Court Opinion

ID: 9939788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 19:09:11.617494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:57.369467
License: Public Domain

J-S45033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: L.K.-R., A               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: W.R., FATHER                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1164 MDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s):
                          CP-67-DP-0000163-2023

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E:                       FILED: FEBRUARY 12, 2024

       Appellant, W.R. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered July 20,

2023, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, that adjudicated his son,

L.K.-R (“Child”), born in May 2019, dependent and found that Child was a

victim of “child abuse” perpetrated by Father as defined at 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 6303. Father also appeals from the order entered the same date finding

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45033-23

aggravated circumstances exist as to Father pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 6302(3)(ii) and 6341(c.1).1 After careful review, we affirm.2

       The trial court precisely detailed the factual and procedural history in its

opinion, as follows:

              On September 10, 2020, Father pled guilty to
              aggravated assault, strangulation, and endangering
              the welfare of children (“EWOC”).          He was
              subsequently sentenced to eleven-and-a-half to
              twenty-three months in confinement followed by two
              years of probation. Child was the victim. See N.T.,

____________________________________________

1 Filing a single notice of appeal from multiple orders is discouraged. See
General Electric Credit Corporation v. Aetna Casualty and Surety
Company, 263 A.2d 448 (Pa. 1970) (one appeal from several judgments is
discouraged as unacceptable practice and Supreme Court has quashed such
appeals where no meaningful choice between them could be made); see also
20 Pa.P.R.A.C. § 512 (stating that one appeal from several orders is
discouraged). However, our Supreme Court stated the following in K.H. v.
J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003):

       Where a party specifies a particular part of a judgment or order in
       their notice of appeal, appellate review may nevertheless be
       extended to orders not identified in the notice of appeal if the
       specified and unspecified orders are connected, the intention to
       appeal the unspecified order is apparent, and the opposing party
       has not suffered prejudice and has had an opportunity to brief the
       issues.

Id. at 871. In the instant appeal, Father does, in fact, reference the
aggravated circumstances order in his notice of appeal which demonstrates
his intention to appeal the connected orders. Further, no party has suffered
prejudice, and each had an opportunity to address the issues. Thus, we
observe no impediment to our appellate review of the case at bar.

2 Child’s mother, G.K. (“Mother”), did not file a notice of appeal and did not

participate in the instant appeals.

                                           -2-
J-S45033-23

              6/7/2023, at 9. Mother allegedly witnessed and
              filmed the assault.[3] See N.T., 7/17/2023, at 112.

              Father was released from incarceration on February
              28, 2021. See N.T., 6/7/2023, at 55. While Father
              was incarcerated, Child resided with Mother. At some
              point between October and December 2022, Mother
              placed Child in Father’s care. See id. at 20. Father
              claimed Mother left Child in his care so she could go
              on a drug binge in Philadelphia. See id. at 19.

              Since the approximate time Child was placed back in
              Father’s care, he was the victim in three valid general
              protective services (“GPS”) findings in Dauphin
              County. See id. at 17-18. Father was either alleged
              to be or was a validated perpetrator in those GPS
              findings. See id. at 19.

              This dependency case began on May 6, 2023, when
              the York County Office of Children, Youth & Families
              (“CYF”) received a child protective services (“CPS”)
              referral regarding Child, alleging Father physically
              abused him and had stated he did not want to be a
              dad anymore. See id. at 10. Ashley Althoff, a CYF
              caseworker, performed a home visit and documented
              several injuries on and around Child’s face. See id.
              at 11. Following Ms. Althoff’s home visit, CYF filed a
              petition for emergency protective custody, which was
              granted by the undersigned on May 17, 2023.

Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O.”), 9/12/2023, at 1-3 (cleaned up).

       Following a shelter care hearing on May 26, 2023, the court ordered

Child’s temporary commitment to CYF’s custody to stand. Child was placed in

____________________________________________

3 The court took judicial notice of the criminal complaint which allegedthat
Father “[threw Child] onto the bed and slapp[ed] him across the left side of
his face.” Criminal Complaint, 1/2/2020. The complaint further alleged that
Father “grabbed [Child] around the neck with both hands, and shook him three
times.” Id. Mother witnessed the incident through a camera she setup in the
room. See id.

