J-A27026-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.D., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.D., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1476 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 30, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-DP-0000544-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 16, 2021

T.D. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order adjudicating her minor 

daughter, L.D. (Child) (born 5/18), dependent and transferring physical 

custody of Child from Mother to the Philadelphia Department of Human 

Services (DHS). After careful review, we affirm.

On May 17, 2020, DHS received a Child Protective Services (CPS) 

investigation report alleging that, while in the care of Mother’s boyfriend, J.R.,1

Child, who was two-years-old at the time, sustained bruising and contusions 

to her face, neck, forehead, and chest, as well as an upper-lip laceration. 

Mother had left Child in J.R.’s care to go to the hospital after Mother had been 

embroiled in a physical altercation with J.R. in which he struck and choked 

____________________________________________

1 One of J.R.’s friends, Johnathan, a known drug dealer, allegedly came to 

Mother’s home and was with J.R. and Child when Mother was at the hospital.
J-A27026-21

- 2 -

Mother.2 Mother, who was 25-weeks pregnant with Child’s half-sibling at the 

time, suffered abdominal and throat pain and was vomiting blood as a result 

of the assault. Mother reported that Child witnessed the altercation and was 

visibly distressed by it. When Mother returned home from the hospital five 

hours later, the house was in disarray and J.R. appeared to be “high.” J.R. 

denied that anything had happened to Child while in his care. Child, who was 

upstairs in bed when Mother returned, was lying in a wet puddle and there 

were spots of blood on the mattress. Child’s face was very red and swollen. 

The following day, after Mother ruled out an allergic reaction and the 

once-red areas of Child’s face began to turn black and blue, Mother took Child 

to the emergency room at Saint Christopher’s Hospital for Children in 

Philadelphia (St. Christopher’s). Norrell K. Atkinson, M.D., a child abuse 

pediatrician at Saint Christopher’s, treated Child for the injuries. Doctor 

Atkinson testified that the swelling to Child’s forehead was the result of blunt 

force trauma and that the petechiae3 bruising on Child’s face, neck, and chest 

____________________________________________

2 Mother admitted that she had a history of domestic violence with J.R. She 

also admitted to untreated mental health diagnoses (PTSD, major depressive 

disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety), stated that she had not taken her 

medications since May 19, 2019, and had not been in treatment for her mental 

health issues since June of 2019. Mother also admitted that J.R. was illegally 

using prescription drugs. In fact, the record contains J.R.’s criminal history 

summary, which includes convictions for eight drug offenses.

3 Petechiae are red, brown, or purple spots on the skin that occur when blood 

vessels bleed into the skin. See 

https://www.healthline.com/health/petechiae-when-to-worry (last 

visited on 11/23/21). Child abuse involving smothering or strangulation can 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A27026-21

- 3 -

could not be sustained accidentally by a two-year-old child. The doctor also 

noted that the bruising was the result of a forceful compression injury 

indicating that Child suffered from some form of strangulation or occlusion of 

her airway. Child’s injuries were “unexplained” and, ultimately, determined 

to be “inflicted trauma/child abuse.” Final Report of Norrell K. Atkinson, M.D., 

5/18/20, at 8.

CPS investigated the matter, ultimately indicating J.R. as the 

perpetrator of the child abuse. On May 19, 2020, DHS filed an application for 

emergency protective custody, alleging Child was without proper care or 

control. The court entered an order of protective custody (OPC) and placed 

Child in temporary kinship care with maternal great aunt. Following a shelter 

care hearing held on May 20, 2020, the court found it was not in Child’s best 

interest to return to Mother’s home, granted DHS’ shelter care application, 

lifted the OPC and transferred legal and physical custody of Child to DHS. 

Mother was referred to the CEU Unit for a drug screen and a dual-diagnosis 

assessment.4 

On May 27, 2020, DHS filed a dependency petition. On July 2, 2020, 

the dependency court entered a one-year protective order ordering that J.R. 

____________________________________________

cause petechiae in the eyes and face. Similarly, spanking, biting, and crush 

injuries can cause petechiae of the neck, face, and chest. See 

https://www.newhealthadvisor.org/petechiae-in-children.html (last 

visited 11/23/21). 

