Court Opinion

ID: 9892603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 16:15:11.685425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:57.641380
License: Public Domain

J-S27012-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: B.G., A                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: A.F., MOTHER                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 724 MDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered April 17, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s):
                          CP-67-DP-0000115-2023

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                         FILED OCTOBER 24, 2023

       A.F. (“Mother”) appeals from the April 17, 2023 order finding her to be

a perpetrator of child abuse against her minor child, B.G. (born in October of

2022), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303, and adjudicating B.G. dependent.

Mother solely challenges the finding of child abuse against her. After careful

review, we affirm.1

       The trial court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural

history of this matter, which we need not reproduce herein. See Trial Court

Opinion (“TCO”), 5/19/23, at 1-6. Briefly, this case stems from a domestic

dispute that occurred on December 27, 2022, during which Mother allegedly

stabbed Father multiple times while he was holding B.G. on his chest. See

TCO at 1, 3, 5.      Mother was arrested and charged with numerous crimes,

____________________________________________

1 M.G. (“Father”) is not a party to this appeal.
J-S27012-23

including child endangerment.     Id. at 5.   She was released on bail with

conditions that restricted her contact with B.G. Because of the incident, the

York County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) received a Child

Protective Services referral for B.G., due to concerns for her safety. Id. at 1.

A few months later, after learning that Father and B.G. were evicted from a

hotel where they had been living, CYF filed a petition for emergency protective

custody, which was granted by the trial court. Id. at 2. On April 12, 2023,

CYF petitioned the trial court to adjudicate B.G. dependent, to find that B.G.

was a victim of child abuse, and to find that Mother perpetrated said abuse.

Id.

      A hearing was held on April 17, 2023, during which the court heard

testimony from the officer who responded to the 911 call on December 27,

2022, and the CYF caseworker assigned to the case.        Id.   The court took

judicial notice of Mother’s criminal charges and accepted the officer’s report

into evidence. Neither Mother nor Father offered any evidence or testimony.

Id. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court adjudicated

B.G. dependent and found that Mother was a perpetrator of child abuse

against B.G. Id.

      Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial

court filed a responsive opinion on May 19, 2023. Herein, Mother presents a

single issue for our review: “Whether or not the lower court erred when it

                                     -2-
J-S27012-23

entered a finding of abuse against [Mother] without clear and convincing

evidence.” Mother’s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).2

       Preliminarily, we note:

       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 A.C., 237 A.3d 553, 557 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted).

“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.” In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation

omitted).

       It is also well-established that:

       While dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act,
       42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6375, the Child Protective Services Law
       (“CPSL”) controls determinations regarding findings of child
       abuse, which the juvenile courts must find by clear and convincing
       evidence. See In the Interest of J.R.W., … 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa.
       Super. 1993). As the Supreme Court explained in In the
       Interest of L.Z., [111 A.3d 1164, 1176 (Pa. 2015)], “[as] part of
       [a] dependency adjudication, a court may find a parent to be the
       perpetrator of child abuse,” as defined by the CPSL.

Interest of T.G., 208 A.3d 487, 490 (Pa. Super. 2019).

       The CPSL defines “child abuse,” in relevant part, as follows:

____________________________________________

2 Mother’s concise statement filed in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)

contained the same single issue. See Concise Statement, 5/16/23, at 1 ¶ 3
(“It is alleged that the lower court erred when it entered a finding of abuse
against [Mother] without clear and convincing evidence.”).

                                           -3-
J-S27012-23

       (b.1) Child abuse.—The term “child abuse” shall mean
             intentionally, knowingly or recklessly doing any of the
             following:
                                      …

              (3)    Causing or substantially contributing to serious
                     mental injury to a child through any act or failure to
                     act or series of such acts or failures to act.
                                          …

              (5)    Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a
                     child through any recent act or failure to act.

23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1)(3), (5).

