to render a finding specific to only one of the three sub-sections at 

Pa;R,J.C.P.(A)(5)(a)~(c). The existence of an aggravated circumstance is not required prior lo 

the court's entering of an order removing the child from the home. Ruther, if there is a 

previous finding of aggravated circumstan~es) then the court need not making a finding as to 
Page 10 of 15 

one of the three sections at Pa.R.J.C.P.(A)(5)(a)-(c). The finding of an aggravated 

circumstance essentially replaces or docs away with the requirement that a finding as to one 

of the three sub-sections, (a)-( c) be made. 

Examining Appellant's matters complained of on appeal contained in the Concise 

Statement in light of Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 1514, it is evident that Appellant takes issue with the 

court's findings as lo Pa.R.J.C.P. No.1514(A)(l), (2), and (5). Preliminarily, the court agrees 

that no aggravated circumstance existed at the time of the disposition hearing on July 11, 

2016. However, such an absence is not evidence of error as will be discussed infra. The 

Superior Court of Pennsylvania has importantly noted that, "a hearing court is given broad 

discretion in meeting the goal of entering a disposition 'best suited to the protection and 

physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child."" In Re S.M., 418 Pa. Super. 359, 365 (1992) 

(quoting In Re Lowry, 484 A.2d 383 (1984)).'The Superior Court has also held that, "A child 

who has been adjudicated dependent may not be separated from its parents unless the 

evidence presented establishes that such a separation is 'clearly necessary.' Furthermore, 

'clear necessity for removal is not shown until the hearing court determines that alternative 

services that would enable the child to remain with (his or her) family are unfcasible.?' in re 

K .. B., supra, 276 Pa.Super. 380, 393, 419 A.2d 508, 515 ( 1980). 

First. the court must find that "Continuation of the child in the home would be 

contrary to the welfare. safety, or health of the child." Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 151S(A)(l). Here, 

substantial evidence exists supporting the court's finding. Specifically, Corson testified that 

Mother, with the benefit of almost ten years of services, has never been able to display 

adequate parenting skills. For example, on December 12. 2013 another of Mother's children 

was placed after a child in Mother's care was injured in the home due to a lack of supervision. 
Page 11 or 15 

Furthermore, Kashurba testified that Mother "will never be able to parent on an independent 

basis any child.'' N.T. 7/11/16 pp. 15·24. 

Testimony from Corson anti a review of the records submitted by CYS on July 7, 2016 

also indicate that Mother has struggled to financially support her children in the post, 

struggles to support herself, and would struggle to support K.S. in her home. Corson testified 

that Mother receives cash assistance from the Department of Welfare and Section 8 housing. 

N.T. 7/11/16 pp.o- 7. Although Mother told Corson that she was up to date on all of her bills, 

Corson had the chance to examine such bills on June 17, 2016 and stated that Mother did owe 

back payments on some bills. Id. at 8-15. Corson also stated that her most recent visit to 

mother's housing revealed a relatively clean home, but this was a stark contrast lo the 

"deplorable" conditions that Corson had witnessed in the past. N.T. 7/11116 pp. 4-12. Corson 

attributed this recent cleanliness to the fact that Mother did not have any children living with 

her and recalled that in 2014 when the home was "very dirty and cluttered" the children had 

been living with Mother. ta. at 6-20. 

Next, at the time of the hearing on July 1 I, Father was incarcerated as a result of a 

probation violation resulting from new drug-related charges, Records submitted by CYS 

indicate that Father had been incarcerated for the duration of CYS's involvement with the 

family, which began in 2005. Father was released from prison on parole on August 15, 2015, 

but was again arrested just six months later when new charges of drug possession and drug 

possession with the intent to deliver, in addition lo other charges, were tiled. Although Father 

did testify that his incarcerations were a result of a drug addiction that he has now overcome. 

his extended criminal history and past incarceration, in addition to his most recent arrest, 

show that Father has not parented his children in the past and, as a result of his current 
Page 12 of 15 

availed of such services throughout the course of a ten-year period. No signi ficant or 

preventative services offered was reasonable here as Mother and Father had been 

0RDF.R OF ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSITION DATEr> Jut.v 14, 20!6. The lack of 

family. 

nature of the situation, satetv considerations, and circumstances of the 

' 

circumstances. This level of effort WHS reasonable due to the emergency 

for emergency placement. The lock of services was reasonable under the 

welfare, and that Preventative services were not offered due to the necessity 

To allow this child 10 remain in the home would be contrary to the child's 

finally, pursuant to P.A. R.J.C .P. No. 141 S(A)(S)(b) the court found that. 

arc no longer an option for placement. 