                                           -3-
J-S45033-23

a pre-adoptive foster home where he has remained. N.T., 6/7/2023, at 39-

40. On May 30, 2023, CYF filed a dependency petition for Child, along with a

motion requesting the finding that aggravated circumstances exist as to

Father.

       The court conducted evidentiary hearings on June 7, July 17, and July

19, 2023, respectively, at which time Child was four years old.4            At the

hearing, CYF presented the testimony of Ashley Althoff, CYF caseworker;

Robert Baylor, Father’s probation officer; Kathryn Crowell, M.D., a stipulated

expert in child abuse pediatrics; Alexis Gilliam, D.D.S., a stipulated expert in

pediatric   dentistry;    A.D.    (“Foster     Mother”); and Natalie   Felker, CYF

caseworker. Father testified on his own behalf and adduced the testimony of

D.S., his mother, and J.A., his sister. Mother appeared pro se at the hearings,

testified on her own behalf, and offered the testimony of A.R., her best friend

and roommate.

       Ms. Althoff testified that during her initial home visit on May 16, 2023,

she observed marijuana in the living room. See N.T., 6/7/2023, at 17, 45.

She further stated that during the visit, Father admitted he had a valid GPS

____________________________________________

4 Prior to the conclusion of the proceedings, on July 10, 2023, CYF filed a
motion alleging serious physical neglect of Child due to Father’s and Mother’s
failure to provide him with dental care. See Motion, 7/10/2023. The motion
alleged that during a dental examination on June 8, 2023, the dentist
discovered severe and widespread tooth decay. See id.

                                           -4-
J-S45033-23

report in Dauphin County, but he claimed it was because he had lightly hit

Child with two fingers, and Child was not injured. See id. at 11.

      Dr. Crowell testified regarding the severity of Child’s facial injuries. She

examined photographs taken by CYF and performed a physical examination of

Child on June 12, 2023. See N.T., 7/17/2023, at 9. She proffered that Child

had a healing injury to his face and many bruises and abrasions to his shins,

forearms, hands, and feet. See id. at 10. She concluded that Child was the

victim of repetitive physical abuse. See id. at 16.

      The testimony adduced by CYF also documented significant concerns

regarding Child’s oral health. Foster Mother testified that she brought Child

to the dentist after he complained about pain in his teeth. See id. at 67. To

ease his pain, she provided him with ibuprofen and Tylenol. See id. at 68. In

order for Child to eat, Foster Mother stated that he crushes food with his

tongue, instead of biting it. See id. at 69. She further stated that she had

to teach Child how to brush his teeth. See id.

      Dr. Gilliam examined Child’s teeth and testified regarding the extensive

decay. She stated that the extent of the decay was easily visible to the naked

eye. See id. at 39. She further asserted that twelve of Child’s teeth needed

stainless steel crowns and another two possibly required extraction. See id.

Dr. Gilliam diagnosed Child with severe early childhood cavities and that he

would experience pain and discomfort, especially when eating hot, cold, or

sweet foods. See id. at 43-44, 46.

                                      -5-
J-S45033-23

      Father largely denied the allegations made against him. He countered

that the marijuana Ms. Althoff saw during her initial visit was actually ash from

incense his roommates had burned. See id. at 89. He admitted that a video

showed him committing the actions described in the criminal complaint and

led to his convictions related supra, but he subsequently insisted that he only

struck Child with two fingers. See id. at 112-113. Father stated that he had

not attended a batterer’s intervention or anger management program as

required by the terms of his probation. See id. at 122. However, between

the June 7 and July 17 hearing, Father testified that he had finally found an

anger management program. See id. at 90. Father also indicated that he

has no income and no money in his bank account.           See id. at 113-116.

However, he stated that he was offered a job at Domino’s Pizza which he

intended to start after these proceedings concluded. See id. at 91.

