Court Opinion

ID: 9411037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 17:26:09.884249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.418431
License: Public Domain

J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: S.S., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 334 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Juvenile Division at
                       No(s): CP-28-DP-37-2022

 IN THE INTEREST OF: I.S., A MINOR     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: S.S., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 335 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-28-DP-0000038-2022

 IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: K.N., MOTHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 336 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-28-DP-0000037-2022
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

  IN THE INTEREST OF: I.S., A MINOR            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: K.N., MOTHER                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 337 MDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Juvenile Division at
                      No(s): CP-28-DP-0000038-2022

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                  FILED: JULY 25, 2023

       In these consolidated appeals, S.S. (Father) and K.N. (Mother) seek

review of dependency orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County

(trial court) finding that aggravated circumstances existed as to the minor

children, K.S. and I.S., and changing the permanency review goal from

reunification to placement with a permanent legal custodian as to each child.

We affirm.1

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The guardian ad litem of both children filed an appellate brief in this case

adopting the two identical briefs filed by the Franklin County Children and
Youth Services.

                                           -2-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

                                       I.

      Father and Mother are the biological parents of K.S. and I.S. On July

26, 2022, when I.S. was about two months old, she was taken to the hospital.

Father and Mother reported that I.S. had been vomiting and was non-

responsive.   I.S. survived, but a CT scan revealed that she had sustained

unreported injuries to her skull which had caused internal bleeding and

seizures.

      Due to I.S.’s injury, Franklin County Children and Youth Services (CYS)

received a “near fatality” referral, prompting the trial court to grant a verbal

order for emergency protective custody of both I.S. and her sister, K.S. (age

2). Pursuant to the order, K.S. was immediately placed in foster care and I.S.

was ordered to be placed in foster care after her discharge from the hospital.

      A day later, as to both children, CYS filed an emergency protective

custody application and a shelter care application. These applications were

predicated on the circumstances of I.S.'s injury, as well as prior reports to

CYS that I.S. and Mother had tested positive for controlled substances at the

time of the child’s birth; Father had a criminal history of child abuse; and the

condition of the parents’ home was not suitable for children. Further, CYS

filed dependency petitions as to both children, alleging that each child was a

“dependent child” who was without proper care or control.

      On September 19, 2022, a shelter care hearing and consolidated

adjudication and disposition hearing was held before a juvenile court hearing

                                     -3-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

officer.   The hearing officer then recommended that clear and convincing

evidence existed to substantiate the allegations set forth in the dependency

petition, and that it was in the children’s best interests to be removed from

their parents’ custody.

      On September 23, 2022, the trial court adopted the findings of the

juvenile court hearing officer and determined that K.S. and I.S. were

dependent children. The children were ordered to remain in the custody of

CYS and placed in foster care.     As conditions of reunification, Father and

Mother were directed to participate in parental fitness assessments, improve

their housing situation, and maintain visitation with the two children.

      Later, on October 14, 2022, CYS moved the trial court for a finding of

aggravated circumstances in each child’s case.     The juvenile court hearing

officer held an evidentiary hearing on CYS's motion on January 23, 2023. On

that date, the hearing officer received the testimony of Dr. Kathryn Crowell,

an expert in pediatric medicine. Dr. Crowell stated that she was a member of

the medical team that treated I.S. when the child had received emergency

care on July 26, 2022. See Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, 1/23/2023, at

pp. 6-8.

      In her capacity as a treating physician, Dr. Crowell reviewed the child’s

medical records and consulted with family members. According to Dr. Crowell,

I.S. had unexplained injuries to her scalp, as well as symptoms of withdrawal

to controlled substances at the time of her birth. See id. at pp. 8-10. Dr.

                                     -4-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

Crowell testified that she examined I.S.’s skull and discovered indications of

unreported trauma – retinal hemorrhages behind the child’s eyes and a

subdural hemorrhage near the brain.        These hemorrhages (described as

bleeding near the eyes and brain) had caused the child to suffer from seizures

during her treatment. See id. at p. 23. Dr. Crowell opined that the injuries

sustained by I.S. were consistent with “rotational injury of the head” and not

from the sort of impact the child would have been able to inflict on herself.

See id. at pp. 30-35. At some point, the child had also suffered from a left

distal radial metaphyseal fracture (a broken wrist) which neither parent could

account for. See id. at pp. 15-18.

