In the Interest of: M.B. Appeal of: N.C. , 2014 Pa. Super. 212 ( 2014 )

J-S47044-14
2014 PA Super 212IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: N.C., MOTHER
No. 899 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Dated February 18, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No.: CP-51-DP-0000358-2014
BEFORE: MUNDY, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J.
OPINION BY WECHT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
At a dependency hearing held on February 18, 2014, the juvenile court
heard testimony that established the following facts. Child lived with Mother
Child was fifteen years old and in the ninth grade. Notes of Testimony
class and earned a scholarship to a private school. Id. at 20. Although
Child has exhibited a set of specific needs, he does not have an
Individualized Education Plan. Id. at 11. Mother placed Child at the
Horsham Clinic in 2011 because he had been threatening people at school.
Id. at 18-
J-S47044-14
during which he was transported from home to the Clinic each day. Id. at
Id. at 18-19.
entered the kitchen, set fire to a pencil, threw the pencil in the trash, and
awoke to find the kitchen on fire. Id. at 19.
discharge from H
provider about referrals for therapy but did not receive any
recommendations. Id. at 4-5. Child was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder
and ADHD, and was prescribed Risperdal and Concerta. Id. at 22. Child
refused to attend therapy sessions and refused to take his medications after
his release from Horsham. Id. at 4, 14. Mother testified that she
occasionally would force Child to take his medicine. Id. at 21. Other times,
Id. at 22. Mother said
that she took Child to see his family physician every three months, and that
Child was in therapy at one point but was uncooperative. Id. at 21, 24.
Mother testified that she has not enrolled Child in any mental health
treatment since he left Horsham in 2011. Id. at 23.
In November 2013, when Child was fourteen years old, he was
involved in a disagreement with Mother and said that he was afraid to return
home. According to Child, he failed to complete some chores, and believed
-2-
J-S47044-14
that Mother would discipline him severely. In order to defuse the tension
between Mother and Child, Child stayed with his grandmother before
Id. at 4.
DHS requested an order of protective custody for Child on February 7,
2014. DHS alleged that Child had reported on several occasions that he was
afraid to go home to Mother. DHS also alleged that Mother used verbal and
physical discipline when Child failed to follow her rules; that Child appeared
to have untreated mental health issues; and that Mother was unable to
control Child. Application for Order of Protective Custody, 2/7/2014. Social
Worker Williams testified that both Mother and Child requested that Child be
they could no longer manage their
relationship. N.T. at 5.
Mother explained to DHS that, although the two have not had a
physical altercation, Child has made movements that Mother perceived as
physically threatening. Id. at 5-6. Mother stated that Child also comes and
Id. at
6. Mother testified that she fears being at home with Child, who, Mother
says, will set a fire or destroy furniture in the home if he does not get his
way. Id. at 17-18. Mother also testified that she does not sleep when Child
is in her home. Id.
February 7, 2014, and placed him in a treatment foster home. Id. at 3, 5.
The juvenile court held a hearing on the dependency petition on
February 18, 2014. DHS social worker Aliya Williams and Mother testified at
-3-
J-S47044-14
the hearing. The parties agreed that Child was a dependent child and also
basis for the adjudication of dependency. N.T. at 3. DHS argued that Child
was dependent upon the bases that Child lacked proper parental care and
control and that Child was incorrigible. Id. at 16-17
argued that Child was dependent based solely upon his own incorrigibility.
Id. at 26-28. The juvenile court found that Child was dependent upon both
bases. Id. at 31.
The juvenile court entered its order adjudicating Child dependent and
committing him to DHS on February 18, 2014. On March 19, 2014, Mother
filed her notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
Mother presents the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in adjudicating the subject minor
dependent under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1) and finding that said
minor lacked proper parental care and control proven by clear
and convincing evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred by not specifying, as required by
rules 1408 and 1409 of the PA Rules of Juvenile Court
Procedure, which specific averments in the petition were
proved by clear and convincing evidence (Rule 1408) and by
failing to include in the Order adjudicating the subject minor
dependent, under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1), the specific factual
1409(C)(1)(a), (b)).
for ease of disposition).
-4-
J-S47044-14
Our Supreme Court set forth our standard of review for dependency
cases 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
review for an abuse of discretion.
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).
We note at the outset that no party has appealed
determination that Child is dependent based upon incorrigibility. However,
proper parental care and control is not moot.
As a general rule, an actual case or controversy must exist at all
stages of the judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as
moot. . . . An issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the
issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or
effect. . . . Nevertheless, this Court will decide questions that
otherwise have been rendered moot when one or more of the
following exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply: 1) the case
involves a question of great public importance, 2) the question
presented is capable of repetition and apt to elude appellate
review, or 3) a party to the controversy will suffer some
detriment due to the decision of the trial court.