4 On September 2, 2020, the court appointed counsel for Mother.
J-A27026-21

- 4 -

“refrain from any contact[,] directly or indirectly[,] with” Child, including no 

telephone, verbal, third-party, eye, written, or physical contact. See

Dependency Court Protective Order, 7/2/20. 

On November 16, 2020, the trial court held a contested child abuse 

hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court: deferred adjudication 

as to Child pending a paternity test for Child’s putative father;

5

found Child 

was a victim of child abuse with J.R. as the perpetrator, see 23 Pa.C.S. § 

6303; granted Mother weekly, supervised line-of-sight visits with Child; noted 

that Mother had completed parenting classes; referred Mother to Behavioral 

Health Services (BHS) for an evaluation; and ordered Mother to undergo a 

drug screen, assessment, and treatment, and receive three random test prior 

____________________________________________

5 The results of the paternity test reported the probability that J.M. was Child’s 

biological father as 99.999999 percent.
J-A27026-21

- 5 -

to the next listing.6In January,7 March,8 May,

9 and June of 2021, the court 

held four contested adjudicatory/dispositional hearings. 

Finally, on June 30, 2021, the court issued an order adjudicating Child 

dependent, finding that it was in Child’s best interest to remove Child from 

Mother’s home, continuing Child’s kinship care with maternal great aunt, and

transferring legal custody of Child from Mother to DHS. Mother’s weekly, 

supervised visits continued, and the placement goal remained “return to 

parent.” Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 6/30/21, at 2. Finally, Mother 

was ordered to provide the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) with her 

current address, CUA was directed to conduct an assessment on Mother’s 

____________________________________________

6 After this hearing, the court also adjudicated Child’s half-brother, E.R., see 

infra at 8, n.10, dependent, removed him from Mother’s care and placed E.R. 

in DHS’ custody.

7 At the January 12, 2021 hearing, a DHS caseworker testified Mother had 

made “substantial progress” with regard to her single case plan objectives: 

find stable housing, find employment, engage in trauma-based therapy with 

domestic violence, seek a protection from abuse order against J.R., have 

supervised visits with Child, enroll in drug and alcohol and mental health 

therapy, and cooperate with unannounced home visits. N.T. 

Adjudicatory/Dependency Hearing, 1/12/21, at 16-18. In addition, the court 

ordered Mother to sign releases to a substance abuse treatment center.

8 At the March 12, 2021 hearing, the court continued kinship care, determining 

it to be “best suited to the protection and physical, mental[,] and moral 

welfare of [C]hild.” Order, 3/12/21 at 1.

9 At the May 11, 2021 hearing, the court continued Child’s placement in kinship 

care, again noting that it was best suited to Child’s best interests.
J-A27026-21

- 6 -

home and perform unscheduled visits, and Mother was to attend a drug screen 

and three random drug tests. Id.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. On appeal, 

Mother presents the following issue for our review: 

Did the [c]ourt err in removing [C]hild from Mother’s care where 

[DHS] failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there 

was a clear necessity to remove [C]hild from [M]other’s care, and 

where there was not clear and convincing evidence that [C]hild 

was without proper parental care by Mother at the time of trial[?]

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

In reviewing dependency cases, this Court accept the findings of fact 

and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the 

record. In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).

[However,] . . . [we are not] required . . . to accept the [trial] 

court’s inferences or conclusions of law. The appellate court 

reviews for [an] abuse of discretion. In dependency proceedings 

the scope of review is broad. 

* * *

Although bound by the facts, the appellate court is not bound by 

the trial court’s inferences, deductions, and conclusions 

therefrom; the appellate court must exercise independent 

judgment in reviewing the court’s determination, as opposed to 

its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice 

dictate.

In the Interest of J.M., 166 A.3d 408, 416 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations 

omitted). See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(3).
J-A27026-21

- 7 -

Mother contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Child was 

dependent and removing Child from Mother when the evidence was not clear 

and convincing that Child was without proper parental care and control and 

that it was in Child’s best interest.

