Court Opinion

ID: 9752283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:54:58.618926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:12.843019
License: Public Domain

FORD ELLIOTT, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden of proving appellant endangered the welfare of her child by her failure to seek prompt medical attention. As the majority aptly notes, the element of scienter is clearly *168lacking. I write separately, however, to express my concern, based on the record in this case, that the court remain vigilant to ensure the protection of this child.
The original complaint filed by the Commonwealth indicates that appellant was initially accused of endangering the welfare of her child by failing to protect the child, and by failing to seek medical attention for the child. (R. at 1.) The charge of failing to protect the child was, however, crossed out, and appellant was eventually charged only with failure to seek medical attention. (R. at 2.) Nevertheless, the affidavit of probable cause to arrest indicates that the child told the CYS worker, the police officer, and the child’s second cousin that appellant’s boyfriend hit the child’s face with a stick. (R. at 1.) Testimony from the second cousin also indicates that appellant did not want to send the child to school with black and blue eyes the Monday following the incident in question because appellant feared CYS involvement. (Notes of testimony, 11/1/95 at 60.)
The record further indicates that the police filed charges against appellant’s boyfriend in connection with the incident in question. (Id. at 80). A jury was sworn in the case against boyfriend at Commonwealth v. Eric Boyer, No.1995-637, Crawford County; however, the jury was dismissed and the case nolle prossed due to the unavailability of a witness.
It is clear from the foregoing that, while the Commonwealth apparently lacked evidence to prosecute appellant for failing to protect her child from her boyfriend, there is enough evidence of record to suspect that this child, as well as others living with mother, may continue to be at risk. I write separately, therefore, to strongly suggest that the Family Division of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas remain attentive to the welfare of this child, and to charge and direct Children and Youth Services to closely monitor the family in this case.
POPOVICH, J., joins in this concurring statement.