J-A02009-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF C.M., STEP-FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 664 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Dated April 29, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Orphans' Court at No(s): 

CP-7-DP-000042-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: MARCH 25, 2022

Appellant, C.B. (“Stepfather”), appeals from the order entered on April 

29, 2021, which found Stepfather to be a perpetrator of child abuse against 

A.M. (“Child,” DOB 9/04).1 After careful review, we affirm.

On August 6, 2019, Blair County Children, Youth, and Families (“BCCYF” 

or the “Agency”), received a report stating that Child was being sexually, 

physically, and emotionally abused by Stepfather. The trial court granted 

immediate emergency protective custody to BCCYF. After a hearing on August 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Additionally, the April 29, 2021 order found that D.M. (“Mother”) was a 

perpetrator of child abuse against Child for failure act to protect Child from 

Stepfather. Mother also appealed the April 29, 2021 order, but her appeal is 

docketed separately from the instant matter.
J-A02009-22

- 2 -

19, 2019, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent on August 27, 2019. 

See Trial Court Order, 8/27/19. The trial court also found aggravated 

circumstances against Mother.2 See Trial Court Order, 2/19/20.

In the meantime, BCCYF conducted an investigation and indicated 

Stepfather and Mother as perpetrators of abuse on October 4, 2019.3 See

Permanency Review Order, 8/6/20, at 6. BCCYF subsequently filed a petition 

for a finding of child abuse on November 4, 2020, naming both Mother and 

Stepfather as alleged perpetrators, and requesting to change the “indicated” 

status to a “founded” claim of abuse. See BCCYF Petition for Finding of Child 

Abuse, 11/10/20, at 3 (unpaginated). The trial court held an evidentiary 

hearing on the petition on November 10, 2020. Present at the hearing was 

BCCYF’s counsel, Danielle Donivan, Esquire; Mother and her appointed 

counsel, Matthew McGregor, Esquire; Child and Child’s guardian ad litem

____________________________________________

2 Mother did not appeal the dependency or aggravated circumstances 

determination. 

3 Stepfather’s administrative appeal to the Department of Human Services 

Bureau of Hearings and Appeals was denied on January 23, 2020. Thereafter, 

Stepfather requested a hearing, but such proceedings have been stayed 

pending the conclusion of the instant dependency proceedings. See

Permanency Review Order, 8/6/20, at 6. Mother similarly filed an 

administrative appeal which was denied on April 16, 2020; however, Mother 

did not request a subsequent hearing on her appeal. Id.
J-A02009-22

- 3 -

(“GAL”), Mary Ann Probst, Esquire; counsel for Child’s Biological Father, P.M. 

(“Biological Father”), Matthew Dombrosky, Esquire;

4 and Stepfather.5

 

Child testified to three separate interactions involving Stepfather. She 

explained that the first incident happened while the family was living in 

Juniata, Pennsylvania when Child was ten years old. N.T. Abuse Hearing, 

11/10/20, at 11, 21. While Mother was at the hospital for a hysterectomy, 

Stepfather woke Child in the middle of the night and told Child to sleep in his 

room. Id. Child explained, “I thought he was going to go downstairs and he 

actually came into the bedroom and slept in the bed also[,] and he started to 

rub my back and then he had his hands down my pants and into my vagina.” 

Id. This incident lasted “until he went to the bathroom and I ran and hid 

under my blankets in my bed.” Id. Child testified that she told Stepfather to 

stop, but he ignored her. Id. at 12. Child further testified that she told Mother 

about this incident a few days later, but Mother “looked at me and said 

[‘]aren’t you sure it wasn’t a dream.[’]” Id. Child responded no, however 

____________________________________________

4

In a criminal sentencing order for a case unrelated to the proceedings sub 

judice, the trial court incarcerated Child’s Biological Father, P.M., for child 

sexual offenses and precluded him from attending hearings or obtaining 

information in relation to Child. Nevertheless, counsel for Child’s Biological 

Father represented the interests of Child’s Biological Father in the November 

10, 2020 proceeding in his absence. Thereafter, Child’s Biological Father 

signed a consent to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to Child. 