       Mother essentially argues that the trial court entered a finding of abuse

against her without clear and convincing evidence. Mother’s Brief at 12. She

argues that there were no witnesses to corroborate Father’s claim that he was

holding B.G. when she allegedly stabbed him, and that B.G. bore no obvious

signs of injury or of even being in close proximity to Father during the alleged

stabbing. Id. Additionally, Mother questions the trial court’s finding Father’s

version of events credible, arguing that Father initially made false statements

to the police and that there is no evidence to support the statement he made

a week after the incident. Id. at 16.3
____________________________________________

3 To the extent that Mother argues CYF was not required to pursue a finding

of abuse against her at the adjudication hearing since she was incarcerated at
the time pending resolution of her criminal charges, and that the court’s
finding of abuse against her only served to prejudice her, see Mother’s Brief
at 19-20, we deem these issues waived for failure to include them in her Rule
1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement and her statement of questions involved.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“The statement of questions involved must state
concisely the issues to be resolved…. No question will be considered unless it
is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested
thereby.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (“The Statement shall concisely identify
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S27012-23

       In reviewing Mother’s arguments, we have considered the briefs of the

parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed

the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph N. Gothie of

the Court of Common Pleas of York County. Judge Gothie’s opinion thoroughly

explains the basis for his finding “by clear and convincing evidence that

[Mother] was a perpetrator of child abuse.” TCO at 7. He provides a detailed

discussion of the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as an explanation

of his credibility determinations. Mindful of the evidentiary standard, Judge

Gothie found it “both clear and convincing that [Mother] stabbed [Father]

while he was holding [B.G.] on his chest[;]” thus, he concluded that Mother

“came dangerously close to stabbing [B.G.] … and created a reasonable

likelihood of bodily injury.” Id. at 9. Nevertheless, Judge Gothie conducted

an alternative analysis, giving credence to Mother’s theory that Father was

not holding B.G. when he was stabbed. He explained that even if Father had

removed B.G. from his chest before he was stabbed, “the court fully believes

that [B.G.] was … within the bedroom, possibly on the bed, as [Mother]

stabbed [Father].” Id. at 11. As such, Judge Gothie concluded that a finding

of abuse would still be proper, because regardless of where B.G. was in the

____________________________________________

each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify
the issue to be raised for the judge.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not
included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions
of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”); In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466
(Pa. Super. 2017) (“[I]t is well-settled that issues not included in an
appellant’s statement of questions involved and concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal are waived.”).

                                           -5-
J-S27012-23

room, there was still a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury to B.G. Id.

The record confirms that Judge Gothie’s decision is supported by ample,

competent evidence. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own, and we

affirm the order finding Mother to be a perpetrator of child abuse against B.G.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/24/2023

                                     -6-
                                                                   Circulated 09/28/2023 11:46 AM

       IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY,
                                 PENNSYLVANIA

                              JUVENILE DIVISION

 In the Interest of: B.G., a minor                NO: CP-67-DP-115-2023

       OPINION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO_PA.R.A.P. 1925(a)

PROCEEDURAL BACKGROUND

      This case involves the dependency of B.G., an infant child, and stems from a
domestic dispute that occurred in the early morning of December 27, 2022. B.G. was

just shy of being three months old at the time of the dispute. Because of the incident,
the York County Office of Children, Youth and Families ("YCOCYF") received a

Child Protective Services referral for B.G. due to concerns for her safety.

                                           1
                            M. G.
      B.G. and her father               were evicted from the hotel they were living

at on March 27, 2023. Following news of the eviction, YCOCYF filed a petition for

emergency protective custody on March 29, 2023. The undersigned judge grantedthe

petition on the same day. On April 12, 2023, YCOCYF petitioned this court to

adjudicate B.G. dependent, to find that B.G. was a victim of child abuse, and to find

that B.G.'s mother,� perpetrated said abuse.

      A hearing was held on April 17, 2023, during which the court heard testimony

from Patrolman Jonathan Hehnly, the West York Borough Police Officer who

responded to the 911 call on December 27, 2022, and Tess Shortt, the YCOCYF

caseworker assigned to the case. At the hearing the court took judicial notice of
    A.F's
                    criminal charges and accepted Patrolman Hehnly's police report
                            4.G.               A.F.
into evidence. Neither - nor                              offered any evidence or

testimony.'

      Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court adjudicated B.G.

dependent. The court also found that B.G. was a victim of child abuse and that
 A.F.
was the perpetrator.
                              A.F
      On May 16, 2023,                   filed an appeal challenging the finding of

abuse against her. She claims that the court entered its finding without clear and

convincing evidence. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the court issues this opinion in

support of its ruling.

                            A,f,
'At the time of the hearing had charges filed against her stemming from the
incident so it was not in her legal interest to offer testimony.
                                          2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

      At approximately 3:30 a.m. on December 27, 2022, 911 received a call

requesting emergency medical services to 1324 W. King Street in York, PA. West

York Borough Police Dept Incident Report at p. 3. The caller then cancelled the

request. Hearing Transcript at p. 14 lines 8-9. 911 received another call a few

minutes later and emergency services were dispatched. Id. at lines 9-10. EMS was

already at the scene bringing
                                  M..           downstairs from the second floor when
                                                  M.G.
Patrolman Hehnly arrived. Id. at lines 12--14.had a deep cut in his forearm
and blood was soaking through the thighs of his pants. Id. at lines 18-19. Police
                     M.G.                                              M..
spoke briefly with before he was taken to the hospital.(ii advised

them that he did not want to be classified as a victim. Id. at lines 19--20.
              M.G.                                                    A.F.
      Afer( departed, Patrolman Hehn!y spoke with                   lei         ,6
�was holding B.G. at the time and her hands were covered in blood. Id. at
             �gave
lines 23-24.           the officer a fake name and date of birth. Id. at p. 19
          _A.F.                       M.S.
lines 2-3.(also told the officer that was on the corner of King
Street and Hartley Street when he was stabbed. Id. at p. 15 lines 18-19 - �

was on the phone with�while she was speaking to Patrolman Hehnly. West

York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 3. They both communicated to the

officer that they did not want the police to investigate. Id. �would later tell

the officer at the hospital that he was stabbed in York City on W. Princess Street.

West York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 4.

                                            3
                               A.F.
      After speaking with                 at the scene, police proceeded upstairs and
                                                   M..
located the bedroom where EMS had found@i. Patrolman Hehnly found that

there was a large amount of blood on the bedroom's floor. Hearing Transcript at

p. 14 line 25-p. 15 line 1. There was specifically a large amount of blood on the bed.

Id. at p. 15 lines 1-2. A bloody knife was in plain view within the room. Id. at

lines 5-6. There was also a bloody towel on the floor and blood in the bathroom. Id.

at lines 3-4.
                                                    M.G.                   .G.
      Also in the home was                                 older brother. ( told
                                               '
                    M.G.
officers that both - and              A5 I had been at home and that nobody
had entered or left the house. West York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p.
                                           _M.G.            A.F
3. He also told officers that he had heard @ and arguing and

fighting. Hearing Transcript at p. 16, lines 4-5.

       Upon canvassing the home, police noted that the blood was localized to the

upstairs of the home in the bedroom and bathroom. Id. at lines 10-13, p. 28 line 24-

p. 29 line 2. There was no blood on the pavement outside, on the first floor, or on
the stairs leading up to the second floor. Id. at lines 14-20. Police also canvassed
                                   H..                A..
both areas in York City where - and                             claimed the stabbing
occurred and found no blood at either location. Id. at p. 15, lines 22-24, West York

Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 4. Police ultimately concluded that the

stabbing occurred within the residence. Hearing Transcript at p. 28 lines 18-19.
                                                                  M.G.
       On January 4, 2023, about one week after the incident, ( spoke with

Patrolman Hehnly and gave a written and signed statement. West York Borough
                                           4
                                             M.G
Police Dept Incident Report at p. 4. - claimed that on the night of the

incident� drove to the home intoxicated with B.G. Id. at p. 5. Upon her
                                 in�
arrival, the two started arguing      room and with B.G. present. Id.
_A.F                    MG.                   M.G.
hi then began to strike Si with a bottle. Id. So took B.G.
and went to his room. Id. � eventually came into his room with a knife
                         M.G.
and stabbed him. Id. was lying on the bed and was holding B.G. at when
he was stabbed. Id., Hearing Transcript at p. 17 lines 16-17. � stated that
   A.F,
               threatened him that he would never get to see B.G. again if he told

police what happened. West York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 5,

