Court Opinion

ID: 9379827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 16:07:09.181154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.382151
License: Public Domain

J-S03018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 2742 EDA 2022

                Appeal From the Order Entered October 12, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                        No(s): CP-51-DP-0001237-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.:                            FILED MARCH 16, 2023

        A.A. (Mother) appeals from the order entered October 12, 2022, in the

Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which: (1) adjudicated

dependent her son, D.R. (born in August 2018) (Child); (2) found Child was

the victim of “child abuse” pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303 of the of the Child

Protective Services Law (CPSL);1 and (3) that Mother and R.R. (Father) were

the perpetrators.2 After careful review, we affirm.

____________________________________________

1   23 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq.

2   Father did not participate in this appeal and has not filed a separate appeal.

       Kevin E. Cordero, Esquire, represented Child in the dependency
proceeding as his Child Advocate. On January 3, 2022, Attorney Cordero filed
a letter with this Court, stating that he did “not take any position on Mother’s
appeal of the [juvenile] court’s decision relating to the adjudication of
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03018-23

       We summarize the relevant facts and procedural history as follows.

Mother testified that on November 17, 2021, she came home from work and

placed her firearm inside her safe in the dresser drawer. N.T., 9/30/2022, at

104. Shortly thereafter, she left to pick up her mother from work. Id. at 105.

Upon returning home, Mother “went straight over to wash some dishes” while

Father took Child to the bedroom all three of them shared to get Child ready

for bed. Id. at 40, 105. At some point, Father went back downstairs, leaving

Child in the bedroom, when he and Mother heard a loud boom. See id. at

105; DHS Exhibit 4 (Color photographs of the house and arrest report).

Mother and Father ran upstairs, found Child had been shot, and rushed him

to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). N.T., 9/30/2022, at 105-106.

Mother was interviewed by police, and charged with reckless endangerment,

endangering the welfare of a child, and conspiracy. Id. at 51-53, 106-108.

Mother was incarcerated for 21 days.3 Id. at 108.

       On the same day, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services

(DHS) received a Child Protective Services (CPS) report regarding the

incident.   N.T., 9/30/2022, at 64-65.           The report alleged that Child “was

presented to CHOP” with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the abdomen. Id.

____________________________________________

dependency of” Child. See Letter from Kevin E. Cordero to Joseph D. Seletyn,
Esquire, 1/3/23, at 1 (unpaginated).

3The charges against Mother were later dropped. N.T., 9/30/2022, at 54,
108.

                                           -2-
J-S03018-23

at 58, 66; DHS Exhibits 13-14, (CPS reports).       The report further alleged

repeated, prolonged, or egregious failure to supervise. N.T., 9/30/2022, at

66; DHS Exhibits 13-14, (CPS reports). Mother and Father were the named

perpetrators, and Child was the alleged victim. N.T., 9/30/2022, at 65. DHS

investigator, Denise Jenkins, interviewed Mother after her release from

incarceration. Id. at 68.

      As a result of the shooting, Child required surgery. N.T., 9/30/2022, at

58; DHS Exhibit 12 (CHOP medical records).            He was diagnosed with

bronchiolitis, a gunshot wound to the abdomen, a small bowel laceration, and

a sigmoid colon injury, and remained hospitalized until December 3, 2021.

N.T., 9/30/2022, at 58. On December 5, 2021, he was re-admitted to CHOP

after he began experiencing pain, vomiting, and abdominal distention. Id.

DHS certified Child’s injuries as a “near fatality,” and the CPS report indicated

egregious failure to supervise. Id. at 67-68, 76.

      On December 3, 2021, once Child was ready to be discharged from

CHOP, DHS obtained an order of protective custody (OPC). The juvenile court

held a shelter care hearing on December 6, 2021, where it lifted the OPC, and

the temporary commitment was ordered to stand.               DHS then filed a

dependency petition on December 14, 2021.

                                      -3-
J-S03018-23

       On September 30, 2022, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing,

at which time Child was four years old.4 Child was represented by a guardian

ad litem. DHS presented the testimony of Christopher Maitland, a detective

at the Philadelphia Police Department; Denise Jenkins, a DHS investigator;

Christine Peters-Tynes, a Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) case manager

supervisor; and Gaelle Beck, a CUA case manager. Mother was represented

by counsel and testified on her own behalf.