The Juvenile Act defines a dependent child, in part, as:

A child who:

(1) is without proper parental care or control, 

subsistence, education as required by law, or 

other care or control necessary for his physical, 

mental, or emotional health, or morals. A 

determination that there is a lack of proper 

parental care or control may be based upon 

evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or 

other custodian that places the health, safety[,]

or welfare of the child at risk, 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(1) (emphasis added). 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 the Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 845 (Pa. Super. 1997).

Instantly, the trial court held three adjudicatory hearings prior to 

declaring Child dependent and removing Child from Mother. The purpose of 

an adjudicatory hearing is to determine whether the allegations contained in 

a dependency petition are supported by clear and convincing evidence. 42 

Pa.C.S. § 6341(c); Pa.R.J.C.P. 1408. “Only after this burden is met, is the 

[juvenile] court permitted to proceed to the dispositional hearing, which then 
J-A27026-21

- 8 -

permits the court to order what is necessary under the circumstances, 

including the removal of the dependent child from parental custody.” 42 

Pa.C.S. §§ 6341, 6351. It is well-established that:

[A] a child should be removed from his/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 [C]ourt 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 his/her family are 

unfeasible. It is not for the appellate court, but for the trial court 

as fact finder, to determine whether a child’s removal from his/her 

family was clearly necessary.

In Interest of K.B., 419 A.2d 508, 515 (Pa. Super. 1980).

The record reflects that at the time of the adjudicatory/dispositional 

hearings, Mother had completed domestic violence and parenting classes, was 

in mental health treatment, reportedly attended therapy twice a week, had 

moved in with a friend who was willing to accept DHS supervision in her home, 

and had supports identified that would assist her with Child and Child’s halfbrother, E.R. (born 8/20),10 if they were returned to her care.

Dawn Rodriguez, a case management director for Turning Points for 

Children, testified at the June 2021 adjudicatory hearing that Mother had been 

____________________________________________

10 On August 29, 2020, DHS received a report alleging that during prenatal 

visits, Mother had tested positive for marijuana. In November of 2020, E.R. 

was declared dependent, based on Mother’s inability to adequately care for 

E.R., and was placed in the legal custody of DHS while E.R. remained in kinship 

care with paternal great aunt. J.R. is the biological father of E.R. In August 

of 2021, our Court affirmed E.R.’s adjudication of dependency. See In the 

Interest of E.R., No. 2324 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. filed Aug. 16, 2021) 

(unpublished memorandum decision).
J-A27026-21

- 9 -

discharged in May 2021 from drug and alcohol treatment for “noncompliance;”

Rodriguez had concerns that Mother may have been using drugs other than 

marijuana. Rodriguez also testified that while Mother told her she planned to 

move into a new home, Mother had not provided CUA with an address. Finally, 

Rodriguez testified that she was concerned that Mother was still in a 

relationship with J.R., the indicated perpetrator of abuse against Child.

DHS social worker Shaylin Crayder testified that in August of 2020, 

Mother told her that she did not believe J.R. caused any harm to Child, despite 

him being indicated as the perpetrator of Child’s abuse. Crayder raised 

concerns about the altercation that allegedly occurred between Mother and 

J.R., which ultimately caused Mother to vomit blood and required her to go to 

the hospital, leaving Child alone at home with J.R. Finally, like Rodriguez, 

Crayder was concerned that Mother was still in a relationship with J.R.

To support its adjudication/dependency order the court noted:

The [c]ourt heard clear and convincing evidence from Dr. 

Atkinson, DHS [s]ocial [w]orkers Ms. Stephanie English and Ms. 

Shaylin Crayder, and CUA [c]ase [m]anager Ms. Tamara Sledge[11]

that [Child]’s health and safety were at risk due to Mother’s 

present inability to provide adequate care for [Child]. During the 

____________________________________________

11 Sledge testified at the May 11, 2021 adjudicatory/dispositional hearing that 

Mother had “moderately” complied with her single case plan objectives of 

finding employment (Mother was self-employed “making scrubs and body 

essentials”), housing (Mother was “living from friend-to-friend’s house”), 

continuing to visit with Child at CUA, completing parenting classes and drug 

and alcohol counseling, and enrolling in domestic violence treatment. N.T. 

