In the Interest of: S.Y., a Minor ( 2018 )

J-S46002-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.Y., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: C.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1020 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Dated March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0000287-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M.-E., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1021 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0052638-2010
IN THE INTEREST OF: H.Y., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1022 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0000288-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
J-S46002-18
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1023 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0052639-2010
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.Q.M.-Y., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1024 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0052640-2010
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.A.-Y., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1025 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0052641-2010
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
-2-
J-S46002-18
C.F. (“Mother”) appeals from the shelter care orders entered March 2,
2018, committing her six minor children, A.M.-E., born March 2005; S.M.,
born December 2007; A.Q.M.-Y., born December 2008; A.A.-Y., born
December 2009; S.Y., born April 2011; and H.Y., born November 2014, to the
care and custody of the Philadelphia County Department of Human Services
(“DHS”).1 We affirm.
We summarize the facts and procedural history as outlined in the
juvenile court opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/18, at 1-3; see also
N.T., 3/2/18, at 1-16. The family has been involved with DHS since 2010.
The most recent contact occurred in November 2017, when A.Q.M.-Y. was
taken to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (“CHOP”) and diagnosed with
a fractured hand. Medical staff reported the matter to DHS. A subsequent
general protective services report averred that: 1) the five school-aged
children did not attend school; 2) Mother had mental health issues; and 3)
Mother was not concerned about the conduct of her children. The report was
substantiated.
On February 15, 2018, the juvenile court adjudicated all six children
dependent and ordered DHS to supervise the family, obtain orders for
protective custody (“OPC”) for the children and place them in appropriate
____________________________________________
1 G.Y. (“Father”) did not separately appeal the orders, and is not a party to
this appeal.
-3-
J-S46002-18
settings.2 At that hearing, DHS introduced evidence that S.Y. and H.Y. were
delayed in medical care. It also presented its concerns about Mother’s
physical and mental health, the existence of domestic violence in the home,
and the parents’ failure to cooperate with the Community Umbrella Agency
(“CUA”) Turning Points for Children. Following the evidentiary hearing, DHS
twice attempted to visit the family home, but no one answered the door.
A shelter care hearing was convened on March 2, 2018. DHS presented
the testimony of Malika Pierce, a DHS social worker, and Kaitlin Sullivan, the
CUA case manager. Mother was present and represented by counsel. The
children were represented by a child advocate attorney. Ms. Pierce testified
that she visited the children in their foster placements, they were safe, and
their needs were met. She further noted that Mother did not allow any of the
children to be interviewed alone, was hostile when speaking to the children,
and that both parents were uncooperative with CUA and refused to sign safety
plans and other necessary forms. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
juvenile court entered a shelter care order that re-committed the six children
to the care and custody of DHS. The court referred Mother for drug screens
and mental health assessments, and permitted Mother and Father weekly
supervised visitations.
____________________________________________
2Mother did not request the notes of testimony from the February 15, 2018,
hearing and they are not contained in the certified record.
-4-
J-S46002-18
On March 28, 2018, Mother contemporaneously filed a timely 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).
On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed
reversible error when it determined that allowing the children to
remain in the home would be contrary to the welfare of the
children and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent such
placement as required by 42 Pa.C.S. [§§] 6325, 6332, and 6334
and [Pa.R.J.C.P.] 1240, 1242(B)(3) and 1243.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed
reversible error, when it failed to inquire whether the agency
engaged in Family Finding before initially removing the children
from the home as required by Act 55 of 2013 (P.L. 169, No. 25)
and in failing to make a determination that reasonable efforts
were made to place the children together as required by Act 115
of 2010 (P.L. 1140, [No.] 115).
Mother’s brief at 5.
Prior to reaching the merits of Mother’s appeal, we must first determine
whether she has preserved her issues. When filing her initial Rule
1925(a)(2)(i) statement, Mother neglected to raise any issues. Instead, she
requested additional time to file a supplemental statement of errors following
receipt of the relevant notes of testimony. However, no supplemental
statement appears in the certified record. Additionally, Mother did not raise
either of her current issues during the shelter care hearings. In explaining its
decision to re-commit children to DHS for placement, the juvenile court
addressed Mother’s first issue sua sponte in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
-5-
J-S46002-18
However, the juvenile court did not touch upon the substance of the second
claim that Mother presents for our review.
Where a parent does not raise her issues at the hearing before the lower
court, these issues are waived for purposes of appeal. See In re B.C., 36
A.3d 601, 605 (Pa.Super. 2012); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302. Similarly, where a
parent does raise her issues in her concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal, she cannot raise such claims for the first time on appeal. Id.; see
also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Accordingly, despite the fact that Mother was
represented by counsel during the juvenile court proceedings and when she
initiated this appeal, she neglected to preserve any issues for our review.
Hence, we are constrained to find that the claims Mother raised for the first
time on appeal are waived. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the issues
that Mother asserts herein were raised below and preserved for our review,
her claims are meritless.
We review the juvenile court’s determinations for an abuse of discretion.