Accordingly, Child’s Biological Father is not a party to this appeal.

5 Stepfather elected to proceed without an attorney. See N.T. Abuse Hearing, 

11/10/20, at 2-3. 
J-A02009-22

- 4 -

“then I felt like [] I was being accused of lying so I just went with it and said 

maybe it was a dream, after I had said no.” Id. at 13.

The second incident to which Child testified happened when the family 

lived in Sinking Valley, Pennsylvania and Child was 12. Id. at 23. While 

Mother was sleeping, Stepfather came into Child’s room, grabbed her, and 

told her to kiss him. Id. at 13. Child testified that she said no, backed away, 

and hid under the blankets. Id. When Child exited the room to play outside 

with her brother, Stepfather grabbed her buttocks. Id. Child testified that 

she reported this when Mother awoke, but Mother “just left it go again.” Id.

at 13-14.

Child testified that the third incident occurred during the summer prior 

to seventh grade while she was alone with Stepfather as he was driving his 

work truck. Id. at 14, 24. Stepfather put a five dollar bill down Child’s pants 

and a ten dollar bill in her bra while inappropriately touching her in both 

places, rubbing and touching both inside and outside of her body. Id. at 

14-15. Child told Stepfather to stop but could not otherwise leave the moving 

vehicle. Id. at 15. Child testified that Stepfather then pulled his penis through 

the hole of his pants and grabbed her hand to touch his penis while stating 

“come on, you know you like it.” Id. at 15-16. Child said no and pulled her 

hand back without touching him. Id. at 16. Stepfather then offered to pay 

Child 20 dollars to have sexual intercourse with him, saying, “we won’t tell 

your mom and we’ll just tell her we’re late.” Id. at 16-17. When Child denied 
J-A02009-22

- 5 -

Stepfather, he threatened that if she did not kiss him, he would tell Mother. 

Id. at 17. Child testified that she responded, “go right ahead, maybe she will 

believe me,” and explained she was referencing Mother calling her a liar or

denying her accusations every time Child disclosed the incidents. Id. at 

17-18. 

Child testified that she reported this incident to her Mother directly after 

getting out of the truck with Stepfather. Id. at 18. Mother immediately called 

Child a liar. Id. Once they returned home, Mother called Child a “slut” and 

asked where the money was. Id. Child testified that Mother never believed 

her disclosures: “No, she has always called me a liar or tried to convince me 

that it did not happen.” Id. Child further explained that despite each report 

to her Mother, Mother never took steps to protect her from Stepfather; 

instead, “all things remained the same,” and Child was “still left under 

[Stepfather’s] watch.” Id. at 21.

Next, BCCYF caseworker, Kendra Wheelden, testified. Ms. Wheelden 

conducted the child abuse investigation after Child’s removal from the home 

on August 6, 2019. Id. at 33. She attended Child’s forensic interview at the 

Child Advocate Center on August 7, 2019, and met with Child a few times at 

her foster home. Id. at 34. Ms. Wheelden testified that Child’s testimony at 

the hearing was consistent with her disclosures at the interview and 

throughout Ms. Wheelden’s investigation. Id. Her investigation included 

Child’s interview, and interviews with Mother and Stepfather, where the 
J-A02009-22

- 6 -

conversation “really was not very productive” because Mother was yelling and 

screaming, or else refused to talk with caseworkers.6 Id. at 34-35. The 

evidence Ms. Wheelden relied upon during her investigation included the 

following: 

[The e]vidence was [Child’s] consistent story. Across multiple 

times her story did not change with what happened. There was 

an active criminal investigation as well. That is still pending. 

There was also a journal that [Child] spoke about writing down 

accounts of what had happened and [Altoona Police Department] 

was able to secure that and confirm that it existed[. T]here were 

details listed in the journal as well. So with all of that[,] we were 

able to say that we could indicate[] that for child abuse.