      In addition to the medical examination of I.S., the juvenile court hearing

officer heard testimony concerning the observations of CYS caseworkers when

they visited the home of Father and Mother. Photos of the home showed that

it was littered with “various waste and refuse.”     Id. at p. 55.   Controlled

substances, drug paraphernalia and prescription medications were found in

areas of the home that were accessible to K.S., including in the child’s

bedroom. See id. at p. 54-57.

      As of the date of the hearing held on January 23, 2023, neither Father

nor Mother had contacted CYS for the prior six months, despite that ongoing

contact was a condition of their reunification with the children. See id. at pp.

56-58. Nor had either parent demonstrated the ability to provide appropriate

                                     -5-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

housing for them.        See id. at p. 68.       Both parents were charged with

committing child abuse in connection with the findings of CYS.2

       On February 6, 2023, the juvenile court hearing officer submitted to the

trial court a recommendation of aggravated circumstances as to both children.

See Recommendation – Aggravated Circumstances, 2/8/2023, at paras. 1-

23. As to both K.S. and I.S., the hearing officer found clear and convincing

evidence that the children were victims of abuse and that the parents were

the perpetrators of the abuse; that aggravated circumstances exist with

respect to Father and Mother “in that the child or another child of the parent

has been a victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, sexual

violence or aggravated neglect by the parent”; and that it was in the children’s

best interest that CYS make no further efforts to preserve the family and

reunify the children with Father or Mother. Further, the hearing officer

recommended that the permanency goal be changed from reunification to

placement with a permanent legal custodian. See id. at para. 24.

       On February 8, 2023, after review, the trial court approved and adopted

the hearing officer’s recommendations. The trial court ordered that CYS retain

custody of the children, and that due to the finding of aggravated

circumstances, CYS would make no further effort toward reunifying the

____________________________________________

2 The record on appeal does not indicate the manner in which the criminal
charges against Father and Mother were resolved.

                                           -6-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

children with either parent.            The placement goal was changed from

reunification to placement with a non-relative permanent legal custodian.

       Father and Mother both sought review of the order and filed identical

1925(b) statements of issues complained of on appeal.           While somewhat

vague, the issues included claims that the evidence did not support a finding

of aggravated circumstances or a determination that efforts at reunification

should cease.

       The trial court issued a single opinion stating the reasons why its orders

pertaining to Father and Mother should be affirmed as to both children. See

Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 3/9/2023, at 6-12.3 In general, the trial court

found the 1925(b) statements to be too vague to allow a cogent response,

resulting in a waiver of all of Father and Mother’s appellate claims. However,

in the alternative, the trial court stated that the record evidence (in particular,

the testimony of Dr. Crowell supporting the recommendations of the juvenile

court hearing officer) was sufficient to sustain the determination that there

existed aggravating circumstances which would warrant a goal change from

____________________________________________

3 Neither Father nor Mother requested a rehearing of this matter de novo
before the trial court, as provided for in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6305(d). Accordingly,
the juvenile court hearing officer’s findings and recommendations were
adopted by the trial court on February 8, 2023. As noted in the trial court’s
1925(a) opinion, an order finding that aggravated circumstances exist is a
collateral order which is immediately appealable as of right. See In re. R.C.,
945 A.2d 182, 184 (Pa. Super. 2008).

                                           -7-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

reunification to placement with a permanent legal custodian. See Trial Court

Opinion, 3/9/2023, at pp. 10-11.

                                       II.

                                       A.

      Father and Mother’s central contention is that the trial court abused its

discretion in finding aggravating circumstances and changing the permanency

review goal from reunification to placement with a permanent legal custodian.

      “[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 R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa.

2010) (citation omitted). On review, “we must defer to the trial judges who

see and hear the parties and can determine the credibility to be placed on

each witness and, premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of the success of

the current permanency plan.” Id. at 1190.

      The Juvenile Act governs proceedings to change a child’s permanent

placement goal. See generally 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6375. When considering

a request to modify permanency goals, the trial court must focus on the health

and safety of the child, which takes precedence over all other considerations.

See In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 878 (Pa. Super. 2000). To that end, the trial

court must consider, inter alia:

                                      -8-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

      (1) the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the
      placement; (2) the extent of compliance with the family service
      plan; (3) the extent of progress made towards alleviating the
      circumstances which necessitated the original placement; (4) the
      appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for
      the children; (5) a likely date by which the goal for the child might
      be achieved; (6) the child’s safety; and (7) whether the child has
      been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two
      months. The best interests of the child, and not the interests of
      the parent, must guide the trial court[.]