Thus. placement in Kinship Foster Cure is clearly the least restrictive alternative as the parents 

parent K.S. despite having been offered all resources and services available through CYS. 

14, 2016. As discussed supra, the court deemed that both Mother and Father arc unlit to 

is no less f restrictive alternative]." ORDER OF ADJUDICATION t\ND DISPOSITION DATED JULY 

Child's placement is the least restrictive placement that meets the needs of the Child and there 

court ordered that "The Child is to be placed. by the Agency, in Kinship Fosler Care. The 

restrictive placement and there were no less restrictive alternatives available. Specifically. the 

luck of financial stability and responsibility. and Father's lengthy and ongoing incarceration, 

placement of K.S. iJJ the home with Mother would clearly be contrary to the child's welfare. 

safety, and health. 

Next, the court satisfied Pa.R.J.C.P. No. I 5 I 4(A)(2) by placing K.S. in the least 

incarceration, would not be able to parent K.S. Thus, due to Mother's lack of parenting skills. 
417, 420 (1982). Ultimately. the court must conclude by clear and convincing evidence "that 

Page 13 of15 

child will receive if custody is given to the parents." /11 Re Ryan Michael C., 294 Pa, Super 

what sort of parental care the child received in the past, but also what sort of parental care the 

moking a determination as to whether a child is dependent, the "court must ascertain not only 

the home and that the court failed to consider Mother's ongoing parental services, First, in 

considering past events and conduct. Furthermore, Appellant alleges that CYS did not review 

Appellant's third and final allegation or error is that the court erred by only 

Ill, Did the Court err by basing its declsiou ouly on past events and previous 

conduct of mother? 

allegation of error. 

ineffective, making the removal clearly necessary. Thus, there is no merit to this 

have allowed K.S. to remain in the home were unfeasible and would have been 

Kinship Foster Care, and setting the initial goal as Adoption. Any services that would 

findings prior to issuing its order removing K -. S. from the home, placing her in 

Accordingly, the court satisfied all statutory requirements as to dispositional· 

necessary and preventative services were not rendered as a result. 

satisfied Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 1514(A)(5)(b) by finding that emergency placement was 

. to go home with Mother would be contrary to the child's health, safety, and welfare 

even if services were initiated as to Mother in regard to K.S. As such, the court 

required immediately after K.S. left the hospital as it was clear that allowing the child 

no effect since he could not parent K.S. from prison. Emergency placement was 

child, and. since Father was still incarcerated, rendering services to him would be of 

and her situation, unequivocally stated that Mother would never be able toparent any 

lasting improvement resulted. Additionally, Kashurba, who is familiar with mother 
Pagc l d of l S 

proper parental care is not immediately available" to adjudicate the child dependent. Id. The 

proper course for a court to take is to examine past events and conduct and then. bused on 

these and other pieces of evidence, determine whether proper parental care is immediately 

available to the child. 

llere, the court heard testimony from Corson that Mother's house was clean in June 

2016. one month before the hearing, but that in the past when children lived with Mother the 

house was in a deplorable condition. N.T. 7/11/2016 pp. 6-20. Corson stated that she believed 

that Mother was able to keep her house clean in June 2016 because no children Jived with 

mother. However, Mother was not able to care for children and keep a clean house al the same 

time. Corson stated that Mother was most likely overwhelmed by having such responsibilities 

al the same time. Although Appellant alleges that the court did not consider the slate of the 

home at the July I I, 2016 hearing, the record proves otherwise. Even more, the court 

considered the most recent state of the house in addition to Mother's ability over time to keep 

a clean and habitable house. 

Next, the court heard testimony from Faust who stated that she rendered services to 

Mother through the Parents as Teachers program. Id. at 8-12. The court considered this 

testimony. especially that Faust met with Mother for one hour once a week and had only 

conducted lour sessions at the time of the hearing. Id. at 2 L • I. Though Mother did initiate 

these non-stole services. the record also reflects that Mother was receiving services through 

CYS for almost o decode to no avail. 

Weighing the evidence regarding Mother's ability to keep a clean and habitable home 

(the state of her home as observed by Corson in June 2016 and the deplorable conditions that 

existed previously), the services that Mother was currently receiving and had received in the 
Page 15 of 15 

September 9, 2016 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMJTTED, 

past, and her inability to parent over on extended period of time, together with the testimony 

of Corson and Kashurba who stated that Mother would never be able to parent any child, this 

court found that clear and convincing evidence proves that if custody of K.S. was given to 

Mother, proper parental cure would not be immediately available. Thus, the court did not err 

in its consideration of the evidence of past events and conduct. 

As there is no merit to any altcgntton of error and for the reasons discussed herein, the 

appeal should be dismissed and the Court's Order of July 11, 2016, nffinncd,