Id. at 35.

Ms. Wheelden testified that on October 4, 2019, the investigation 

concluded and the case was marked “indicated.” Id. at 38. Regarding 

Stepfather, all of the indications were for sexual abuse of a child “by 

commission for aggravated indecent assault, indecent assault, indecent 

exposure, unlawful contact with a minor, and influencing, using, persuading, 

enticing or inducing a child to engage in or assist another individual.” Id. at 

35-36. Mother was indicated “for omission because we were able to determine 

through [Child’s] stories that she had told her mother multiple times about 

____________________________________________

6 At a prior shelter care hearing, Ms. Wheelden testified that upon addressing 

the allegations with Mother and Stepfather, Mother “got very hostile and threw 

a fan at the caseworker,” claimed the allegations were untrue, requested Child 

be placed out of the home, and “the only thing that they would allow the 

caseworker to take was [Child’s] medication; not any clothing or anything 

else.” N.T. Shelter Care Hearing, 8/9/19, at 3, 5. 
J-A02009-22

- 7 -

the abuse. [Mother] did not do anything to protect her and the abuse 

continued to occur.” Id. at 36. Thus, Mother was indicated for omissions for 

the same categories as Stepfather: aggravated indecent assault, indecent 

assault, indecent exposure, unlawful contact with a minor, and influencing, 

using, persuading, inducing, or enticing a child to engage in or assist another 

individual. Id. at 37.

When asked if Mother ever explained the basis for her disbelief, Ms. 

Wheelden testified that Mother stated “that [Child] was disobedient. She had 

said that [Child] lies. She indicated that [Child] had very poor hygiene and 

was dirty[,] so [Stepfather] would not want to touch her[. S]he also indicated 

that [Stepfather] does not even touch [Mother] so he would not be touching 

her daughter.” Id. at 36-37. Ms. Wheelden testified that she did not believe 

Mother’s explanations were credible. Id. at 37.

Lastly, Ms. Wheelden explained that she did not have Child evaluated 

by a doctor during her investigation because “when sexual abuse is reported[,] 

there’s a [72] hour window from when evidence can be collected[. S]he was 

not indicating that anything had happened in recent weeks to indicate the 

need to be seen at a doctor.” Id. at 40-41. 

After BCCYF rested, the trial court offered Mother and Stepfather the 

opportunity to testify or present witnesses and evidence. Id. at 44-47. 

Mother declined. Id. at 44. Stepfather took the stand specifically to solicit 

questions from the trial court and counsel, all of whom declined. Id. at 45-46 
J-A02009-22

- 8 -

(Stepfather stating “I waive my right right now to testify” but that “I’ll take 

questions.”). Stepfather then briefly testified that Child has made different 

allegations against him “eighteen, twenty times” in the past, and stated “I 

didn’t do it.” Id. at 46. Despite insinuating the existence of potential 

witnesses, Stepfather declined to present any other testimony or evidence. 

Id. at 46-48. Moreover, he confirmed his satisfaction with what he presented 

to the court. Id. at 47-48. The trial court then closed the evidentiary record 

after again verifying that no party desired to present further testimony or 

evidence. Id. at 48. 

After the hearing, the trial court directed BCCYF, and offered all other 

parties the opportunity, to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. See Trial Court Order, 12/9/20; Trial Court Order, 3/31/21. BCCYF 

timely complied. Stepfather filed an untimely memorandum of law on April 

22, 2021.7 Mother did not file any memoranda.

On April 29, 2021, the trial court granted the petition for a finding of 

child abuse, changing Child’s “indicated” abuse status to “founded” due to 

Stepfather’s affirmative actions and Mother’s failure to act, “which caused 

[Child] to suffer sexual abuse, more specifically, aggravated indecent assault; 

causing sexual abuse to children by employing, using, persuading, inducing, 

____________________________________________

7 Stepfather’s memorandum challenged Child’s credibility due to purported 

mental health issues and the lack of supporting physical evidence. See

Stepfather’s Memorandum of Law, 4/22/21. 
J-A02009-22

- 9 -

enticing; indecent assault, indecent exposure; and unlawful contact with a 

minor.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/21. Stepfather filed a petition to 

reconsider/reopen the record on May 19, 2021, but filed his notice of appeal 

to this Court on June 1, 2021, prior to the trial court acting on such petition. 

Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/21, at 2.8 This appeal followed.9

On appeal, Stepfather presents the following issue for our review:

Whether the [trial court] erred in finding that there was 

substantial evidence to support the finding of abuse[?]

Stepfather’s Brief at 4.

We review a dependency court order for an abuse of discretion. 

We accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings 

of fact so long as we find support for them in the record[, 

h]owever, we need not accept the [trial] court’s inferences or 

conclusions of law.

The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence 

presented and is likewise free to make all credibility 

determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence. The 

admission of evidence is within the purview of the trial court’s 

discretion.

While dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act, 

42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6375, the [Child Protective Services Law 

(“CPSL”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387,] controls determinations 

regarding findings of child abuse, which the [trial court] must find 

by clear and convincing evidence. As the Supreme Court 

explained ... “as part of a dependency adjudication, a [trial] court 

____________________________________________

8 The trial court explained that it would have denied Stepfather’s request as 

untimely, reasoning that Stepfather had “substantial opportunity to present 

his evidence at the evidentiary hearing,” did not request to reopen the record 

within his April 22, 2021 memorandum of law, and only requested such relief 

after the trial court issued its ruling. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/7/21, at 4.

9 Both Stepfather and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
J-A02009-22

- 10 -

may find a parent to be the perpetrator of child abuse as defined 

by the CPSL.”

To justify a finding of child abuse under section 6303(b.1) of the 

CPSL, a court must determine, among other possibilities, that 

clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that a child was 

sexually abused, or put at risk of such abuse, through any failure 

to act. 

Interest of S.C., 230 A.3d 446, 450-451 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations and 

quotations omitted; paragraphing edited). Clear and convincing evidence 

“requires that a finding be based on testimony by credible witnesses who 

clearly relate facts that are so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to 

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the 

truth of the precise facts in issue.” J.M., 166 A.3d at 427 (quotation omitted). 

While a finding of abuse must be supported by clear and convincing 

evidence,10 a trial court’s “findings as to the identity of the abusers need only 

____________________________________________

10 To the extent that Stepfather contends that the trial court employed an 

incorrect standard of review in rendering its determination, we conclude that 

he waived this argument for failing to raise it in both his concise statement 

and the statement of questions involved portion of his brief. See Krebs v. 

United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 

2006) (holding an appellant waives issues that are not raised in both the 

appellant’s concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and the 

statement of questions involved portion of the appellant’s brief on appeal). 

Notwithstanding waiver, this challenge warrants no relief. The trial court did 

not expressly state the standard it employed in its determination; therefore, 

we presume the court applied the proper legal standards. See

Commonwealth v. Hunter, 554 A.2d 550, 558 (Pa. Super. 1989) 

(concluding that, where a trial court sits as a fact-finder, “we will presume 

that the [trial] court applied proper legal standards.”). Moreover, as discussed 

infra, we conclude that the trial court’s determination is supported under the 

applicable clear and convincing evidentiary standard.
J-A02009-22

- 11 -

be established by prima facie evidence[.]” Interest of H.Y., 233 A.3d 923, 

928 (Pa. Super. 2020), quoting In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super. 

1997). 

A trial court may find child abuse where an individual causes sexual 

abuse or exploitation of a child through any act or failure to act, or creates a 

likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child through any act or failure 

to act. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6303(b.1)(4) and (6). The CPSL defines “sexual abuse 

or exploitation” as any of the following:

(1) The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or 

coercion of a child to engage in or assist another individual to 

engage in sexually explicit conduct, which includes, but is not 

limited to, the following:

(i) Looking at the sexual or other intimate parts of a child or 

another individual for the purpose of arousing or gratifying 

sexual desire in any individual.