In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015). The Juvenile Act provides for
shelter care hearings in the following manner:
(a) General rule.--An informal hearing shall be held promptly by
the court or master and not later than 72 hours after the child is
placed in detention or shelter care to determine whether his
detention or shelter care is required under section 6325 (relating
to detention of child), whether to allow the child to remain in the
home would be contrary to the welfare of the child and, if the child
is alleged to be delinquent, whether probable cause exists that the
child has committed a delinquent act. Reasonable notice thereof,
either oral or written, stating the time, place, and purpose of the
hearing shall be given to the child and if they can be found, to his
-6-
J-S46002-18
parents, guardian, or other custodian. Prior to the
commencement of the hearing the court or master shall inform
the parties of their right to counsel and to appointed counsel if
they are needy persons, and of the right of the child to remain
silent with respect to any allegations of delinquency. If the child
is alleged to be a dependent child, the court or master shall also
determine whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent such
placement or, in the case of an emergency placement where
services were not offered and could not have prevented the
necessity of placement, whether this level of effort was reasonable
due to the emergency nature of the situation, safety
considerations and circumstances of the family.
42 Pa.C.S. § 6332.
In her first issue, Mother argues that the evidence did not support the
trial court’s determination that the children should be removed from the
home.3 Mother’s brief at 7-8. She notes that she has cared for six children
largely on her own, that she was compliant with home visits, and that although
the children were afraid of Father, she has since separated from him. Id.
The trial court addressed this issue in the following manner:
The CUA case manager testified that there were concerns
regarding the mother’s physical health and functioning as well as
her cognitive functioning. There were also domestic violence
concerns in the home (N.T., 3-2-18, p. 5). Furthermore, the five
school-aged children were not enrolled in school all year. The
mother did not get the two youngest children medical care in a
timely fashion. (N.T., 3-2-18, p. 5). Moreover, despite CUA
attempts to eliminate the need for the children to be removed
from the home, the parents did not cooperate. The parents were
____________________________________________
3Mother cites no case law in support of her argument. Accordingly, she risks
waiver for that reason as well. See In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203,
209-210 (Pa.Super. 2012) (noting that failure to cite to relevant legal
authority constitutes waiver of the claim on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P.
2119(b), Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Although we have already found Mother’s claims
waived, we note with disapproval counsel’s failure to provide this Court with
any legal authority to support Mother’s position.
-7-
J-S46002-18
actively hiding the children from DHS and CUA (N.T., 3-2-18, pgs.
4 and 11). The parents did not sign safety plans, FERPA’s [Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act forms], and single plan
objectives. The CUA case manager testified that the mother was
medicating the children with over the counter medication to make
them sleep during the day (N.T., 3-2-18, p. 10). Lastly[,] the
case manager stated that the mother had demonstrated hostility
toward the children and has made inappropriate comments to the
children (N.T., 3-2-18, pgs. 9-12).
Trial Court Opinion, 4/30/18, at 3-4. The court then concluded that DHS met
its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that allowing the
children to remain in the home would be contrary to their health, welfare, and
safety, and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the
need for removal of the children from the home. Id. As we discern no abuse
of discretion in these determinations, we would not disturb the juvenile court’s
orders on this basis. In re N.A., 1116 A.3d 1144, 1148 (Pa.Super.
2015) (“[W]e will not overrule [the court’s] findings if they are supported by
competent evidence.”).
In her second issue, Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by
failing to examine whether DHS engaged in family finding pursuant to
Pa.R.J.C.P. 1120 and 1149, and 62 P.S. § 1302.1. Mother’s brief at 9. She
notes that the children were placed in three separate general foster homes
rather than kinship placements, and that it was in the best interest of the
children to be placed together in kinship care. Id. at 9-10.
The Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure provide that the court shall inquire
as to the efforts made by the county agency to comply with the family finding
-8-
J-S46002-18
requirements pursuant to 62 P.S. § 1301 et seq. The rules define family
finding as:
the ongoing diligent efforts of the county agency, or its contracted
providers, to search for and identify adult relatives and kin, and
engage them in the county agency's social service planning and
delivery of services, including gaining commitment from relatives
and kin to support a child or guardian receiving county agency
services.
Pa.R.J.C.P. 1120.
Instantly, the juvenile court found that DHS made reasonable efforts to
eliminate the need to remove the children from the home. See Shelter Care
Order, 3/2/18, at 1. Further, the court, in its adjudication of dependency,
ordered the agency to continue to engage in family finding until further order
of the court. See Order, 2/15/18, at 2. However, Mother neither presented
evidence nor made any averment that a family member or relative exists with
whom the children could have been placed. Moreover, since Mother and
Father were uncooperative or actively hostile when dealing with DHS and CUA,
it became necessary for the agency to remove the children from the home
immediately in order to preserve their safety and welfare. Hence, we find that
the juvenile court acted in the children’s best interests in removing them
before DHS completed long-term family finding.
Orders affirmed.
-9-
J-S46002-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/6/18
- 10 -