      Father claimed that he attempted to take Child to the dentist but was

unable to obtain Child’s insurance information through Mother. See id. at 99.

He further asserted that after failing to obtain Mother’s insurance information,

he tried to get Child to a dentist, but he never followed through. See id.

Finally, Father denied physically harming Child and proffered explanations for

some of Child’s injuries. See id. at 108. Specifically, Father insisted that an

injury to Child’s right orbital occurred when Child was climbing on a bin,

slipped on a stack of magazines, and hit his face on the corner of a table. See

id. a 104-105. Father also testified that an injury to Child’s chin occurred

                                      -6-
J-S45033-23

when he fell running down a ramp at a family party and that an injury to the

left side of Child’s face occurred while Mother cared for Child.5 See id. at 106-

108.

       Father’s mother and sister also testified regarding Child’s injuries.

However, the accounts of Father, his mother, and his sister varied factually as

to what happened to Child and which injuries occurred during each incident.

       By order entered July 20, 2023, the trial court adjudicated Child

dependent, and found that Father was the perpetrator of “child abuse” as

defined by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303.                The order also determined Child’s

permanency goal to be adoption, with a concurrent goal of permanent legal

custody of a non-relative, discontinued visitation for Father, and excused CYF

from providing services to Father. By separate order, entered the same date,

the court submitted a finding of aggravated circumstances and indicated that

no efforts were to be made to preserve the family and reunify Child with

Father. On August 17, 2023, Father timely filed a notice of appeal along with

a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).        In response, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a)

opinion on September 12, 2023.

       On appeal, Father raises the following issues:

____________________________________________

5 Father testified that he only left Child with his mother on one occasion, and

rarely lets Child out of his sight. See N.T., 7/17/2023, at 117-118.

                                           -7-
J-S45033-23

            1.    Whether the trial court erred in finding that the
                  agency had met its burden to establish
                  dependency by clear and convincing evidence?

            2.    Whether the trial court must first find
                  dependency before hearing evidence on
                  aggravating factors and whether the trial court
                  erred in taking evidence on aggravating factors
                  before an adjudication of dependency?

            3.    Whether the trial court erred in finding by clear
                  and convincing evidence that the Child was a
                  victim of child abuse by Father as to physical
                  abuse as defined in 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6303?

            4.    Whether the trial court erred in finding that the
                  Child was a victim of child abuse, as defined in
                  23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6303, as a result of dental
                  decay when the issue was not raised in the
                  initial petition nor was any amended
                  dependency petition filed?

            5.    Whether the trial court erred in finding that the
                  agency was not required to provide services to
                  Father as a result of the finding of aggravated
                  circumstances?

            6.    Whether the trial court erred in setting the goal
                  as adoption without first attempting to
                  implement services or any attempts to seek
                  reunification with Father?

            7.    Whether the trial court erred in directing that no
                  visitation occur between the [] Child and
                  Father?

Father’s Brief at 6-7 (cleaned up).

      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

                                      -8-
J-S45033-23

            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) (cleaned up).

      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.A. § 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.” C.R.S., 696 A.2d at 845.

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).

      Regarding child abuse, our Supreme Court has explained that “a

petitioning party must demonstrate the existence of child abuse by the clear

                                      -9-
J-S45033-23

and   convincing    evidence   standard       applicable   to   most   dependency

determinations. . . .” In the 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 of the Child Protective Services Laws (“CPSL”) defines

“child abuse” as follows, in relevant part,

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

            (1) Causing bodily injury to a child through any
            recent act or failure to act.

            ...

            (7)    Causing serious physical neglect of a child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(1), (7). In addition, Section 6303 defines “bodily

injury” as “[i]mpairment of physical condition or substantial pain.”          23

Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a).

                                     - 10 -
J-S45033-23

      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 1184 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary

825 (6th ed. abridged 1991)).      Section 6381(d) of the CPSL provides as

follows:

            (d) Prima facie evidence of abuse. — Evidence
            that a child has suffered child 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
            shall be prima facie evidence of child abuse by the
            parent or other person responsible for the welfare of
            the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 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 CYS agency and the
            rebuttal of the parent or responsible person.