Hearing Transcript at p. 15, lines 2-3.
               M.G's                                                            A..
      Based   on     statement and the evidence at the scene,

was arrested and charged with false identification to a law enforcement officer,

aggravated assault - attempts SBI or causes injury with extreme indifference,

aggravated assault- attempts to cause or causes BI with deadly weapon, intimidation
of a witness, and child endangerment. She was released on bail with conditions that
prohibited her from contacting I -
                                     HG. [ and restricting her contact with B.G. to
supervised visits. Hearing Transcript at p. 51, 1 ines 14-15.
                                                       4.G.              A.S.
      Following YCOCYF's involvement,                           and finite were
                                   M.G.
interviewed by the agency. - told the agency the same story he told
                                      A..
Patrolman Hehnly. He stated that                       was driving drunk with B.G. in the
                                                     A.F.
car. Id. at p. 31 lines 10--11. He stated that                came to the house and struck
him over the head with a liquor bottle before stabbing him. Id. at lines 12-13 ...

                                                 5
M.G.
     j also said that he was lying down with B.G. on his chest when he was stabbed.

Id. at lines 21-22.
                                                     A.F.
       When interviewed by YCOCYF,                              did not admit to stabbing
4.G.                                                              MG.
«   Id. at p. 32 line 3. However, she admitted to being home with that
                                    A.F.
morning. Id. at lines 7-10. ••·                  also told the agency that B.G. was in a car

seat. Id. at lines 5-6.

DISCUSSION

       A court may only issue a finding of child abuse when there is clear and

convincing evidence to support the decision. 42 Pa.C.S. 6341, see also In the

Interest of N.B.-A., 657 Pa. 137, 149 (2020). In making its determination, the court

utilizes the definitions of the Child Protection Services Law ("CPSL"). See In the

Interest ofN.B.-A., 657 Pa. 137, 149 (2020), In the Interest ofL.Z., 631 Pa. 343,361

(2015).

       The CPSL defines a perpetrator as a person who has committed child abuse
as defined in the CPSL.2 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). Child abuse is defined, in pertinent

part, as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

       (3) Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a
       child through any act or failure to act or series of such acts or failures
       to act.

2 Under the CPSL the definition of "perpetrator" only applies to certain individuals who commit
child abuse. A child's parent is specifically included within the definition. See 23 Pa.C.S. $ 6303.
                                                 6
      ( 5) Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through
      any recent act or failure to act.
23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1 ).

      An act is recent if it is committed within two years of the date of the report to
the county agency. 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303.

      With regards to culpability:

      (2) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an
      offense when:
      () if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant
      circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such
      circumstances exist; and

      (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is
      practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
      (3) A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an
      offense when he should be aware of 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 the actor's failure to perceive
      it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the
      circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the
      standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's
      situation.
18 Pa.C.S. § 302.

      With the evidentiary standard and definitions in mind the court finds by clear
                                     A.F.
and convincing evidence that ••••• was a perpetrator of child abuse. The

court heard credible testimony as to the events that occurred on December 27, 2022.

All the evidence that was presented to the court shows that a violent event occurred
                                                AF.                 M.G.
in the parents' home that night and that tip stabbed The police

                                            7
found that the only blood in the home was localized within the bedroom and attached

bathroom. The bed itself was saturated in blood. There was a bloody knife mere feet

away from the pools of blood.
                                                            M.G.             A.F.
      Despite the pools of blood within the bedroom, - and

denied that the stabbing occurred within the home. They both claimed the stabbing

occurred somewhere within York City but provided differing locations as to where

it occurred. Nevertheless, police searched the purported crime scenes and found no

evidence of a stabbing. Nor could police find any blood outside the parents'

residence or in the home leading upstairs to the bedroom that contained pools of l
 M.6.'s
- blood. Upon interviewing another individual within the residence, police
                    M.G.            A..
learned that both and ( were inside the home the entire night
                                                      M.G.'s
and had been arguing. All this, coupled with ••••• statements about not

wishing to be a victim, makes it clear that not only did an act of violence occur within

the home, but that both parties initially desired to cover up what occurred.