Adjudication/Dispositional Hearing, 5/11/21, at 32-35. Ms. Sledge also 

testified that Mother had “substantially” progressed with regard to her plan, 

noting that Mother has refused to give CUA the address where she was living. 

Id. at 35, 47.
J-A27026-21

- 10 -

hearings, DHS [i]nvestigative [s]ocial [w]orker[,] Ms. English[,] 

reported that Mother left [Child] in the care of [] J.R. while Mother 

went to the hospital following an altercation with J.R. When 

Mother arrived home several hours later, [Child] had suffered 

various injuries. Ms. English testified that DHS received a CPS 

report in May of 2020 regarding [Child]’s injuries that were 

assessed and treated by Dr. Atkinson[]. The injuries observed by 

Dr. Atkinson included redness, swelling, bruising, and petechiae 

bruises to [Child]’s face, neck[,] and chest areas, as well as 

swelling to the front of her scalp and a “busted lip.” When Mother 

arrived home from the hospital, she also found [Child] lying in her 

bed in soiled sheets and there were blood spots on the sheets. 

D[octor] Atkinson stated in her assessment that the types of 

injuries sustained by [Child] are not the type that a child of 

[Child]’s age could have sustained accidentally. D[octor] Atkinson 

testified that[,] in her opinion[,] to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty[,] [Child]’s diagnos[i]s was child physical abuse. Ms. 

English notes that the CPS report named [Child], as the child 

victim and indicated J.R. as the perpetrator of [Child]’s injuries. 

DHS Social Worker Ms. Crayder testified that she was assigned to 

investigate a GPS report in August of 2020 immediately after 

Mother gave birth to [Child’s] sibling, E.R. Ms. Crayder testified 

that she was concerned because Mother did not believe J.R. 

caused any harm or injury to [Child] despite him being named as 

the perpetrator in the CPS report. Ms. Crayder also testified that 

she was concerned because of the altercation that occurred 

between Mother and J.R.[,] which led to Mother being 

hospitalized. Ms. Crayder further testified that she was concerned 

that Mother and J.R. were still in a relationship, Mother had an 

unstable housing status[,] and [because of] Mother’s mental 

health history. CUA [c]ase [m]anager, Ms. Sledge[,] also testified 

that she was concerned with Mother still being in a relationship 

with J.R. and expressed concerns about Mother’s ability to 

maintain the wellbeing of [Child,] as well as Mother’s own 

wellbeing[,] should [Child] be returned to Mother.

After hearing the evidence presented, this Court found that DHS 

had met its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence 

that [Child] met the definition of “dependent child” pursuant to 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6302 and was without proper parental care. 

Similarly[,] such proper parental care was not immediately 

available due to Mother’s relationship with J.R., her disbelief that 

J.R. was the perpetrator of [Child]’s injuries[,] and Mother’s 

unstable housing status, substance use, and mental health 
J-A27026-21

- 11 -

history. The testimony heard by this [c]ourt was clear and 

convincing that [Child]’s health and safety were at risk, and 

therefore [Child] was adjudicated dependent.

* * *

[With regard to Child’s continued placement in kinship care, t]his 

court was greatly concerned by Mother’s denial and disbelief that 

J.R. had caused any harm or injury to [Child,] despite the evidence 

and that he was the named perpetrator of [Child’s] injuries in the 

indicated CPS report. This court was also concerned with Mother’s 

conflicting statements about whether there was domestic violence 

in her relationship with J.R. This [c]ourt heard testimony from 

Ms. Sledge and Ms. Crayder[,] reporting that Mother claims there 

were no instances of domestic violence in her relationship with 

J.R.[,] even though an altercation occurred between Mother and 

J.R. which resulted in Mother being taken to the hospital while she 

was pregnant. The [c]ourt’s finding of clear and convincing 

evidence that J.R. was the perpetrator or physical abuse of 

[Child,] as well as Mother’s denial of J.R.’s involvement, was part 

of this [c]ourt’s reasoning for adjudicating [Child] dependent. 