                                     - 11 -
J-S45033-23

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

      In his first issue, Father argues that CYF did not provide clear and

convincing evidence that he caused physical harm to Child or that his

purported conduct put the health, safety, or welfare of Child at risk.        See

Father’s Brief at 16. Father contends that CYF did not meet its burden to

establish that Father caused any of the injuries to Child, even if this Court

accepts the testimony of Dr. Crowell, the expert in child abuse pediatrics. See

id. at 17. Father further asserts that the trial court improperly considered

Child’s dental decay as a basis for dependency because the allegation was not

raised in CYF’s dependency petition and CYF did not file an amended petition

to include this allegation. See id. at 17-18.

      Although framed as a separate claim for relief, the arguments presented

in Father’s third issue are closely related to these allegations. In Father’s third

presented issue, he argues that the trial court erred in finding by clear and

convincing evidence that Child was a victim of child abuse by Father as to

physical abuse defined in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303.         See Father’s Brief at 24.

Father posits that “bodily injury” is defined as an “impairment of physical

condition or substantial pain.”   23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a). Father asserts that

Dr. Crowell merely stated that Child would experience “pain” because of the

injuries and, consequently, he argues that there was no testimony establishing

that Child would have suffered “substantial pain.” Viewed together, Father’s

first and third claims for relief essentially challenge the court’s findings with

                                      - 12 -
J-S45033-23

respect to Child’s adjudication of dependency.     Accordingly, we will review

these arguments collectively.

      Initially, Father’s argument that the court improperly considered Child’s

dental decay as a basis of dependency is without merit. As related supra,

Foster Mother brought Child to the dentist after he complained of pain in his

mouth. See N.T., 7/17/2023, at 67. Thereafter, Foster Mother brought Child

to the dentist on June 8, 2023, which revealed extensive dental decay. In the

interim of the dependency proceedings, on July 10, 2023, CYF filed a motion

to incorporate allegations of “serious physical neglect” pursuant to 23 Pa.

C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(7).      Although not styled as a modification to the

dependency petition, CYF informed Father of its intention to offer evidence on

Child’s extensive dental decay. Father does not cite any law nor are we aware

of any that would preclude the trial court from considering this allegation when

rendering its dependency determination.

      In finding Child dependent, the trial court stated the following:

            Father previously pleaded guilty in Dauphin County to
            aggravated assault, strangulation, and EWOC with
            [Child] as the victim.       He subsequently was
            incarcerated and placed on probation.

            ...

            Clear and convincing evidence was produced by [CYF]
            that [Father] has physically abused [Child] since he
            returned to [Father’s] care. [CYF] documented and
            photographed several bruises and injuries to [Child’s]
            face.    [Father] and his two witnesses provided
            inconsistent testimony regarding the cause of the
            injuries. The court found the testimonies presented

                                     - 13 -
J-S45033-23

            by [Father], his mother, and his sister were not
            credible with regards to how [Child] sustained his
            injuries.

            On the other hand, Dr. Crowell’s testimony with
            regards to [Child’s] injuries was credible.          Her
            experience and credentials were unimpeachable. She
            had no reason, such as a personal involvement in the
            case, to be biased. She testified that the injuries most
            likely occurred by a malleable object such as a fist,
            and not by a stiff item. Dr. Crowell also testified that
            the injuries would have been painful for [Child].
            Based on [Father’s] prior attack on [Child], he and his
            witnesses’ incredible testimony, and Dr. Crowell’s
            credible testimony, the court clearly and convincingly
            found [Father] physically abused [Child]. It is this
            court’s opinion that such physical abuse clearly and
            convincingly placed [Child’s] health and welfare at
            risk. As such, the court believes that an adjudication
            of dependency was appropriate.

Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 9/12/2023, at 17-18. Our review of the certified

record reveals ample support for the trial court’s conclusions.