      The court also heard credible testimony from Patrolman Hehnly that,
                                                         M.G.
approximately a week after the stabbing occurred, approached police to
                                      M.G.
tell them what exactly happened.(provided the police with a written and

signed statement explaining the incident in detail. It was credibly stated that,   in
�wn words, he was on the bed with B.G. sitting on his chest when he was

stabbed. Furthermore, Patrolman Hehnly testified credibly that �told him
                                               AF.
that he initially lied to police because       ••• used B.G. as a tool to prevent
  M.G.
( from telling the police what actually happened.

                                           8
                                       M.G.
      Ms. Shortt testified that&           ii gave her a similar, if not identical account
                                         M.G.
of the incident. She testified that @told her that they got into an argument
             A.F.                                                           M.G.
and that (it struck him over the head with a liquor bottle. ( told
                A.F.
her that                  then proceeded to stab him as he was lying down with B.G.

on his chest.
           M.G.'s
                       statements to   ese witnesses are all but uncontroverted. The only
                                       .F.'s
evidence to the contrary was                       statement to YCOCYF saying that B.G.

was in a car seat that night. Her statement is contradicted by Patrolman Hehnly' s
testimony that he did not see a car seat when at the house. Hearing Transcript p. 23
                                              AF'S
line 22. The court also must question (credibility, considering she lied
to police about her name, date of birth, and what happened. No other evidence or
                                          M.'$
testimony was produced to counter                     story of the morning's events.
                                                   M.G.'s
      This leads the court to believe that                  statements to the police were

truthful. The court finds it both clear and convincing that
MG.
                                                                   ••         stabbed •
                                                                                  M.GS.
while he was holding the child on his chest. The court notes that @
had a stab wound on his forearm, which, if he were holding the child at the time,
            A.F.
means - came dangerously close to stabbing the three-month-old child.
                   A.E's
In doing so, - actions created a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury.
                       A.F.'s                                                     MG.
       Further,                    actions were at least reckless. By stabbing -
while he was holding the toddler, she ignored the substantial and unjustifiable risk
that she might stab B.G. as well. Her ignorance of the risk was quite clearly a gross
deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in her
                                               9
situation, as the court places its faith in the belief that a reasonable person would not

stab someone who is holding a three-month-old child. It is both clear and convincing
                                   M.G.                                        A.E.
to this court that, by stabbing while he was holding B.G., (ii

perpetrated child abuse.
                                        AF.
      The court hypothesizes that                  will claim that the evidence was not
                                                          _MG.'5
sufficient enough to establish that the child was on - chest. This goes
                                                              M.G's
completely against the evidence that the court heard. In                own words --in

a statement he signed- B.G. was on his chest when he was stabbed. There was no

evidence presented that would lead the court to believe otherwise. But the court

nevertheless humors this theory.

      First, there is the fact that the officer testified that he did remember seeing any

blood on B.G. However, when Patrolman Helmly arrived at the scene, he was under
                       M.G.
the impression that - was stabbed somewhere else. Patrolman Hehnly had

no reason to suspect that B.G. would be injured as he had no reason to believe the

child was present at the stabbing. Therefore, he very likely was not specifically
                                                                    A.F.
looking for any blood on the child. Also, when he spoke to                       she was

holding B.G. and had blood on her hands. Therefore, it is almost impossible for the

child not to have blood on her.

       The court finds it more reasonable that there was blood on the child and that

considering
                A..
Patrolman Hehnly did not take sufficient notice of it to remember that fact, especially

                            was holding B.G. while her hands were covered in blood.
In fact, Patrolman Hehnly testified that he was too preoccupied with everything else
                                            10
going on to even recall the child's demeanor or what she was wearing. Hearing

Transcript, p. 23, lines 1--8. Therefore, the court gives little to no weight to the fact

that Patrolman Hehnly did not see any blood on B.G.
                                                 M.G.
      The court also humors the idea that - removed the child from his

chest before he was stabbed. Even if this occurred, the court fully believes that the
                                                                               A.F.
child was nevertheless within the bedroom, possibly on the bed, as -
           M.G.
stabbed                The court can only imagine two individuals fighting, one

swinging a knife, as the child lay close by. The court still believes this clearly

constitutes the reckless disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the child

would suffer bodily injury. Therefore, even if B.G. were on the bed or in a car seat

on the floor, there was still a substantial and unjustifiable risk that B.G. could be

injured either by the knife or by the parties toppling over onto her while they were

fighting. A finding of abuse is nevertheless still proper regardless of where B.G. was

located in the room.