(ii) Participating in sexually explicit conversation either in 

person, by telephone, by computer or by a computer-aided 

device for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of 

any individual.

(iii) Actual or simulated sexual activity or nudity for the purpose 

of sexual stimulation or gratification of any individual.

(iv) Actual or simulated sexual activity for the purpose of 

producing visual depiction, including photographing, 

videotaping, computer depicting or filming.

This paragraph does not include consensual activities between a 

child who is 14 years of age or older and another person who is 

14 years of age or older and whose age is within four years of the 

child’s age.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a)(1). Moreover, the definition includes offenses 

committed against a child, including, inter alia, aggravated indecent assault, 
J-A02009-22

- 12 -

indecent assault, indecent exposure, and unlawful contact with a minor, as 

those offenses are defined within the Crimes Code. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 6303(a)(2). 

Here, the trial court credited Child’s testimony “in all respects,” and 

found her testimony sufficient to support its finding of child abuse. Trial Court 

Opinion, 7/7/21, at 3.

Specifically, Child testified that Stepfather penetrated her vagina 

with his fingers on two separate occasions without her consent. 

Child also testified to other incidents where Stepfather requested 

that she kiss him and that he touched private areas of her body. 

Child also testified that Stepfather forced Child to grab his penis 

and attempted to elicit Child’s consent to have sexual intercourse 

with him for money. In addition to the numerous credible 

allegations testified to by Child, she also testified that she 

informed Mother of each of the incidents. Mother brushed off the 

original incident as a dream and essentially blamed her for other 

incidents. Mother took no steps to inquire further into the 

allegations nor did she have any further conversations with Child 

to determine the exact facts. As a result, Child was subject to 

further abuse by Stepfather.

Id. at 3-4.11

After a careful review of the evidence, we find sufficient, clear and 

convincing evidence in the record for the trial court to reach its conclusions in 

the April 29, 2021 order. There was sufficient evidence from which the trial 

court could have properly concluded that Stepfather perpetrated sexual abuse 

upon Child. Child testified about three separate incidents whereby Stepfather 

____________________________________________

11 To protect the identities of Child and the parties, we replaced their names 

with “Stepfather,” “Mother,” and “Child” within the trial court opinion.
J-A02009-22

- 13 -

penetrated her vagina with his fingers, fondled her breasts, directed that she 

kiss him, grabbed her buttocks, and solicited sexual intercourse for money. 

Ms. Wheelden testified that Child’s allegations and version of events remained 

consistent throughout the BCCYF child abuse investigation and in her 

testimony at trial. Therefore, the record supports the trial court’s findings.

Stepfather’s sole argument baldly challenges the trial court’s credibility 

determination regarding Child. See Stepfather’s Brief at 9. In its entirety, 

Stepfather’s three sentence argument is:

In the case at bar, the only evidence presented concerning any 

type of abuse was the testimony of [Child. Child’s] testimony was 

not credible to the point where the fact[-]finder was presented 

with clear and convincing evidence. Without clear and convincing 

evidence of this alleged abuse, the [trial court] erred in making a 

founded pronouncement.

Id. at 9-10.

Pennsylvania law is clear that a victim’s uncorroborated testimony to 

sexual offenses committed upon her is sufficient in-and-of itself. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188, 201 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“the 

uncorroborated testimony of a sexual assault victim, if believed by the trier of 

fact, is sufficient to convict a defendant.”). The trial court found Child credible, 

and we will not upset this finding on appeal. See S.C., supra, Interest of 

L.V., 209 A.3d 399, 314 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“We are required to defer to a 

trial court’s credibility findings if they are supported by the evidence.”).

After careful review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that Stepfather perpetrated child abuse against Child, 
J-A02009-22

- 14 -

specifically sexual abuse or exploitation. Accordingly, we affirm the April 29, 

2021 order.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/25/2022