      The trial court heard testimony from Ms. Althoff and Father regarding

Father’s previous physical assault of Child that led to his incarceration. See

N.T., 6/7/2023, at 17 (“That’s when I discovered that [F]ather is actually an

indicated perpetrator for physical abuse for strangulation and assault on the

child.”). Father attempted to minimize this incident on cross examination, as

follows:

            Q: Do you recall indicating to the caseworker that you
            were indicated for physical abuse of [Child] for hitting
            [C]hild with two fingers which accidentally left a
            mark?

            A: Yes.

                                     - 14 -
J-S45033-23

           Q: Is that your testimony of how you ended up with
           aggravated assault charges?

           A: Huh? Yes. They sat there, and that’s what
           happened. What they have down on the paperwork is
           that I smacked him and then grabbed him and I
           shook him.

           Q: Well, let’s talk about that. What they have on the
           paperwork seems to indicate that [M]other had a
           video of that incident and that’s how they know about
           it. Is that right?

           A: Yes, and I never denied that. I ate my charges.

           Q: You keep saying you ate your charges, but the fact
           of the matter is you are on video doing those
           actions as described in the complaint, right?

           A: Yes.

           Q: Okay.

           A: I made a mistake.

           Q: So when you told the caseworker that you hit
           [C]hild with two fingers, that was minimizing your
           previous behavior, right?

           A: No. That’s what happened. I was telling the truth.

See id. at 112-113 (emphasis added).

     Due to this incident, Father was incarcerated and sentenced to probation

upon release, which would end on December 2, 2025. See N.T., 6/7/2023,

at 53. Father was required to attend, inter alia, batterer’s intervention and

anger management programs. See id. at 51. However, at the time of the

June 7, 2023 hearing, Father had not attended either. See id. at 51. Officer

                                   - 15 -
J-S45033-23

Baylor, Father’s probation officer, confirmed that Father was not compliant

with his probation. See id. at 52-56.

      The court also heard testimony regarding injuries Child sustained while

in Father’s care. On direct examination, Dr. Crowell testified regarding Child’s

right orbital injury, as follows.

             Q: And can you describe the method by which [Child]
             would have sustained such an injury to his orbital?

             A: Sometimes when there’s continuous injuries or
             injury to the skin, it can cause damage to the soft
             tissue beneath, like the fat, and you can have
             something called fat necrosis where that tissue
             changes and becomes firm like a nodule and can take
             some time to heal. When that happens, it feels hard
             and is mobile within the soft tissues of the skin, and
             that’s what I think had occurred in [Child’s] cheek or
             right around his eye on the right side.

             Q: And does that ever resolve? Will that eventually
             heal fully and be like it was before?

             A: It does, but that can take some time. Those cells
             have to shrink down, so that may be present for
             months.

             Q: Okay. Would that injury cause pain?

             A: Likely when it happened, and then again for some
             period of time after it healed.

             Q: What is an example of a mechanism by which that
             could have been sustained by [Child]?

             A: It requires some blunt force trauma to the skin that
             causes the tissues beneath to have blood leak out of
             the blood vessels and then cause injury to the soft
             tissue and fat cells.

             ...

                                     - 16 -
J-S45033-23

            Q: Okay. And is that injury to [Child’s] orbital
            consistent with falling on any item, a coloring book, a
            toy, or something else?

            A: Typically when young children fall, there’s one
            point of impact and you don’t see injury that sort of
            wraps around the plane of the tissue such as we see
            around [Child’s] orbital rim and then in photographs
            around the upper left eye and bridge of nose. So, no,
            I don’t think that’s consistent.

N.T., 7/17/2023, at 13-15. She further stated that “[w]e think about injury

that sort of follows tissue planes, like around the eye[,] from getting hit or

smacked or punched, some type of flexible object that can follow the curves

of the tissue planes.” Id. at 22. She concluded that Child “had been the

victim of physical child abuse that had been repetitive.” Id. at 16.