       It is both clear and convincing that the child was in the room with the parents
at the time of the stabbing. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the court whether the child
          M.G.'s
was 1n              arms or in a car seat. The act of an intoxicated parent swinging a

knife around while in the presence of the child is enough for this court to find that

abuse occurred. The act was reckless and placed B.G. in a situation where she was

likely to be harmed. The fact that she was not harmed is both a blessing and irrelevant
to the finding at hand.

                                            11
       Also, the court believes that the fact that the child witnessed the attack is

enough to substantiate a finding of abuse. Although the child is very young, it is

unimaginable that there will be no repercussions from witnessing one parent brutally

attack another with a weapon. The child was a captive observer to a horrific act of

domestic violence, and such behavior is now likely engrained within the child's

mind and could forever affect the child's behavior. For this reason, the court believes
   A.F's
                  actions also recklessly caused or substantially contributed to mental

injury. As such, the court believes abuse may also be found simply because the child

witnessed the attack.

       Lastly, the court believes this appeal may have been raised because the court

initially vocalized a different standard when it made its finding.3 This was ultimately

corrected on the record. The court opines that this was a simple and harmless error.

Even though the court initially mentioned a lesser standard, the court fully believes

that the evidence presented is both clear and convincing. There was clearly an
                                                         M.G.
altercation that occurred within the residence.( was clearly stabbed by 6
�
           Patrolman Helmly credibly testified that � gave a signed and

written statement saying that B.G. was on his chest when he was stabbed. Even
            A.F's
taking                     statement as truth that the child was in a car seat, the fact of

the matter remains that all the evidence points to the fact that the child was in the

3 The court initially stated there was "substantial evidence" before being asked to clarify.

Hearing Transcript p. 58 lines 2-4, p. 59 lines 13-17.
                                                 12
                        A..
room. The fact that                was swinging around a knife in the presence of the

child is enough for this court to find abuse occurred and that she was the perpetrator.
           A..'s
                       actions clearly created a reasonable likelihood that B.G. would
                                                   M.G.'9
be injured. Regardless of whether B.G. was in arms or on the floor in a
                      AF.     _MG.
car seat, when - stabbed                            r   she ignored the substantial and

unjustifiable risk that the child would also be injured. She therefore acted at least

recklessly, if not with the knowledge that B.G. may have sustained bodily injury. If
                                                   A.FE
this is not clear and convincing evidence that          B perpetrated child abuse,
then this court is at a complete loss.
                              M.G's
  4s a final matter,          signed statement to the police noted that f.
A.F.                                                MG.
i drove while intoxicated and with B.G. in the car. ( gave YCOCYF
                                                            A.'s
an identical statement when they interviewed him.                        intoxication is
                                         M.G.
further substantiated by the fact that claims she conked him on the head
                                         _M.Gs
with a liquor bottle. The court found@ account of the evening's events to

be credible and accurate.
                        A.F
      The fact that                was driving while intoxicated with a three-month-
old toddler in the car is abuse in the court's eyes. By driving while intoxicated, (
  A.F.
ignored the substantial and unjustifiable risk that her actions created a
likelihood that B.G. would suffer bodily injury. Her actions in taking her three-

month-old toddler along for a drive while intoxicated constituted a gross deviation

                                           13
from the standard of care that a reasonable person in her position would observe.4

Therefore, the stabbing incident aside, the court finds that clear and convincing

evidence exists to show that� perpetrated child abuse by driving while

intoxicated with her child in the car.

CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence
        A.F
that                perpetrated child abuse upon B.G. It is respectfully requested that

the Superior Court affirm this trial court's findings.

                                                BY THE COURT,

                                                    SEPH N. GOTHIE, JUDGE

4
 The court prays that a reasonable person would avoid driving under the influence with a three-
month-old child in the car.
                                               14