Court Opinion

ID: 9895536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 18:09:42.209936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:55.376125
License: Public Domain

J-A17031-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G. A MINOR             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: L.G., FATHER                      :      No. 2967 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 10, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
              Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000908-2022

BEFORE:      KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                              FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2023

       Appellant, L.G. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which adjudicated his minor

child, S.G. (“Child”) dependent. We affirm.

       The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this

case as follows:

          The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”)
          first became aware of this family on October 5, 2022 when
          it received a General Protective Services (“GPS”) report
          alleging that [D.G. (“Mother”)] was visibly high when she
          came to the hospital and remained high throughout her
          delivery until the next day. Mother was unable to speak
          without significant slurring and was poorly responsive.
          Mother tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, and opiates.
          On October 13, 2022, DHS received another GPS report
          because Child tested positive for cocaine. Child had to
          remain in the hospital due to withdrawal symptoms. Father
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17031-23

       denied drug and alcohol history, but refused to comply with
       a drug and alcohol screen. DHS obtained an Order of
       Protective Custody (“OPC”) on October 17, 2022 for Child
       and placed Child into foster care. A shelter care hearing was
       held on October 19, 2022, at which time the court ordered
       that the Child remain in the temporary legal custody of DHS
       and in the home of her foster care.

       [The trial court] held the relevant adjudicatory hearing on
       November 10, 2022. Mother and Father were present at
       said hearing with court-appointed counsel. Paula Ward,
       DHS intake supervisor, testified that Child was one-month
       old during the adjudicatory hearing. Ms. Ward testified that
       on October 5, 2022 a GPS report was received which alleged
       that Mother arrived at the hospital extremely high, and she
       was high until the next day. She stated that initially only
       Mother tested positive for cocaine, opiates, and marijuana,
       however, within a week, Child was showing signs of
       withdrawal. She testified that Child tested positive for
       cocaine. Ms. Ward testified that she personally spoke with
       Mother who stated she was willing to go to Caring Together
       for a drug assessment and a drug program. She stated that
       Mother did enroll in the program.

       As for Father, Ms. Ward stated that she had drug and alcohol
       concerns with Father because of Mother’s high drug uses,
       there was a concern that if Father did not notice that Mother
       was using drugs, he may be using drugs as well. Ms. Ward
       testified that Father stated he went for a drug test and
       completed the assessment but failed to provide confirmation
       documents. As for Father’s employment, Ms. Ward testified
       that Father stated he owns a kennel and works with cars.
       She stated that Father said he would be able to work and
       watch the baby at the same time. Ms. Ward further testified
       that if Father would have taken a drug test, the agency
       would have considered returning Child to his care. She
       indicated that it would be wrong to return child to Father
       without a negative drug screen.

       Maya Wilson, Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”) case
       manager, testified that she referred Mother to the Clinical
       Evaluation Unit (“CEU”) for a screen. Ms. Wilson testified
       that the results of the drug screen dated 10/27/2022 [were]
       positive for benzos and marijuana. She testified that she

                                   -2-
J-A17031-23

         has seen Father’s home prior to Mother moving out but has
         not seen the home since Mother reportedly moved. Ms.
         Wilson stated that Father’s home was appropriate and that
         there were items for the Child to be properly cared for. She
         further stated that she did not have concerns with Father
         being the caregiver for Child because he was home during
         the day. Ms. Wilson also testified that she was aware of
         Mother being in a drug program and nothing has been
         reported to her regarding Mother. She stated that Mother
         told her she was on prescription drugs but failed to provide
         any scripts.

         Kristen Abney, DHS Social Worker, testified that she was
         the worker that opened the case initially. Ms. Abney
         testified that she saw Mother in the hospital the next day,
         following the birth of Child, so she could not confirm or deny
         whether or not Mother was extremely high. She stated that
         Mother told her she was in a drug and alcohol program prior
         to COVID and then the classes stopped. She also stated
         that Mother told her about a car accident she had in the
         beginning of 2022, which brought back the drug concern.
         Ms. Abney testified that she had an opportunity to speak
         with Father but did not have any concerns with him. She
         further testified that when she initially was assigned the
         case, Mother and Father lived together. She stated that
         Father told her he worked on cars and he worked from
         home.