      Father, his mother, and his sister also testified regarding Child’s various

injuries but each conflicted in their respective accounts of how the injuries

occurred. Father insisted that the injury to Child’s right orbital occurred when

Child was climbing on a bin, slipped on a stack of magazines, and hit his face

on the corner of a table. See id. a 104-105. Father also testified that an

injury to Child’s chin occurred when he fell running down a ramp at a family

party and that an injury to the left side of Child’s face occurred while Mother

cared for Child. See id. at 106-108.

      Father’s mother confirmed that Child fell running down a ramp. See

N.T., 7/19/2023, at 5. However, she claimed that this fall caused an injury to

the left side of Child’s face. See id. at 6. She further testified that, while in

                                     - 17 -
J-S45033-23

her care, Child injured the bridge of his nose when a box fell on his face. See

id. at 11. Father’s sister witnessed the purported incident where Child slipped

on magazines but stated that Child hit his cheek on a milk crate, not the side

of a table. See id. at 19. She posited that this fall caused the injury to Child’s

left side of his face, not his right orbital. See id. She also witnessed Child

fall while running down the ramp. See id. at 20-21. However, she testified

that following the incident, she did not notice any marks or injuries but later

found a mark around Child’s right eyebrow. See id. at 21-22. Accordingly,

the trial court was well within its discretion to find Father and his witnesses

not credible.

      Based upon Dr. Crowell’s testimony and the incredible testimony of

Father and his witnesses, the court found that Father was a perpetrator of

physical abuse against Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(1), as

follows.

            [CYF] presented credible evidence from Dr. Crowell
            that [Child’s] injuries were not accidental.          She
            credibly told the court that the injury to [Child’s] right
            orbital was not consistent with falling into the corner
            of a table because, due to the stiffness of materials
            used in tables, an injury stemming from a face-first
            fall into one would have had a different appearance.
            Rather, Dr. Crowell convinced this court that [Child’s]
            bruise was most likely caused by being hit in the face
            by a flexible object such as a fist.           She also
            preemptively disputed the claim that [Child’s] other
            facial injury was caused by a falling box. . . . In Dr.
            Crowell’s medical opinion, which the court found to be
            credible, [Child’s] injuries were evidence of systematic
            and ongoing child abuse. The court believes [CYF]

                                      - 18 -
J-S45033-23

              adequately set forth prima facie evidence of physical
              abuse.

T.C.O., 9/12/2023, at 24-25. The court further found that Father failed to

sufficiently rebut the presumption of abuse due to the various inconsistencies

in the testimony of Father, his sister, and his mother. See id at 25-27.

       Father confirmed that he was the primary caregiver of Child for

approximately six months prior to Child’s placement in foster care by CYF.6

See N.T., 7/17/2023, at 99. As related supra, Dr. Crowell determined that

the injury to Child’s right orbital likely occurred “from getting hit or smacked

or punched.” Id. at 22.        Although Dr. Crowell did not use the precise words

“substantial pain,” she stated that Child’s orbital injury would likely be painful

“when it happened, and then again for some period of time after it healed.”

Id. at 14. She further stated that Child’s orbital injury could have “caused

some pain with some activities,” such as not wanting to lay on that side of his

face while sleeping. Id. at 15.

       The trial court determined that the testimony provided was sufficient to

find that Child experienced “substantial pain” pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

6303(a). Accordingly, the trial court found that Child’s right orbital injury was

“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

____________________________________________

6 Father testified that he left Child with his mother on one occasion, and rarely

lets Child out of his sight. See N.T., 7/17/2023, at 117-118.

                                          - 19 -
J-S45033-23

the welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6381(d). Thus, CYF presented prima

facie evidence of abuse and the burden shifted to Father to rebut the

presumption. In finding Father and his witnesses’ account of Child’s injuries

not credible, the trial court did not err in determining that Father failed to

rebut the presumption of abuse. See In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1185.

      Separately, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent based on his

dental issues, as follows.

