In the Int. of: T.I.M., a Minor ( 2022 )

J-S28042-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.I.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: T.M. AND S.M., :
PARENTS : No. 668 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-01-DP-0000012-2021
BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 2, 2022
Appellants, T.M. (“Father”) and S.M. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”),
appeal from the order entered in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas,
which entered a finding of abuse against Parents concerning their minor child,
T.I.M., born in February 2007 (“Child”). We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On
March 3, 2021, the Adams County Children and Youth Agency (“Agency”)
received a referral regarding Child. After the court compelled Parents to
cooperate, the Agency conducted an inspection of the house on March 4, 2021.
Following the inspection, Child was admitted to the hospital for concerns of
his wellbeing. The Agency was granted emergency protective custody of child
on March 4, 2021.
On March 16, 2021, the Agency filed a petition for dependency and
J-S28042-22
sought a concurrent finding that Child was a victim of child abuse. The court
held hearings on the petition on May 20, 2021, June 21, 2021, July 22, 2021,
August 5, 2021, and August 10, 2021. The court adjudicated Child dependent
on August 10, 2021.1
The court summarized the basis for the finding of dependency as
follows:
The Child was born [in February 2007]. He was initially
placed in the custody of [Parents] when he was six months
old and has remained in their sole custody since that time.
Ultimately, the parental rights of his natural parents were
terminated, and the Child was adopted by [Parents] on
September 15, 2011. In addition to the Child, the [Parents’]
home includes their two natural male children, J.M. age 14,
and E.M. age 12; and a natural female child, E.I.M. age 10.
The record is undeveloped concerning the Child’s history
with his natural parents; however, there is some indication
that the Child suffered from nutritional and physical neglect.
By all accounts, the Child has significant mental health
concerns having been diagnosed throughout his life with,
inter alia, oppositional defiance disorder, disruptive mood
disorder, reactive attachment disorder, attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and bipolar
disorder.[1] During his life, the Child has been evaluated and
treated by a variety of professionals including his family
physicians, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and numerous
therapists. Although his treating psychiatrist, among
others, recommended the Child for therapeutic residential
treatment, the same was rejected by his insurance carrier
and not further pursued by [Parents]. The outstanding
question, which has not been credibly answered is unlikely
to ever be known, is whether the Child’s significant issues
were precipitated by the six-month contact with his natural
____________________________________________
1 With the agreement of the parties, the court separated the dependency
proceedings from the finding of abuse. Parents initially appealed the
adjudication of dependency; however, they later withdrew that appeal.
-2-
J-S28042-22
parents or, alternatively, by the Child’s interaction with
[Parents] while living in their home for approximately 13
years.
[1]The bipolar diagnosis has recently been determined
to be medically inaccurate.
* * *
On March 3, 2021, the Agency received the referral
underlying the current litigation. The allegations included
claims that the Child was underweight, was eating his own
feces, and was being physically abused. An after-hours
caseworker for the Agency responded to the home that
same date. The caseworker was able to speak briefly with
[Mother] but was refused access to either the Child or the
home. Due to the exigency of the allegations, the Agency
sought, and was granted, court permission to compel access
to the Child. On March 4, 2021, Agency workers,
accompanied by the Pennsylvania State Police, returned to
[Parents’] home. After initial reluctance and some delay,
[Mother] permitted law enforcement and Agency workers
peaceful access to the Child and the home.
Upon entry to the home, Agency staff observed significant
clutter and at least ten cats and dogs in the residence.[2]
The bedrooms for all family members except the Child were
on the heated upper level of the home; by contrast, the
Child’s bedroom was located in an unheated basement.
Photographs of the other children’s rooms depicted
decorated living areas with age-appropriate toys and
accompaniments. The Child’s room, however, lacked
decoration and was more consistent with a storage room.
His room had two doorways, one that led to the remainder
of the unfinished basement area and the second that led to
a hallway and stairway, which is the sole access to the
upper-level living area of the house. There was no
bathroom or other known facilities in the basement as the
sole bathroom in the residence was located on the upper-
level heated portion of the house. On the inside of the
doorway accessing the Child’s bedroom was a hook and
eyebolt latch located near the top of the door.[3] [Parents]
incredibly claimed the purpose of the hook and latch was to
permit airflow into the Child’s room while keeping the cats
-3-
J-S28042-22
out of the room. [Parents’] explanation, however, accounts
for neither the height location of the lock nor the need for
the restriction on the Child’s bedroom door as compared to
restricting the animals’ freedom at other locations in the
house.