         At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, [the] court
         adjudicated Child dependent based on present inability and
         ordered for Child to remain as committed and as placed.
         Father was ordered to go to CEU, forthwith screen and three
         randoms prior to the next court date. Father was also
         ordered to go to the Achieving Reunification Center (“ARC”)
         for parenting classes. Father was granted two weekly
         supervised visits at the agency, if unable to work out
         visitation with the resource parent. Additionally, this [c]ourt
         ordered, if Father’s screen after the hearing was negative,
         Father would be allowed unsupervised community visits or
         family school with Child.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/14/23, at 1-4) (internal citations omitted). Father

timely filed a notice of appeal and contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)

                                      -3-
J-A17031-23

concise statement on November 28, 2022.

      Father raises the following issues for our review:

         Whether the trial court erred in deciding the evidence as
         having been sufficient for a finding of adjudication (for
         dependency).

         Additionally, whether the trial court had erred in
         determining the evidence to further have been sufficient for
         the removal of Child, resulting thereto for the placement
         into agency custody.

         From an evidentiary standpoint, whether the trial court had
         erred in admitting into evidence a certain out-of-court
         utterance concerning the supposed use of drugs by [Father].

         Thus, whether the trial court had erred in requiring [Father]
         to undergo a forthwith drug and alcohol screen; as well as
         subsequent random screens.

(Father’s Brief at 5).

      In his first two issues combined, Father asserts that although Mother

has significant issues with alcohol and substance abuse, Mother no longer

resides with Father. Father avers that his home was inspected by Ms. Wilson

and deemed appropriate, containing the necessities to properly care for Child.

Father further claims that both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Abney testified that there

were no concerns with Father’s ability to care for Child. Father contends that

there is no reliable evidence that Father abuses drugs or alcohol and the court

erred in holding him culpable for Mother’s addiction. Father concludes the

court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence to warrant adjudicating

Child dependent and placing Child in DHS custody. We disagree.

      The applicable scope and standard of review for dependency cases is as

                                     -4-
J-A17031-23

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 [trial] court’s inferences or conclusions of law.
           Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion.

In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting In re R.J.T., 608 Pa.

9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)).

           We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge
           because [the court] is in the position to observe and rule
           upon the credibility of the witnesses and the parties who
           appear before [the court]. Relying upon [the court’s] unique
           posture, we will not overrule [its] findings if they are
           supported by competent evidence.

In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 875 (Pa.Super. 2000). See also In re R.J.T.,

supra (explaining that appellate court is not in position to make “close calls”

based on fact-specific determinations; trial judges observe parties during

hearing and usually have presided over several other hearings with same

parties and have longitudinal understanding of case and best interests of

individual child involved; thus, even if appellate court would have made

different conclusion based on cold record, we are not in position to reweigh

evidence and credibility determinations of trial court).

      The Juvenile Act defines a dependent child, in pertinent part, as follows:

           § 6302. Definitions

                                    *    *    *

           “Dependent child.” A child who:

                                        -5-
J-A17031-23

        (1) is without proper parental care or control, subsistence,
        education as required by law, or other care or control
        necessary for his [or her] 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,
        including evidence of the parent’s, guardian’s or other
        custodian’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance that
        places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk[.]

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302.

     A court may adjudicate a child as dependent if the child meets the

statutory definition of a dependent child by clear and convincing evidence. In

re E.B., 898 A.2d 1108, 1112 (Pa.Super. 2006). Additionally, “[a] finding of

dependency can be made based on prognostic evidence and such evidence is

sufficient to meet the strict burden of proof necessary to declare a child

dependent.” In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 14 (Pa.Super. 2003). “The court

must make a comprehensive inquiry into whether proper parental care is

immediately available or what type of care [the parent] could provide in the

future.” Id.

        If the court finds that the child is dependent, then the court
        may make an appropriate disposition of the child to protect
        the child’s physical, mental and moral welfare, including
        allowing the child to remain with the parents subject to
        supervision, transferring temporary legal custody to a
        relative or a private or public agency, or transferring
        custody to the juvenile court of another state.

In re E.B., supra at 1112.

     Upon a finding of dependency, the court must focus on the child’s best

interests and order a disposition best suited to the child’s safety and well-

                                    -6-
J-A17031-23

being. In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa.

782, 959 A.2d 320 (2008); In re L.C., II, 900 A.2d 378, 381 (Pa.Super.

2006). The court may not separate the child from the parent unless it finds

that the separation is clearly necessary. In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa.Super.

2004).   Such necessity is implicated where the child’s welfare, safety, or

health demands he or she be taken from his or her parent’s custody. Id.; In

re R.W.J., supra.