Additionally, this [c]ourt was concerned with Mother’s housing 

status and Mother’s drug history and alcohol use. The [c]ourt 

found Mother lacked the ability to provide adequate care for 

[Child] should [Child] be returned to [Mother’s] care. The [c]ourt 

determined that a return to Mother would create a health and 

safety risk for [Child], and thus it would be in the best interest of 

[C]hild for her to remain in kinship care with [] maternal great 

aunt.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/21, at 16-17, 19.

A parent’s “acts and omissions should weigh equally” in determining 

whether proper parental care has been exercised. In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 

10, 14 (Pa. Super. 2003). In addition, “there exists a duty to protect the child 

from harm that others may inflict.” Id. Prognostic evidence, such as using 

prior conduct to determine whether a parent may pose a safety risk, is 

sufficient to find a child dependent. Id. Moreover, while the fact that a 
J-A27026-21

- 12 -

sibling has been found to be dependent is not sufficient by itself to find a child 

dependent, the trial court may consider the conduct toward other siblings in 

determining whether a parent is a safety risk or can provide proper parental 

care. In re E.B., 83 A.3d 426, 433-34 (Pa. Super. 2013).

Instantly, Mother left Child alone at home with J.R., a known perpetrator 

of domestic abuse, while she went to the hospital to address injuries she 

sustained following her own altercation with J.R. When Mother returned from 

the hospital, Child was bleeding from her neck, forehead, and face. Medical 

evidence showed that Child had suffered non-accidental, non-self-inflicted 

injuries and that J.R. was indicated as the abuser. In addition, Mother 

admitted she had not secured stable housing at the time of the adjudicatory 

hearings and that she had significant mental health diagnoses interfering with 

her ability to properly parent Child. Based on this evidence, we conclude that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Child was 

dependent.

Moreover, the testimony elicited at the three adjudicatory hearings

established the clear necessity that it “would be contrary to [Child’s] welfare, 

safety or health” for her to continue to live in Mother’s home. 42 Pa.C.S. § 

6351(b)(1). “[N]ecessity is established when the court has considered 

alternative dispositions which would allow the child to remain with his parents 

and determined that those alternatives to separation are unfeasible.” In the 

Interest of Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1198 (Pa. Super. 1988). Finally, in 

order to remove a child from his or her parents a court must also find that 
J-A27026-21

- 13 -

“reasonable efforts were made prior to the placement of [C]hild to prevent or 

eliminate the need for removal of [C]hild from his home[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 

6351(b)(2).

Here, the trial court found credible the testimony from DHS social 

workers that Mother had denied that J.R. was the perpetrator of abuse to Child

and that they were concerned that J.R. was still in Mother’s life at the time of 

the final hearing. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/21, at 17-19. Moreover, the 

court placed significant weight on the fact that Mother had an unstable housing

situation, had ongoing substance abuse and mental health issues, and had 

failed to document her engagement in mental health services. In totality, the 

testimony supports the conclusion that if Child continued to live in Mother’s 

home, it “would be contrary to [Child’s] welfare, safety or health.” 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(b)(1). Mother’s inability to ensure that she could provide 

Child with an environment free of future violence by J.R. necessitated Child’s 

placement and ultimate removal from Mother’s home. See N.T. Child Abuse 

Hearing, 11/16/20, at 85-88 (family service worker testifying that she had 

concerns regarding Mother’s ability to protect Child and that Mother “would 

not have [Child’s] best interest” in mind; worker also expressed concerns 

about Mother’s temper); id. at 60 (DHS social worker testifying Mother did 

not believe J.R. had caused any harm to Child, but that she believed J.R.’s 

friend may have been perpetrator). That necessity is further supported by 

the fact that Child’s half-sibling had been declared dependent and removed 

from Mother’s care at the time of the adjudicatory hearings. In re E.B., 
J-A27026-21

- 14 -

supra. Finally, the record demonstrates that DHS’ efforts to prevent Child’s 

removal and placement were more than reasonable. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6351(b)(2). See In re R.J.T., supra at 1190 (we defer to juvenile court’s 

credibility determinations absent abuse of discretion).

Order affirmed.

President Judge Panella joins this Memorandum.

Judge Dubow did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/16/2021