In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations omitted,
emphasis added). In prior cases, we have held that, because there can be
collateral consequences to a finding of dependency, it is excepted from the
mootness doctrine. See In re L.Z., 91 A.3d 208, 213 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(reaching merits of challenge to finding that mother perpetrated child abuse
-5-
J-S47044-14
despi In re D.A., 801
A.2d 614, 617 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding case not moot even though
dependency resolved during pendency of appeal because mother could suffer
a detriment in future dealing with child protective agency). Here, because
Mother would suffer a detriment in future dealings with DHS or in other
proceedings regarding Child due to the finding of lack of proper parental care
or control, the issue is not moot.
A dependency hearing is a two-stage process. The first stage requires
the juvenile court to hear evidence on the dependency petition and
determine whether the child is dependent pursuant to the standards set
forth in section 6302. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(a). If the court finds clear and
convincing evidence that the child is dependent, it may move to the second
stage, in which it must make an appropriate disposition based upon an
inquiry into the best interests of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a); In re
B.S., 923 A.2d 517, 521 (Pa. Super. 2007). Clear and convincing evidence
trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of
In the Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843
(Pa. Super. 1997).
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
-6-
J-S47044-14
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).
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.
which (1) is geared to the particularized needs of the child and (2) at a
C.R.S., 696 A.2d
at 845.
Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that Child
was without proper parental care and control pursuant to section 6302.
Mother argues that the facts supported only the incorrigibility finding.
-17.
The juvenile court found, and the record supports, that Child has
Opinion,
4/25/2014, at 3. Child was prescribed medication for his mental health
conditions, but Mother was unable to ensure that Child took the medication
as prescribed. After a three-month in-patient stay at a mental health
facility, Mother did not take Child to a specialist or mental health
-7-
J-S47044-14
professional for follow-up care. Id. While Child is now at an age at which
he must consent to care, the record does not demonstrate that Mother has
made any attempts to provide Child with any care designed to treat his
mental health conditions. Further, Mother admitted to the social worker
that she cannot manage Child, that she is afraid of Child, and that she does
not sleep while Child is in the house. N.T. at 5, 17-18. Mother testified that
Id. at 18.
These specific findings, in addition to the factual recitation above,
evidence established that Child is not receiving proper parental care that is
geared toward his mental health needs and is likely to prevent serious injury
to Child. See C.R.S., supra. While Mother can no longer force Child to
enter treatment, Mother did not do so before Child reached the age of
consent and has not attempted to do so since. Mother admits that Child
starts fires that put Child at risk of serious injury, yet Mother has not sought
treatment for Child to address these concerns. Further, Child is without
proper parental control as Mother admitted to the social worker that she is
unable to manage Child. Based upon this record, the juvenile court did not
abuse its discretion in finding that Child was dependent based upon a lack of
proper parental care and control and that such care is not immediately
available.
Mother also contends that the juvenile court erred in failing to comply
with the rules of juvenile court procedure. Specifically, Mother argues that
-8-
J-S47044-14
the court did not specify which allegations were the bases for the
dependency adjudication as required by Rule 1408. Mother also asserts that
the juvenile court did not specify that the court found Child dependent by
Brief at 13-15.
Rule 1408 provides as follows:
After hearing the evidence on the petition or accepting stipulated
facts by the parties but no later than seven days, the court shall
enter a finding by specifying which, if any, allegations in the
petition were proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Pa.R.J.C.P. 1408. In pertinent part, Rule 1409 provides that:
The court shall include the following in its court order:
(1) A statement pursuant to paragraph (A):
(a) as to whether the court finds the child to be
dependent from clear and convincing evidence;
(b) including the specific factual findings that form
Pa.R.J.C.P. 1409(C).
In its February 18, 2014 order, the juvenile court stated that it
adjudicated Child dependent based upon clear and convincing evidence.
Order, 2/18/2014, at 1. As to the findings of fact, the juvenile court stated
that it found the facts to be as stated in the dependency petition, and that
these facts sufficed to adjudicate Child dependent. Id. The dependency
petition set forth, among others, the following allegations: that Child had a
-9-
J-S47044-14
Child was not receiving treatment for his mental health condition; that
Mother felt unsafe around Child; that Mother requested an out-of-home
placement for Child; and that a Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths
assessment of Child recommended placement in treatment foster care.
Dependency Petition, 2/11/2014, at 7-8 (unnumbered). These allegations,
once proven by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrated that Child has
particularized mental health needs that Mother did not meet such that he
was without proper parental care and control and that such care was not
immediately available. While a more detailed set of findings would have
provided a sufficient basis for the dependency adjudication.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/26/2014
- 10 -