            The court also reached an independent finding of
            dependency based on Child’s tooth decay. The court
            heard testimony from Child’s Foster Mother and his
            dentist regarding his extensive and painful tooth
            decay. Father did testify that he taught Child how to
            brush his teeth, which was inconsistent with Foster
            Mother’s testimony that she had to teach Child how to
            do so. Whether Father taught Child how to brush is
            irrelevant. Child experienced sever tooth decay that
            affected nearly 70 percent of his teeth and no
            treatment was south or provided while he was in
            Father’s care.

            The court does not believe that Child’s severe dental
            issues occurred within the short period of time that he
            was in the foster family’s care, as Father contends.
            This gross negligence regarding Child’s dental hygiene
            clearly began while he was in Father’s care, and
            maybe even Mother’s care.          Dr. Gilliam credibly
            testified that the severity of the decay was such that
            it could be seen by the naked eye. Foster Mother also
            testified that she could see the decay.

            ...

            With regards to Child’s dental hygiene, this court
            firmly believes that the evidence clearly and
            convincingly shows that [Child] was without proper
            parental care and control necessary for his physical
            health.

                                    - 20 -
J-S45033-23

T.C.O., 9/12/2023, at 18-19 (cleaned up). Although Father contested whether

the trial court could consider Child’s dental issues when determining whether

Child should be adjudicated dependent, he makes no argument on the factual

findings made by the court which are supported by the record. Accordingly,

we discern no error.

      Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err in adjudicating Child

dependent and finding that Father was a perpetrator of “child abuse” pursuant

to 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6303(b.1)(1).

      In his second issue, Father argues that the court erred in hearing

evidence regarding aggravating factors before adjudicating Child dependent.

See Father’s Brief at 19.       Despite his use of the term “aggravating

circumstances” and “aggravating factors,” Father essentially reargues his first

issue, that the trial court erred by improperly considering Child’s dental decay

when determining whether Child should be adjudicated dependent because

the allegation was not included in the original dependency petition. See id.

Father further baldly asserts that “aggravating circumstances” were not raised

in the dependency petition. See id. at 21. He asserts that In the Interest

of L.S., 289 A.3d 66 (Pa.Super. 2022) (unpublished memorandum) is

instructive because in that case, the trial court held an adjudication hearing

and then a disposition hearing “immediately following the adjudication” to

determine whether aggravated circumstances had been established. Id.

                                     - 21 -
J-S45033-23

       Initially, along with its dependency petition, CYF filed a motion

requesting that the court find the existence of aggravated circumstances as

to Father.7 See Motion, 5/30/2023. To the extent Father is, again, arguing

that the trial court improperly considered Child’s dental decay as a basis for

dependency because the allegation was not raised in CYF’s dependency

petition and CYF did not file an amended petition to include this allegation, we

discern no error. On July 10, 2023, following the revelation that Child was

suffering from extensive dental decay, CYF filed a motion to incorporate

allegations    of   “serious    physical       neglect”   pursuant   to   23   Pa.C.S.A.

§ 6303(b.1)(7).      CYF did not incorporate Child’s dental decay to establish

aggravated circumstances, accordingly, Father’s argument is without merit

and his reference to L.S. is misplaced at best.

       Regarding Father’s fourth issue, whether the trial court erred in finding

that Child was a victim of “child abuse” as a result of dental decay when the

issue was not raised in the initial petition, “father believes that this issue, as

raised in the 1925(b) statement, was properly decided by the [d]ependency

[c]ourt.” Father’s Brief at 26. As Father appears to concede that the trial

court correctly decided this issue and he does not set forth any further

argument, we find this issue waived for failure to develop it. See In re W.H.,

25 A.3d 330, 339 n.3 (Pa.Super. 2011).

____________________________________________

7  CYF relied on Father’s previous conviction to establish aggravated
circumstances, as discussed further infra.

                                           - 22 -
J-S45033-23

      In his fifth issue, Father asserts that the trial court erred in not requiring

CYF to provide services to Father due to its finding of aggravated

circumstances. See Father’s Brief at 28. Father concedes that his previous

conviction forms an appropriate basis for aggravated circumstances but

argues that he should have been provided an opportunity to show that he

would comply with voluntary services. See id. at 28-29. He baldly asserts

that he provided testimony to emulate that he is willing to do what is required

to reunify with Child. See id. at 29.

