Court Opinion

ID: 9371165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 17:09:05.521186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.775969
License: Public Domain

J-A06042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: J.H., A MINOR               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                    :
    APPEAL OF: J.H. FATHER                          :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :   No. 961 WDA 2022

                 Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division
                           at No(s): No. CP-65-45-22

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                            FILED: FEBRUARY 15, 2023

        J.H. (Father) appeals from the August 4, 2022 order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court) designating him as a

perpetrator of child abuse against J.H. (Child) pursuant to the Child Protective

Services Law (CPSL).1 We affirm.2

                                               I.

        We glean the following facts from the certified record.                The

Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (WCCB) took emergency protective

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1   23 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301 et seq.

2 H.J. (Mother) has also appealed the child abuse determination entered
against her at the same proceeding. We address her appeal at 960 WDA 2022.
J-A06042-23

custody of Child on April 1, 2022, after he had been hospitalized for severe

malnourishment. It subsequently filed for dependency and sought a finding

of abuse against Mother and Father.3             Mother and Father stipulated to

dependency but opposed the finding of abuse. Upon Mother’s request, the

trial court also took judicial notice of the emergency declarations issued by

the governor in response to the covid-19 pandemic.

       WCCB called Dr. Adelaide Eichman (Dr. Eichman) from the Division of

Child Advocacy at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh to testify regarding their

treatment of Child. Child was admitted to the hospital on March 24, 2022,

and was diagnosed with severe failure to thrive.         He was 12 months old,

weighed 15.1 pounds and had developmental delays. A large flat spot on the

back of his head caused abnormal development in his face.           His hair was

thinning and matted on the back of his head and he had developed lanugo, a

very fine hair, on his back. He was unable to sit up on his own and his weight

was below the third percentile for children his age. A skeletal survey revealed

he had osteopenia, or thinning of his bones, and brain imaging showed he had

lost brain volume.       These conditions result from chronic malnutrition or

starvation.

____________________________________________

3WCCB filed dependency petitions for four of Mother and Father’s children.
Only the finding of abuse as to Child is at issue in this appeal.

                                           -2-
J-A06042-23

      Dr. Eichman testified that the cause of Child’s medical problems was

chronic underfeeding for a period of months, and she could not say whether

the loss of brain volume would be reversible.       She opined that Child had

suffered from neglect, and said that once he was fed regularly, he began

gaining weight. When he was discharged from the hospital after four days,

he weighed 16.7 pounds and by mid-April, he weighed 19 pounds.

      Upon speaking to Mother, Dr. Eichman learned that she fed Child

powdered milk instead of powdered formula, which is not recommended for

children under one year old. Mother said she fed Child two to four ounces of

milk every two to four hours, except overnight, which was not consistent with

Child’s severe malnourishment. Mother told Dr. Eichman that she had not

been able to obtain medical insurance for Child after moving to Pennsylvania.

Dr. Eichman testified that she did not believe insurance was necessary to

schedule an early intervention evaluation for a child or for a child to be seen

in the emergency room. The hospital additionally has employees who could

have helped Mother and Father enroll Child in medical insurance if necessary.

      Jarrett Dorazio (Dorazio), a physician assistant who evaluated Child

prior to his hospitalization, testified that his office does not require insurance

to see a patient, and that they direct patients without insurance to state

resources where they can obtain it. Dorazio first saw Child on March 10, 2022,

for a well visit that Mother and Father were required to schedule due to WCCB

involvement with one of their other children. Dorazio was concerned about

                                      -3-
J-A06042-23

Child’s muscle tone, neurologic and gross and fine motor development. Child

could not sit up or push up from his stomach on his own, while most children

at his age could walk. He was not using words and would stare at the wall

without reacting to noises or Dorazio’s voice. His arms and hands remained

in a clenched position and would return to that stance if Dorazio attempted to

move them. At the first visit, Child weighed 14.6 pounds. Dorazio diagnosed

Child with failure to thrive, low muscle tone and neglect, and recommended

that Mother have him evaluated by the Children’s Institute and then return for

a follow-up visit. He recommended applying for Women, Infants and Children

(WIC) benefits, and Mother said that she was unable to get WIC and that

formula was expensive. Dorazio testified that he did not make a ChildLine

report after Child’s first visit because he believed Child had not been seen by

a doctor in approximately ten months and he wanted to give Mother and

Father a chance to make a good faith effort at complying with his

recommendations.

      Dorazio saw Child for a follow-up visit on March 24, 2022, and he had

gained approximately half-a-pound.      Due to the low weight gain, Dorazio

recommended that Mother admit Child into the hospital. Child gained weight

more rapidly after his hospitalization and at a well visit on April 15, 2022, he

weighed 19.10 pounds. At his most recent visit in May 2022, Child was able

to sit up with some assistance, was making babbling noises and was

interacting with his surroundings and reaching for his toes and ears.