      Instantly, the court concluded that Father was presently unable to

properly care for Child or keep Child safe. Specifically, the court determined

that Father either knew about Mother’s serious substance abuse while she was

pregnant and failed to take action to protect Child, or Father participated in

the substance abuse with Mother, both of which raise serious questions about

Father’s ability to parent and keep Child safe. The court explained:

         Father and Mother were a couple and lived together when
         Child was born. Mother was visibly high when she came to
         the hospital for childbirth and remained high throughout her
         delivery until the next day. Mother tested positive for
         cocaine, marijuana, and opiates. Child also tested positive
         for cocaine and experienced withdrawal symptoms while in
         the hospital. [Ms. Ward] stated that she had drug and
         alcohol concerns with Father because of Mother’s high drug
         uses. There was a concern that if Father did not notice that
         Mother was using drugs, he may be using drugs as well.
         Father has not provided the agency with a negative drug
         screen. DHS would have considered returning Child to
         Father’s care if he would have returned a negative drug
         screen.    Furthermore, when Mother and Father lived
         together, Father worked from home and should have
         noticed Mother’s substance abuse prior to Child’s birth.
         Because of the seriousness of Mother’s substance abuse and
         Father’s failure to provide a negative drug screen, the court

                                     -7-
J-A17031-23

         does not believe Father or Mother can keep Child safe.

(Trial Court Opinion at 6).

      The record supports the court’s findings. We agree with the court that

Father’s actions placed the health, safety or welfare of Child at risk. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 6302; In re E.B., supra. Furthermore, Father’s refusal to provide

the results of a drug screen, in light of Mother’s substance abuse while

pregnant with Child and living with Father, supports the court’s conclusion that

separation from Father was necessary to keep Child, a vulnerable, substance-

exposed newborn, safe. See In re G.T., supra. Accordingly, we discern no

abuse of discretion in the court’s adjudication of Child as dependent and

placement of Child in DHS custody.      See In re A.B., supra; In re A.H.,

supra.

      In his third issue, Father contends the court improperly relied on

unreliable hearsay evidence to conclude that Father abused drugs and alcohol.

Specifically, Father asserts that the court erroneously permitted Ms. Abney to

testify that DHS had received previous reports about Father’s drug use. Father

argues that this out-of-court statement was offered for the truth of the matter

asserted and was impermissible hearsay.      Father insists the error was not

harmless because the court raised concerns that Father was abusing drugs

and alcohol as its rationale for concluding that Father could not presently keep

Child safe.   Father concludes the court erred in relying on impermissible

hearsay evidence as the basis for adjudicating Child dependent. We disagree.

                                     -8-
J-A17031-23

      “The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and

such decisions will be reversed only if the trial court has abused its discretion.”

Interest of I.R.-R., 208 A.3d 514, 519 (Pa.Super. 2019) (quoting In re

Adoption of R.K.Y., 72 A.3d 669, 675 (Pa.Super. 2013)).             “The Rules of

Juvenile Court Procedure provide that in adjudications, each party shall have

an opportunity to present evidence subject to the rules of evidence.”          Id.

(citing Pa.R.J.C.P. 1406(C), cmt.)

      Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by a declarant, which a party

seeks to offer into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the

statement. Pa.R.E. 801(c). Generally, hearsay is not admissible except as

provided by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, by other rules prescribed by

the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or by statute. Pa.R.E. 802. Nevertheless,

“[a]n out-of-court statement is not hearsay when it is introduced purely for

the purpose of establishing that the statement was made and not to establish

its truth. Likewise, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is offered to

explain a course of conduct or to reflect the declarant’s state of mind.”

Interest of I.R.-R., supra.

      Here, counsel for Mother asked Ms. Abney if any concerns of substance

abuse by Father were brought to her attention. Father’s counsel objected on

the grounds that any response would be hearsay, and the court overruled the

objection. The following exchange then took place:

         Ms. Abney: ─so, yes, there were previous concerns that
         we discussed as a team, due to previous reports, but

                                       -9-
J-A17031-23

         nothing─

         [Father’s Counsel]: Objection: hearsay.

         Ms. Abney: ─nothing current.

         The Court: Overruled.

         [Father’s Counsel]: “Previous reports”

         [Mother’s Counsel]: And you said nothing current?

         Ms. Abney: (Unintelligible) like, right now. I know there
         was ─ they were supposed to take the drug test, but I
         believe, even in the last court, that was up to him, and I
         haven’t heard anything more since then.