      The Juvenile Act provides that, if a trial court determines that a child is

dependent, and aggravated circumstances have been alleged by the county

agency or by the child’s attorney, the court must also determine whether

aggravated circumstances exist. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c.1). If the court

determines that aggravated circumstances exist, the court must then consider

whether reasonable efforts should be made to reunify the child with his or her

parent or parents. Id.    Following a finding of aggravated circumstances, a

court may end reasonable efforts at its discretion. See In re L.V., 127 A.3d

831, 839 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citing In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 878 (Pa.Super.

2000)).

      The Juvenile Act defines “aggravated circumstances” as follows, in

relevant part.

            “Aggravated circumstances.”             --   Any   of   the
            following circumstances:

            ...

                                      - 23 -
J-S45033-23

              (3) The parent of the child has been convicted of any
              of the following offenses where the victim was a child:

              ...

              (ii) a felony under 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2702 (relating to
              aggravated assault)….

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(3)(ii).

       As aptly stated by Father, the court determined that Father’s prior

conviction formed the basis for a finding of aggravated circumstances against

him.8 In making its determination, the court stated that it “heavily weighed

the fact that [Father has] a serious history of physically abusing [Child].”

T.C.O., 9/12/2023, at 31. The court also considered Father’s failure to initiate

services required by his probation until after the dependency hearings

commenced. See id. at 32. The court did not find credible Father’s excuses

for not partaking in these mandatory services. See id.

       We discern no error. As related supra, the trial court determined, and

our review of the record confirms, that Father was a perpetrator of “child

abuse” against Child. Father failed to engage services and the trial court was

well within its discretion to order no reasonable efforts be made to reunify

Child with Father.

____________________________________________

8 Father was convicted of three charges, including 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(8),

inter alia.

                                          - 24 -
J-S45033-23

      Next, in his sixth issue, Father argues that the court erred in setting the

goal as adoption without first attempting to implement services. See Father’s

Brief at 30. Father acknowledges that case law establishes that “‘all family

reunification may cease in the presence of a finding of aggravated

circumstances.’” Id. (citing In re M.S., 908 A.2d 612, 615 (Pa.Super. 2009).

However, Father asserts that he had a loving relationship with Child and

wishes to continue that relationship. See Father’s Brief at 30.

      The court opted to set Child’s goal as adoption, with a concurrent goal

of permanent legal custody of a non-relative, due to its finding of aggravated

circumstances. The court reiterated its emphasis on Father’s physical abuse

of Child and his lack of engagement in batterer’s intervention and anger

management. See T.C.O., 9/12/2023, at 35-37. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 6341(c.1), the trial court was well within its discretion to set Child’s

permanency goal as adoption.

      In his final issue, Father argues that the court erred in ceasing his

visitation with Child.   See Father’s Brief at 31.     He argues that he has a

positive relationship with Child that should be preserved. See id. at 32-33.

      In dependency cases, where reunification remains the goal, this Court

has stated that parental visitation of the child may not be denied or reduced

unless it poses a grave threat to the child. See In re C.J., 729 A.2d 89, 95

(Pa.Super. 1999). Where the permanency goal is no longer reunification, the

court may suspend, limit, or deny visitation, if it is in the best interests of the

                                      - 25 -
J-S45033-23

child to do so.   See id. (stating, “[t]he ‘best interests’ standard, in this

context, is less protective of parents' visitation rights than the ‘grave threat’

standard”).

      As the court set Child’s goal to adoption, it had the discretion to deny

Father continued visitation based on Child’s best interests. The court again

determined that Father’s history of physical abuse against Child and its finding

of “child abuse” in the instant case necessitated a cessation in visitation. As

discussed supra, the court’s findings are supported by the record. Thus, we

determine no error.

      Based on the foregoing, we conclude that none of Father’s contentions

entitle him to relief. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the trial court.

      Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/12/2024

                                     - 26 -