       Detective Maitland testified that, from the bedroom that Child, Mother,

and Father shared, he recovered two firearms, three empty firearm

magazines, and one bullet projectile. N.T., 9/30/2022, at 26, 40, 42. One

gun was recovered from the floor of the bedroom, and it was loaded with

approximately nine rounds in the magazine. Id. at 27. This firearm did not

contain a serial number; accordingly, Detective Maitland could not determine

to whom the gun belonged.5 Id. at 31. The other gun was in the second

____________________________________________

4Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, if the child is in shelter care, the dependency
hearing “shall not be later than ten days after the filing of the” dependency
petition. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6335(a). The juvenile court initially scheduled the
adjudicatory hearing for December 28, 2021, approximately two weeks after
DHS filed the petition. Over the next nine months, the court continued the
matter multiple times because, inter alia, Father’s counsel was unavailable, it
needed to receive criminal notes of testimony, and because the judge was
unavailable.

5 Detective Maitland testified that a firearm that does not have a serial number
is often referred to as a “ghost gun,” and “ghost guns” are primarily in the
possession of individuals who “wouldn’t ordinarily legally be able to possess a
firearm.” N.T., 9/30/2022, at 31-32.

                                           -4-
J-S03018-23

drawer of a dresser. Id. at 34. This firearm was in a gun safe, but the safe

was unlocked. Id. at 35-36. Detective Maitland testified that, based on the

serial number, this weapon belonged to Mother and contained approximately

four live rounds. Id. at 36. Detective Maitland subsequently determined that

Child was shot with the “ghost gun.” N.T., 9/30/2022, at 40; DHS Exhibit 10,

(Firearms Report).

       Mother testified that, initially, when the incident occurred, she believed

her gun was used and that it was the only one in the home.6 N.T., 9/30/2022,

at 107. She stated she had no knowledge of the “ghost gun.” Id.

       Following the hearing, the juvenile court held its decision in abeyance

to review the evidence and allow CUA to evaluate Mother’s home. Thereafter,

by order dated and entered on October 12, 2022, the juvenile court

adjudicated Child dependent with supervision, ordered legal and physical

custody of Child to Mother, provided Father visitation pursuant to “prison

policy,” found that Child was the victim of “child abuse” pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.

____________________________________________

6 Counsel for the parties also made stipulations regarding the content of
testimony that otherwise would have been provided by Police Officer Robert
Stock, and Robert B. Lindell, M.D.

      According to DHS’s counsel, Officer Stock would have testified as an
expert in firearms identification, and he would have identified the “ghost gun”
as the gun that Child used to shoot himself. N.T., 9/30/2022, at 56-57.

      DHS counsel stated that Dr. Lindell would have testified about the
procedures performed on Child, diagnoses of Child’s injuries, and Child’s
follow-up visits to CHOP. Id. at 58.

                                           -5-
J-S03018-23

§ 6303, and that Mother and Father were the perpetrators. On October 27,

2022, Mother filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors

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

juvenile court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on December 12, 2022.

      Mother raises the following issues for our review:

      1. Whether the [juvenile] court erred as a matter of law and
         abused its discretion when it made a finding of child abuse
         against [Mother?]

      2. Whether the [juvenile] court erred as a matter of law and
         abused its discretion by admitting and relying on inadmissible
         testimony[?]

      3. Whether the [juvenile] court erred as a matter of law and
         abused its discretion when it determined [Child] is a dependent
         child[?]

Mother’s Brief at 8.

      Our 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 R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).

      In her first claim on appeal, Mother avers DHS failed to provide clear

and convincing evidence that she abused Child. Mother’s Brief at 20.

      Our Supreme Court has explained that, “a petitioning party must

demonstrate the existence of child abuse by the clear and convincing evidence

standard applicable to most dependency determinations. . . .”          In the

                                    -6-
J-S03018-23

Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015). This Court has stated that

“clear and convincing evidence” requires:

       that the witnesses must be found to be credible; that the facts to
       which they testify are distinctly remembered and the details
       thereof narrated exactly and in due order; and that their
       testimony is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable
       the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy,
       of the truth of the precise facts in issue. It is not necessary that
       the evidence be uncontradicted provided it carries a clear
       conviction to the mind or carries a clear conviction of its truth.

In the Interest of J.M., 166 A.3d 408, 423 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation

omitted).