(N.T. Dependency Hearing, 11/10/22, at 29-30). The court determined that

the statement was “not considered hearsay because it [was] within the

personal knowledge of the DHS worker who initiated the investigation and

[was] not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” (Trial Court Opinion

at 10). Moreover, the court explained that its concerns over Father’s potential

substance   abuse   did   not   stem    from    this   statement   but   from   the

uncontroverted evidence of the circumstances surrounding Child’s birth and

Father’s failure to present the results of a drug screen in light of those

circumstances. (See id.). Thus, the court stated that even if it improperly

admitted the reference to “prior reports” about Father’s drug use, any error

was harmless. (Id.) We agree with the court that even if the evidentiary

ruling was improper, any error was harmless. See Interest of K.P., Nos.

1735 EDA 2021, 1736 EDA 2021 (Pa.Super. filed Apr. 5, 2022) (unpublished

                                       - 10 -
J-A17031-23

memorandum)1 (holding even if caseworker’s comment that mother tested

positive for drugs on “more than one occasion” was improper hearsay

testimony, error was clearly harmless where court did not rely on challenged

evidence to reach its decision).

       In his fourth issue, Father argues the court had no authority to order

him to submit to a drug test. Father contends the court erred in considering

the fact that Father did not produce the results of a drug screen as a factor in

determining adjudication because “nothing under the law would have required

[Father]’s submission [to a drug test.]”           (Father’s Brief at 15).   Father

concludes “that as a general proposition, refusal to [submit to a] drug screen

may not be considered as a basis for dependency” and accordingly, we should

vacate the court’s adjudication of dependency. (Id. at 15). We disagree.

       Once a child is adjudicated dependent, a court may enter “orders of

disposition best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental, and

moral welfare of the child.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6351(a). The court shall include in

its order “[a]ny orders as to any aids in disposition that may assist in the

preparation of the dispositional hearing.”         Pa.R.J.C.P. 1409(c).   “[A]ids in

disposition may include, but are not limited to, any services, investigations,

evaluations, studies, treatment plans, and any other appropriate reports that

may aid the court in making its determination at the dispositional hearing.”

____________________________________________

1 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating we may rely on unpublished decisions of this

Court filed after May 1, 2019 for their persuasive value).

                                          - 11 -
J-A17031-23

Id., cmt.

      Instantly, after the court adjudicated Child dependent, it established the

permanency goal as “return to parent or guardian.” In furtherance of this

goal, the court referred both parents to the CEU for a forthwith drug screen

and three random drug screens, and to the ARC for parenting classes. These

dispositional orders were made to facilitate a safe reunification of Child with

parents and to assist the court with making decisions best suited to Child’s

safety, protection, and welfare. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 1409(c). As such, we see no

merit to Father’s argument that the court was without authority to order

Father to submit to a drug screen after Child’s adjudication of dependency.

      Additionally, Father’s claim that the court could not consider his refusal

to submit the results of a drug screen as a factor in its dependency

determination is also without merit. Father relies on In Interest of DR, 216

A.3d 286 (Pa.Super 2019) to support his assertion. In In Interest of DR,

the Fayette County Children and Youth Services Agency (“CYS”) petitioned the

court to order the father to submit to a drug test as a part of its investigation,

prior to filing a dependency petition.        This Court held that “in a CYS

investigation conducted prior to a dependency adjudication—there is no

legislative underpinning that authorizes the court to order the drug testing of

a parent.” Id. at 296 (emphasis added). Here, DHS did not petition the court

to order Father to submit to drug test nor did the court enter such an order

prior to adjudicating Child dependent. Father was merely asked by DHS to

                                     - 12 -
J-A17031-23

voluntarily submit to a drug screen to eliminate concerns of drug use. Thus,

Father’s reliance on In Interest of D.R. is misplaced.

      While the court considered Father’s refusal to submit the results of a

drug test as part of the evidence presented before it, the court did not make

its determination on this fact alone. Rather, the evidence shows that Father

was living with Mother, who was visibly high when giving birth to Child.

Testing revealed that Mother was under the influence of cocaine, opiates and

marijuana at the time of Child’s birth and Child was exposed to amphetamines,

benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, marijuana, cocaine, oxycodone and Percocet

in utero. Additionally, Ms. Ward testified that Father stated that he took a

drug test but failed to present the results of such a drug test to DHS or the

court to eliminate concerns of drug use, even though DHS stated that it would

consider returning Child to Father’s care if he presented a negative drug

screen. Under these circumstances, we see no merit to Father’s claim that

the court was not permitted to consider this evidence. Such evidence was

relevant to the court’s determination of whether Child was without parental

care or control. Therefore, Father’s final issue merits no relief. Accordingly,

we affirm the order adjudicating Child dependent.

      Order affirmed.

                                    - 13 -
J-A17031-23

Date: 11/7/2023

                  - 14 -