[2]Child has been medically diagnosed to be allergic
to cats.
[3]From the photographs, it is conceivable that with
some effort, the Child had the physical ability to
unlatch the hook although it was located at a height
higher than his short stature. Whether the Child was
psychologically or emotionally capable of the same is
unknown as evidence was presented at the hearing
that corroborates the Agency’s concern as to the
[Parents’] psychological manipulation of the Child. As
discussed above, [Parents’] explanation concerning
the location of the latch was rejected by this [c]ourt
as not credible.
The record also supports the existence of a similar
lock at an elevated height on a door at the top of the
stairway. The record neither credibly explains the
reason for the lock on this second door being located
at a height level that is difficult to access nor the need
for the duplicative restrictions hampering access to
the living portion of the home from the Child’s
bedroom.
Upon entering the home and interacting with the Child, the
caseworker observed the Child to be approximately 4 feet,
6 inches tall and to weigh 78 pounds. The Child was wearing
a diaper and appeared dirty. While speaking to the Child in
the home, the Child provided inconsistent answers as to his
eating habits and personal hygiene practices. Despite
wearing a jacket, the caseworker noted that the Child’s
basement bedroom was too cold for the caseworker to
remain there for any amount of time.
The Child’s appearance prompted paramedics who had
responded to the scene to seek a medical wellness
assessment of the Child. [Parents] agreed, and the Child
was taken to the Gettysburg Hospital Emergency Room.
-4-
J-S28042-22
While at the emergency room, the Child confirmed to his
treating physician that he lived in a home with a lot of
animals. He also confirmed he lived in the basement while
other family members resided in the upper level of the
home. He indicated he was not free to leave his room when
he wanted because the door “was locked.” The Child
indicated he wears diapers because he is unable to “make it
to the bathroom in time” because the doors are locked and
he is unable to use the bathroom. He added that he is not
permitted to use the bathroom alone because someone
must be with him to make sure he does not make a mess
on the walls. The Child further indicated that someone
always supervises him while showering, and sometimes he
has “mom time,” which he described as taking a bath with
[Mother]. Interestingly, the Child indicated he feels safe at
home. Although the treating physician intended to
discharge the Child, he concurred that removal of the Child
from the custody of [Parents] was reasonable under the
circumstances until further investigation could be made.
The Child was taken into emergency shelter care following
his discharge from Gettysburg Hospital.
While undergoing evaluation at Gettysburg Hospital, Agency
staff consulted with Dr. Lori Frasier, Medical Director at
UPMC Pinnacle Children’s Resource Center and Professor of
Pediatrics, Division Chief Child Abuse Pediatrics, at Penn
State Hershey Medical Center. At Dr. Frasier’s suggestion,
the Child was taken to the Hershey Medical Center the
following day for evaluation. [4] Upon presentation on March
5, 2021, the Child was admitted to the Center. At the time
of his admission, he weighed approximately 79 pounds with
the principal diagnosis being malnourishment in the setting
of neglect. Due to his condition, he remained hospitalized
through his discharge on March 8, 2021.
[4]Dr. Frasier expressed concern to the caseworker
that the Child “might not make it through the
weekend.”
During the Child’s stay at the Hershey Medical Center, Dr.
Frasier and the child abuse team were consulted. Based
upon her review of medical records and interaction with the
Child, Dr. Frasier concluded the Child was the subject of
physical, nutritional, and emotional neglect. She noted the
-5-
J-S28042-22
Child had grown normally through ten years of age but since
had stagnated. Among factors influencing Dr. Frasier’s
opinion was her experience that the average 14-year-old
was approximately 30 pounds heavier than the Child’s
current weight. She opined the Child was developmentally
delayed and immature for his age. Despite the Child
undergoing a host of medical studies while at the hospital,
there was no discovered medical condition that would
impact his normal growth and development. Dr. Frasier also
revealed that a bone scan of the Child evidenced a non-
displaced finger fracture on the left hand and an
approximately one-year-old untreated fracture of the Child’s
left arm.