       Section 6303 defines “child abuse” in relevant part, as “intentionally,

knowingly or recklessly[7] causing serious physical neglect of a child.”       23

____________________________________________

7The CPSL refers to the definitions of intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly
used in the Pennsylvania Crimes code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 302. Section 302(b)
defines the terms as follows:

       (1) A person acts intentionally . . . if the element involves the
       nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object
       to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result;
       [and] if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is
       aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or
       hopes that they exist.

       (2) A person acts knowingly . . . 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] 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 consciously disregards a substantial and
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-S03018-23

Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1)(7). In addition, Section 6303 defines “serious physical

neglect” as

       [a]ny 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:

              (1) A repeated, prolonged or egregious failure to
              supervise a child in a manner that is appropriate
              considering the child’s developmental age and
              abilities.

              (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 identity of the perpetrator of child abuse “need only be established

through prima facie evidence in certain situations[.]” In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at

1174. Prima facie evidence is “[s]uch evidence as, in the judgment of the

law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts

constituting the party’s claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or

contradicted, will remain sufficient.” Id. at 1185 (citation omitted). Section

____________________________________________

       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.

18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(1)-(3).

                                           -8-
J-S03018-23

6381(d) of the CPSL provides that evidence that a child has suffered abuse

“of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained or exist except by

reason of the acts or omissions of the parent or other person responsible for

the welfare of the child” establishes prima facie evidence of child abuse. 23

Pa.C.S. § 6381(d).

      The L.Z. Court held:

      [E]vidence that a child suffered injury that would not ordinarily be
      sustained but for the acts or omissions of the parent or responsible
      person is sufficient to establish that the parent or responsible
      person perpetrated that abuse unless the parent or responsible
      person rebuts the presumption. The parent or responsible person
      may present evidence demonstrating that they did not inflict the
      abuse, potentially by testifying that they gave responsibility for
      the child to another person about whom they had no reason to
      fear or perhaps that the injuries were accidental rather than
      abusive. The evaluation of the validity of the presumption would
      then rest with the trial court evaluating the credibility of the prima
      facie evidence presented by the [Children and Youth Services]
      agency and the rebuttal of the parent or responsible person.

In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1185 (footnote omitted).

      Returning to her first claim, Mother argues that DHS did not provide

clear and convincing evidence that she perpetrated abuse against Child.

Mother’s Brief at 20. She contends that the evidence suggests she “had no

knowledge of the ghost gun in the family home.” Id. Mother further insists

that she cooperated fully with police and maintained her innocence through

the investigation. Id. at 21.

      In finding that Mother was a perpetrator of “child abuse” as defined by

Section 6303, the juvenile court stated that “clear and convincing evidence

                                      -9-
J-S03018-23

was presented that [Child] suffered serious physical neglect while in Mother

and Father’s primary care.” Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 12. The court

relied on the testimony of DHS Investigator Jenkins and Detective Maitland.

Id. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the juvenile court stated the following:

             The injuries Child sustained while in Mother and Father’s
      primary care are shocking. The evidence and testimony reflect
      that [Child] sustained a gunshot wound to the abdomen while in
      the care of Mother and Father. The incident was certified a near
      fatality. The indicated CPS report named Mother and Father as
      the perpetrators of child abuse based on serious physical neglect,
      which was demonstrated by their egregious failure to supervise
      their three-year-old child in a manner that was appropriate for his
      developmental age and abilities. Mother and Father’s egregious
      failure to supervise [Child] placed his life, safety, and welfare in
      danger. It is this [c]ourt’s opinion that Mother and Father failed
      in their duty to protect and prevent serious injury to [Child]. Their
      reckless conduct resulted in his near fatal injuries. It is this
      [c]ourt’s opinion that Mother and Father failed in their duty to
      protect and prevent serous injury to [C]hild. . . .

Id. at 13.   The juvenile court also determined that “[t]he ghost gun and

Mother’s firearm were accessible to [Child] and created a grave risk of harm

if not properly secured or if [Child] was not properly supervised. Mother and

Father were home [during] the incident and left [Child] unsupervised in a

bedroom where he had access to multiple loaded firearms.” Id. at 14. The

juvenile court further found Detective Maitland’s testimony credible and

Mother’s statements — that she was not aware of another gun in the home —

to not be credible. See id. at 14-15.

      We discern no abuse of discretion. It is undisputed that Child, who was

three years old at the time of the incident, suffered a self-inflicted gunshot

                                     - 10 -
J-S03018-23

wound to the abdomen. N.T., 9/30/2022, at 66; DHS Exhibits 13-14 (CPS

reports). On direct examination, Mother confirmed that Child was in her and

Father’s care at the time of the incident. See N.T., 9/30/2022, at 105-106.