                                     -4-
J-A06042-23

      Rachel Menhorn (Menhorn), a school nurse who worked with one of

Mother and Father’s other children, testified that she provided them with

written information regarding the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

and the online application process on two occasions.       She also spoke with

Mother directly about CHIP multiple times. Mother did not ask for any help

with the application but told Menhorn in January 2022 that the state was

giving her the “runaround.” N.T., 5/25/22, at 119.

      Colleen Flynn (Flynn) of the Children’s Institute testified that she opened

a case with the family in the Star Babies program, which provides an intensive

in-home family services specialist. She began working directly with the family

in mid-March and first saw Child shortly before his hospitalization. She said

he was emaciated and that his appearance was shocking. Mother told Flynn

that Child had recently been to the doctor but did not consider Dorazio’s

recommendations urgent. She said she did not have time to make phone calls

for Child’s care. She had scheduled an appointment with a gastroenterologist

but had not followed up with a nutritionist or feeding specialist. Flynn said

that Child had a blank stare, lanugo on his back, and his hands and fingers

were curled and stiff. He did not smile or make eye contact and would cry

when he was touched.

      After Child was discharged from the hospital, Flynn began visiting the

family to weigh Child every day, with the understanding that if he lost weight,

WCCB would intervene. The weigh-ins took place as planned for several days

                                      -5-
J-A06042-23

but Mother was missed the appointment on April 1, 2022. She texted Flynn

throughout the day to push the visit back and said that she was running an

errand in Pittsburgh. Flynn was not able to complete the visit and WCCB took

custody of the children that day. Flynn opined that Mother did not understand

the urgency of Child’s condition. Flynn spoke with Father once on the phone

prior to Child’s hospitalization, and he wanted to know why the doctor wanted

to send Child to the hospital.

      Amanda Karas (Karas), a caseworker for WCCB, opened a case with the

family in January 2022 following a referral related to one of Father’s other

children. At that time, Mother and Father were living with their four children

and another adult couple with two children.       Mother requested parenting

services and services for children with special needs because she was

concerned about the development of Child and his sister.         Karas did not

perform a home visit with the family until after Child was released from the

hospital at the end of March, but prior to that she was in contact with the Star

Babies staff about the family.

      Karas learned that the last time Child had seen a doctor was in July 2021

when the family still lived in Oregon. Mother and Father reported that they

had taken Child to a local emergency room for a cough in July 2021, but the

hospital’s records did not confirm any visit had taken place.      Mother and

Father also told Karas that they had not taken Child to the doctor because

they did not have health insurance. When WCCB became involved with the

                                     -6-
J-A06042-23

family, Mother was the primary caregiver.           They had previously left the

children with one of the other adults in the household while Mother and Father

worked, but Mother quit her job in October because they were concerned that

the other adult was not providing appropriate care.4 Father continued to work

full-time.

       After Child’s release from the hospital, Mother and Father attended an

evaluation to qualify for WIC.          They told Karas that they had previously

received WIC benefits, but WIC staff reported that they had no involvement

with the family outside of the first evaluation. Mother and Father told Karas

that WIC had required regular weight checks that were too strenuous so they

discontinued the program. WIC staff confirmed that recipients usually have a

monthly evaluation that includes a weigh-in.

       Mother and Father were able to successfully obtain health insurance

shortly before Karas began working with the family at the end of March.

Mother reported to Karas that she had difficulty applying for insurance through

the state and providing all the necessary documentation. Mother submitted

exhibits at the hearing showing that she applied for health insurance through

the Pennsylvania DHS in July and August 2021, but the applications were

rejected because she did not provide required records. Mother told Karas that

____________________________________________

4This adult continued to live with the family and help with caretaking into
2022. She was eventually reported for abuse of one of the other children via
ChildLine and faced criminal charges. She then moved out of the home.

                                           -7-
J-A06042-23

she attempted to send in documents and speak to DHS on the phone but was

not able to obtain insurance.

      Joe Bowles (Bowles), one of the individuals who lived with Mother and

Father, testified on their behalf. He said Mother quit her job in October 2021

to stay home, though she earned money baking cookies at home and

delivering them to customers. He said that Child had difficulty with formula

and was spitting it up a lot, but Mother switched formulas and that helped the

issue. He said Mother and Father applied for health insurance and called DHS

multiple times about why their applications were rejected. He further testified

that Mother called providers about obtaining health insurance for the children

but it was very expensive. He said Mother did take Child to the hospital at

one point for his cough.