In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088-89 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 6351(f)).

      Although the rights of a parent and parental progress toward

reunification with a child are significant factors, they are “not to be elevated

to determinative status, to the exclusion of all other factors.” In the Interest

of M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1175 (Pa. Super. 2014).            Further, there is no

minimum period of time in which a child’s goal must be set at reunification

before it can be changed. See In re M.S., 980 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 2009).

“[A] child’s life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will

summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.”          In re

Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003).

      Under controlling federal and state law, CYS must make reasonable

efforts to preserve and reunify families; however, a finding of “aggravated

circumstances” requires the trial court to determine if efforts at reunification

should continue.   See 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(2).

“Aggravated circumstances” may be found where the evidence demonstrates

                                      -9-
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

that “[t]he child or another child of the parent has been the victim of physical

abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, sexual violence or aggravated physical

neglect by the parent." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302.

      “Serious bodily injury” is defined as “[b]odily injury which creates a

substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or

protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.”

Id. “Aggravated physical neglect” is defined as “[a]ny omission in the care of

a child which results in a life-threatening condition or seriously impairs the

child’s functioning.” Id.

      The court does not need to find aggravated circumstances “as to a

particular party; rather, it merely must determine whether they are present

in the case.”   In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2008).          The

purpose of a finding of aggravated circumstances is “to eliminate the need for

family reunification efforts when it is established that children were exposed

to sexual or physical abuse ... [because] [t]hese parents have exhibited no

responsibilities attendant with parenting but have been abusive and grossly

neglectful[.]” Id. (quoting In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287, 298 (Pa. Super. 2004)).

      After a finding of aggravated circumstances is made, the focus is

directed “away from any parental rights and toward the protection of these

innocent, scarred children, who have been subjected to egregious horrors that

shake the very foundations of the precious family institution.” In re R.P.,

957 A.2d at 1219. If the trial court finds “from clear and convincing evidence

                                     - 10 -
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

that aggravated circumstances exist, the court shall determine whether or not

reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from

the home or to preserve and reunify the family shall be made or continue to

be made[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(c.1).

                                       B.

      Here, in Father and Mother’s respective briefs, they each argue that the

trial court abused its discretion in finding aggravated circumstances and

changing the children’s permanency goals from reunification to placement

with a permanent legal custodian. We find that no appellate relief is due.

      At the outset, we find that Father and Mother have preserved their

appellate claims. While vague, their 1925(b) statements plainly assert that

the record does not support the trial court’s findings of aggravated

circumstances and whether a goal change was warranted.

      Turning to the merits, we find that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in determining that there were aggravated circumstances as to each

child. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in changing the permanency

goal to placement with a permanent legal custodian as to both children.

      The two children were placed in temporary emergency custody following

I.S.’s treatment at a hospital for near-fatal injuries to her head. She had also

broken an arm at some point. Father and Mother could not explain how their

child had been so seriously injured during her short life, and a medical expert

testified that the types of injuries sustained could not have been self-inflicted.

                                     - 11 -
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

      Once it intervened in I.S.’s case, CYS became concerned with the care

of K.S., who was two years old at the time. CYS caseworkers discovered at

Father and Mother’s home controlled substances and drug paraphernalia in

areas easily accessible to the children. Under the Juvenile Code, this was clear

and convincing evidence of aggravating circumstances as to both children.

The life-threatening injuries sustained by I.S. and the evident neglect of K.S.

amounted to aggravating circumstances.

      Once the trial court made that determination, the trial court acted within

its discretion in determining that CYS no longer needed to make reasonable

efforts to reunify the children with Father and Mother and that the permanency

plan would be changed to placement with a permanent legal custodian. After

the children were adjudicated dependent, Father and Mother were directed to

participate in a reunification plan that called for their participation in substance

abuse treatment, for them to be in regular contact with CYS, and for them to

be in regular contact with the children. However, for the six months preceding

the aggravated circumstances hearing, Father and Mother had not complied

with any of those directives.

      Thus, the evidence before the trial court indicated that Father and

Mother were unable to care for their two children, and that their circumstances

would not be remedied in the foreseeable future.                 Based on these

circumstances, the trial court did not err in determining that reasonable efforts

                                      - 12 -
J-S21031-23
J-S21032-23

were no longer needed to reunify the family and that a goal change was in the

children’s best interests. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(c.1).

     Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 07/25/2023

                                   - 13 -