Detective Maitland testified that during his investigation, he discovered two

unsecured, loaded firearms in the bedroom where Child shot himself. Id. at

26-29, 34-38. Child was left in the bedroom he, Mother, and Father all shared

with Mother’s unsecured, loaded firearm. See id. at 105-106.

      Moreover, even though Mother alleges that she was unaware that there

was another gun in the home, the juvenile court determined that it did not

find this credible, stating that while it believed Detective Maitland’s testimony,

it “formed its own opinion about Mother’s credibility.”     N.T., 9/30/2022, at

107; Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 14-15. The court heard testimony that

Mother, Father, and Child shared a “small bedroom,” that contained male and

female items of clothing. N.T., 9/30/2022, at 40, 42. As related supra, this

Court is required to “accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations

of the trial court if they are supported by the record[.]” In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d

at 1190. Accordingly, the juvenile court was well within its discretion to find

Mother not credible regarding her knowledge of the “ghost gun.” Regardless

of her knowledge, though, Mother recklessly endangered Child’s welfare by

egregiously failing to supervise him in a room that contained her own

unsecured, loaded firearm.

                                     - 11 -
J-S03018-23

      Moreover, DHS satisfied its burden that Mother was a perpetrator of

abuse pursuant to Section 6381(d). The juvenile court stated that “[Child]

sustained injuries of such a nature that would not ordinarily be sustained but

for the acts or omissions of the person responsible for the welfare of the child.”

Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 15. Indeed, Child suffered a gunshot wound

to the abdomen, “an injury that would not ordinarily be sustained but for the

acts or omissions of the parent[.]” In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1185. Additionally,

Mother claimed she did not have knowledge of the second firearm.            N.T.,

9/30/2022, at 107.      Mother failed to rebut the presumption afforded by

Section 6381(d) as no evidence was presented that she, and Father, did not

maintain primary care of Child when the incident occurred. See In re L.Z.,

111 A.3d at 1185.

      We also note that Mother baldly relies on several cases for the

proposition that “the facts in the present matter have nothing in common with

the aforementioned abuse law.” Mother’s Brief at 19-23. With these cases,

Mother attempts to rebut the Section 6381(d) presumption. See id. at 20.

Mother cites to In the Matter of Read, 693 A.2d 607, 611-12 (Pa. Super.

1997) (finding that the testimony failed to support a conclusion that the

injuries were not accidental), and In the Interest of A.C., 237 A.3d 553, 562

(Pa. Super. 2020) (concluding that the trial court did not consider “innuendo

and suspicion[,]” but instead “relied heavily on the overwhelming medical

testimony” and the mother’s non-credible explanations in reaching its

                                     - 12 -
J-S03018-23

decisions).   However, as aptly stated in DHS’s brief, these cases are

distinguishable. See DHS’s Brief at 23 n.11. In the case at bar, Child suffered

an injury that would not ordinarily be sustained but for the acts or omissions

of Mother and Father as Child suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the

abdomen after he was left alone in a bedroom with two unsecured, loaded

firearms. Therefore, we discern no abuse of discretion, and no relief is due.

      In her second issue, Mother argues that the juvenile court incorrectly

allowed Detective Maitland to offer his opinion on Mother’s credibility where

Pennsylvania “[bars] expert witnesses and lay witnesses from” making this

determination. Mother’s Brief at 23; citing Commonwealth v. Hairston,

249 A.3d 1046, 1069 (Pa. 2021) and Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d

970, 977 (Pa. Super. 2016). She avers that Detective Maitland improperly

testified that it was “unlikely” that Mother was not aware of the second firearm

and that he did not find her “credible.” Id. at 23-24; see N.T., 9/30/22, at

42.

      With respect to evidentiary issues, this Court has previously stated:

      When we review a trial court ruling on admission of evidence, we
      must acknowledge that decisions on admissibility are within the
      sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned
      absent an abuse of discretion or misapplication of law. In addition,
      for a ruling on evidence to constitute reversible error, it must have
      been harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.

             An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment,
      but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied,
      or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the
      result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the
      evidence or the record, discretion is abused.