      Following the hearing, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent and

entered an order determining Father perpetrated abuse pursuant to the CPSL.

Father timely appealed and he and the trial court have complied with Pa.

R.A.P. 1925.

                                      II.

      Father raises two issues on appeal: whether the trial court abused its

discretion in finding that WCCB presented clear and convincing evidence that

he had abused Child and whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing

                                     -8-
J-A06042-23

to consider the shutdowns related to the covid-19 pandemic as an exception

to the finding of abuse under the CPSL.5

                                               A.

       Father first argues that the evidence at the dependency hearing did not

establish that he acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to perpetrate

abuse against Child. He points out that the family attempted to obtain health

insurance to seek treatment for Child but were unable to do so. He points out

that Dorazio and Dr. Eichman did not think it was necessary to file a ChildLine

report and released Child back to him and Mother on two occasions. He argues

that he was not aware of any risk to Child, and that he and Mother cooperated

with WCCB and Star Babies when they opened cases with the family. They

fed Child powdered milk for financial reasons and Dorazio opined the milk was

appropriate for a 12-month-old.           Thus, he concludes that he did not act

intentionally, knowingly or recklessly in caring for Child.

       A determination that a person perpetrated abuse against a child must

be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Interest of T.G., 208 A.3d

____________________________________________

5

       The 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.

Interest of K.D., 237 A.3d 566, 568 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

                                           -9-
J-A06042-23

487, 490 (Pa. Super. 2019). The definition of child abuse under the CPSL

includes intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing “serious physical

neglect of a child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1)(7). 6 It defines serious physical

neglect as follows:

       Any of the following when committed by a perpetrator that
       endangers a child’s life or health, threatens a child’s well-being,
       causes bodily injury or impairs a child’s health, development or
       functioning:

                                           ***

               (2) The failure to provide a child with adequate essentials of
       life, including food, shelter or medical care.

23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). The statute further defines “recklessly” with reference

to the Crimes Code’s definition of the term:

       A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an
       offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and
       unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result
       from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
       that, considering the nature and intent of the actor’s conduct and
       the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross
       deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
       would observe in the actor’s situation.

Id. (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 302). Severe neglect resulting in failure to thrive can

be the basis for a finding of abuse under subsection 6303(b.1)(7). Interest

of T.G., supra, at 494-95 (finding clear and convincing evidence of severe

____________________________________________

6 The trial court’s order does not specifically identify the subsection of the
definition of child abuse that it found WCCB had established by clear and
convincing evidence. However, it did state that “neglect” by Mother and
Father “caused severe malnutrition” of Child. Order, 8/4/22 at 3.

                                          - 10 -
J-A06042-23

physical neglect when mother missed medical appointments for child and did

not comply with treatment recommendations, resulting in failure to thrive).

      The record overwhelmingly supports the trial court’s determination that

Child suffered serious physical neglect by Father’s actions or inactions. The

professionals who evaluated Child or visited with the family in their home

uniformly described Child as emaciated, low-energy, with low muscle tone and

as being significantly developmentally delayed compared to the average 12-

month-old child.   At 15.1 pounds, Child’s weight was well below the third

percentile for children of his age, and he was unable to support his head while

being held by Mother or sit up on his own. He had a flat spot on the back of

his head that resulted in disfiguration to his facial features.   He had not

reached average benchmarks, such as walking or crawling, and did not make

eye contact or typical verbalizations for a child his age. His condition was

immediately apparent to the naked eye of the individuals who evaluated him.

      Moreover, further testing revealed that he had lost brain volume and

experienced osteopenia and lanugo.     All of these conditions are caused by

malnutrition, and Dr. Eichman was unable to say whether the loss of brain

volume would ultimately be reversible. After enumerating the many medical

and developmental issues Child was exhibiting, Dr. Eichman testified that he

had been diagnosed with failure to thrive and had been chronically underfed

for a period of months.    Once he received adequate nutrition, he had no

trouble gaining weight.    She concluded that “essentially from a medical

                                    - 11 -
J-A06042-23

standpoint, the baby just needed to be fed.” N.T., 5/25/22, at 39. She further

stated, “I do want to underscore that neglect is not a benign process. It is

not any better or worse than physical abuse, for instance.” Id. at 56.

      This evidence amply supports the trial court’s conclusion that Father

“consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk” to his health

and well-being by failing to feed him adequately for an extended period of

time. 18 Pa.C.S. § 302; 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). While the testimony showed

that Mother was primarily responsible for Child during the day and attended

to the medical appointments and insurance applications, Father lived in the

home and would have observed Child’s condition daily.        The neglect was

immediately apparent to medical and WCCB professionals upon seeing Child,

and though it would have been equally apparent to Father, he took no steps

to rectify the situation or seek care for Child.   Additionally, even though

Dorazio testified that powdered milk was appropriate for a 12-month-old child,

he said that it did not contain the nutrients and minerals necessary to a

younger child. Child was chronically underfed for months prior to his first

appointment with Dorazio, well before he reached 12 months of age.

