J-A22040-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: B.L., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: J.L., FATHER : No. 215 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Dispositional Order December 31, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-36-DP-0000197-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
Appellant, J.L. ("Father"), challenges the order entered in the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, which adjudicated B.L. ("Child") a
dependent child and placed him in the custody of the Lancaster County Child
and Youth Social Service Agency ("Agency"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Father raises the following issues:
DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT [CHILD] IS A VICTIM OF CHILD ABUSE AND THAT FATHER IS A PERPETRATOR OF ABUSE, AS FATHER DID NOT CAUSE THE INJURY TO [CHILD OR] KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY TO [CHILD], AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT FATHER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY CONCERNING HIS CHILD OR PLACING HIS CHILD AT RISK? J-A22040-16
DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT [CHILD] IS A DEPENDENT CHILD, AS [CHILD], BOTH PARENTS, AND THE SIBLING OF [CHILD] WERE A FAMILY UNIT THAT WANTED FOR NOTHING AND POSED NO RISK TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF [CHILD]?
SHOULD THE COURT PROPERLY HAVE GIVEN CREDIBILITY TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PARENTS AS OPPOSED TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE NURSE PRACTITIONER THAT TREATED [CHILD], AS THE TESTIMONY OF THE PARENTS WAS CONSISTENT, BUT DURING HER TESTIMONY THE NURSE PRACTITIONER OFFERED TWO DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SPECIFIC TREATMENT THAT SHE ATTEMPTED TO ADMINISTER TO [CHILD]?
SHOULD THE COURT PROPERLY HAVE DISREGARDED THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT WITNESS OFFERED BY THE AGENCY, AS THE OPINION OF THE EXPERT WITNESS WAS SPECULATIVE AND BASED UPON HOSPITAL RECORDS OF DUBIOUS ACCURACY GIVEN THE INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE NURSE PRACTITIONER THAT TREATED [CHILD] AT THE HOSPITAL?
(Father's Brief at 8-9).
The applicable scope and 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.
In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting In re R.J.T., 608
Pa. 9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)).
We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge because [the court] is in the position to observe and rule upon the credibility of the witnesses and the parties who appear before [the court]. Relying upon [the court's]
J-A22040-16
unique posture, we will not overrule [its] findings if they are