                                     - 13 -
J-S03018-23

Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906, 920 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

      First, we note that DHS contends that Mother’s argument is waived for

failure to assert this error in her concise statement of errors complained of on

appeal. DHS Brief at 26. Indeed, a review of the concise statement reveals

she did not raise this issue.     See Mother’s Statement of Errors to be

Complained of On Appeal, 10/27/22, at 1-2 (unpaginated). Moreover, in its

Rule 1925(a) opinion, the juvenile court did not address Mother’s argument

because she did not include it in her concise statement.      Mother offers no

argument against waiver.     As such, we agree that Mother has waived this

claim. See 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.”) (citation omitted).

      Additionally, the juvenile court stated that it “formed its own opinion

about Mother’s credibility.”     Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 14-15.

Accordingly, Detective Maitland’s testimony regarding Mother’s credibility was

not harmful or prejudicial because the court made its own conclusions

independent of this evidence.

      In Mother’s third claim, she argues that the juvenile court erred in

adjudicating Child dependent. Mother’s Brief at 25. She simply reiterates that

there is no evidence that she knew the “ghost gun” responsible for Child’s

injury was in the home. Id.

                                     - 14 -
J-S03018-23

      Regarding adjudication of a child, this Court has stated:

      To adjudicate a child dependent based upon lack of parental care
      or control, a juvenile court must determine that the child:

         is without proper parental care or control, subsistence,
         education as required by law, or other care or control
         necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or
         morals. A determination that there is a lack of proper
         parental care or control may be based upon evidence of
         conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that
         places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk. [42
         Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).]

      In accordance with the overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act “to
      preserve family unity wherever possible,” see 42 Pa.C.S.[ ] §
      6301(b), a child will be declared dependent only when he is
      presently without proper parental care or control, and when such
      care and control are not immediately available. In the Interest
      of R.T., [592 A.2d 55, 57] (Pa. Super. 1991). This Court has
      defined “proper parental care” as “that care which (1) is geared
      to the particularized needs of the child and (2) at a minimum, is
      likely to prevent serious injury to the child.” [In the matter of
      C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 845 (Pa. Super. 1997).]

In re M.B., 101 A.3d 124, 127-128 (Pa. Super. 2014). Additionally, this Court

has stated “‘[a] finding of abuse may support an adjudication of dependency.’”

In re I.R.-R., 208 A.3d 514, 520 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

      The   juvenile   court   aptly   determined,   “[i]n   adjudicating   [Child]

dependent, this [c]ourt determined that its finding of child abuse against

Mother was supported by clear and convincing evidence.” Juvenile Ct. Op.,

12/12/2022, at 12. As a consequence of the abuse finding, the court further

determined that “DHS met its burden of demonstrating [Child] was a

dependent child and was without proper parental care and control.” Id. As

noted above, the court concluded: (1) the evidence reflected Child’s injuries

                                       - 15 -
J-S03018-23

were certified as near fatality; (2) Mother and Father’s reckless conduct

resulted in Child’s near fatal injuries; (3) Mother and Father’s egregious failure

to supervise Child placed his life, safety, and welfare in danger; (4) Mother

and Father failed in their duty to protect and prevent serious injury to Child;

and (5) Proper parental care was not immediately available to Child. Id. at

13-14. We agree.

      We reiterate that the juvenile court’s finding of abuse was supported by

the record, and we do not disturb it on appeal. This alone supports the court

adjudicating Child dependent. See In re I.R.-R., 208 A.3d at 520 (citation

omitted).   Moreover, we note the juvenile court’s finding that Child was

without proper parental care or control is also supported by the record.

Mother and Father’s conduct — leaving Child alone in a room with numerous

unsecured loaded firearms — placed his health, safety, and welfare at risk.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1); In re M.B., 101 A.3d at 127-128. This conduct

was not “geared to the particularized needs of” Child, nor was it “at a

minimum, . . . likely to prevent serious injury[,]” and as such, it demonstrated

a lack of parental care and control. See In re M.B., 101 A.3d at 127-128.

Thus, the juvenile court properly determined that Mother and Father were

perpetrators of abuse against Child as defined by Section 6303. The foregoing

evidence also supports the court’s finding that Child was without proper care

and control. Accordingly, Mother is not entitled to relief.

                                     - 16 -
J-S03018-23

      Consequently,     the   record   supports   the   juvenile   court’s   order

adjudicating Child dependent and finding that Mother was a perpetrator of

“child abuse” as defined by 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303. As such, the court did not

abuse its discretion.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/2023

                                       - 17 -