      While Child was released to Mother and Father’s care after his first well

visit and his hospitalization, this was only after they received counseling on

the next steps for his care and agreed to work with the Star Babies project

and comply with daily weigh-ins to monitor his progress. Less than a week

after his release from the hospital, Mother missed one of the required weigh-

                                    - 12 -
J-A06042-23

ins, resulting in his removal. Finally, the medical professionals testified that

Child would have received emergency care regardless of whether he had

insurance. Thus, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Father’s

failure to act was, at minimum, reckless. No relief is due.

                                      B.

      Next, Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider

environmental factors, namely, lack of health insurance and the covid-19

shutdowns, as rendering Child’s condition outside of his control. He highlights

that Pennsylvania was under a disaster declaration in July 2021 that precluded

Mother from visiting DHS offices to obtain health insurance for Child. He also

contends that the family was forced to feed Child powdered milk because they

could not afford formula, which was beyond their control.

      The CPSL mandates that certain environmental factors outside of a

parent’s control cannot support a finding of abuse:

      No child shall be deemed to be physically or mentally abused
      based on injuries that result solely from environmental factors,
      such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and
      medical care, that are beyond the control of the parent. . . .

23 Pa.C.S. § 6304(a).

      Because Father worked full-time, Mother was primarily responsible for

applying for health insurance, WIC and SNAP benefits for the family.        The

record is devoid of any evidence that the covid-19 pandemic prevented Mother

from obtaining medical care for Child or from feeding him appropriately. While

Mother requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the governor’s

                                     - 13 -
J-A06042-23

covid-19 disaster declarations, she presented no evidence that the shutdowns

affected her ability to obtain health insurance or medical care for Child. To

the contrary, the documentation she submitted into evidence revealed that

she began the online process of applying for health insurance and other

benefits through the state in July 2021. She promptly received notice that

her application had been received and that she needed to submit additional

documentation either in person, online or by mail or fax.        She was also

required to complete an in-person interview.

      Mother was then notified less than a week later that she qualified for

expedited Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits

amounting to $1,393 through the end of August 2021, but still needed to

provide additional documentation.       She did not complete her required

interview by July 30, 2021, and was notified that she would need to do so by

August 13, 2021. She then received a second notification that she needed to

provide employment and income verification documents to qualify for cash

assistance, medical assistance and SNAP.       When she did not provide the

requested documents, DHS notified her that her request was denied and that

she could appeal that decision.

      Mother started the process anew in September 2021 and was again

notified that she needed to provide additional documentation. She was also

notified that her SNAP benefits, which she was apparently still receiving, would

increase from $929 to $992 monthly in October.        She provided no further

                                     - 14 -
J-A06042-23

documentation related to her second application for benefits, but the record

is undisputed that Child did not have health insurance until March 2022.

Father submitted no evidence that he attempted to obtain health insurance or

benefits for the family or that he intervened when Mother failed to complete

the applications. Rather, it appears that Father sat passively by while Mother

attended to the application process and took no steps to obtain medical care

for Child as his health deteriorated.

      Child attended his first wellness appointment with Dorazio in March 2022

only after WCCB had become involved with the family and required check-ups

for all of the children. Dorazio testified that his office was not closed to the

public between July 2021 and March 2022, that he was able to see patients

who did not have insurance, and that the office employed individuals who

would help patients with insurance inquiries. Finally, Dr. Eichman testified

that Child would have been treated in any hospital emergency room even

without insurance, and his condition was so severe as to merit emergency

treatment. Thus, the record reveals that there were available avenues for

Father to obtain medical care for Child, but he chose not to do so.

      While the family struggled to make ends meet and allegedly fed Child

powdered milk because formula was too expensive, Mother and Father also

told Karas that they discontinued their WIC benefits because they considered

the monthly evaluations to be too strenuous.      Additionally, documentation

showed that their application for SNAP benefits was approved at least through

                                        - 15 -
J-A06042-23

October and they simply needed to submit documentation to DHS to continue

to receive assistance.    Put simply, the record shows that assistance was

available to Father if he had followed through with DHS to obtain it. Thus, we

cannot conclude that the family’s finances or the disaster declarations related

to the covid-10 pandemic constituted environmental factors preventing Father

from obtaining medical care or appropriately feeding Child. His second issue

merits no relief.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/15/2023

                                    - 16 -