During Dr. Frasier’s discussions with the Child, he confirmed
that he lived in the basement, and his only access to others
was through a “baby monitor.” The Child advised that he
wore a diaper and was required to ask for permission to go
to the bathroom. He claimed to have been punished for
“eating Cheerios” that were supposed to be fed to a rabbit
in the residence. Dr. Frasier opined that the Child was
coached not to disclose the abusive conditions in his
home.[5] She described him using the word “time-out” as a
means of punishment. When she inquired further as to what
that meant, the Child described it as “gets beat” and being
struck with a stick. Dr. Frasier observed that his statements
were corroborated by his behavior as he would seek
permission from nurses before using the bathroom.
Interestingly, the Child was taken out of diapers at the
hospital and displayed no issues with soiling himself.
Medical records further confirm the Child had no difficulty
digesting food as he was tolerating a 2,400 calorie per day
diet without complications.
[5]Dr. Frasier believed any further immediate contact
between the Child and [Parents] would be a “grave
threat to him.”
The Child was placed in foster care upon his release from
Hershey Hospital. Although initially he suffered occasional
incidents of soiling his underwear, he had not had such an
issue in over two months at the time of the hearing. There
was no concern about the Child using his waste excretions
as a means to obtain attention. It was noted that he was
-6-
J-S28042-22
eating well while in foster care and in fact had gained
approximately 12 pounds since his placement.
While under emergency shelter care of the Agency, the Child
was evaluated by a trauma art therapist, Amanda Evans-
Freet, at the Adams County Children’s Advocacy Center.
During the session, the therapist observed the Child re-
creating his removal from [Parents’] home. He played out
a reenactment in which he identified himself as a baby lion.
He placed police cars and ambulances in the play area with
two other toys that he identified as “bad parents” and used
a play gun to shoot the “bad parents.” He identified two
other toys as his foster parents whose residence he liked
due to its heat and air conditioning.
During the session, the Child indicated to the therapist he
would be locked in his bedroom because he was “bad.” He
further acted out his not having food because other baby
lions “needed it more.” The therapist opined that the Child
displayed evidence of coaching because he stated in
response to questions that it was none of the therapist’s
business and that he can’t talk about “bad parents.” The
Child confirmed that when he was punished with “time-out,”
he was hit with a paddle or a paint stick. Ms. Evans-Freet
opined that the Child was very immature as, although being
14 years old, he acted like a seven-year-old.
In response to Agency evidence, [Parents] presented
evidence of their attempt to obtain services for the Child as
early as 2013. [Parents’] initial attempt was to obtain a
family-based team from York/Adams Mental Health-IDD
(“MH-IDD”). The effort was unsuccessful, however, as they
could not acquire approval. In 2014, [Parents] attempted
to obtain family driven funds from MH-IDD; however, they
did not qualify for funding as it was only available to the
“intellectually disabled.” Later in 2014, [Parents] sought an
intensive case manager from MH-IDD, but the process was
closed due to lack of follow-through by [Parents] as they
indicated they would seek services elsewhere. In 2017, an
effort to obtain residential treatment for the Child was
unsuccessful as the health insurance carrier indicated the
Child did not meet criteria for insurance coverage. The
recommendation to [Parents] for personal hospitalization
was rejected. Additionally, a recommendation to [Parents]
-7-
J-S28042-22
for treatment by a provider in York County was rejected by
them due to distance. The witness from MH-IDD indicated
she had never met the Child but relied solely on [Mother]
for information related to his alleged behaviors.
[Parents] also presented the testimony of psychologist
Cheryl Walters who conducted a psychological evaluation of
the Child in 2012. Based on her evaluation, she diagnosed
the Child with reactive attachment disorder, attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and mood disorder not
otherwise specified. The evaluation included observations,
personal testing of the Child, and a behavioral history
obtained solely from the adoptive mother.
Appellants also presented the testimony of the Child’s
treating psychiatrist, Dr. Earl Bernstine. Dr. Bernstine noted
that his role as psychiatrist was medication management,
and he did not provide psychotherapy to the Child. Although
he claimed to begin working with the Child as early as 2013,
Dr. Bernstine indicated he never interacted with the Child
privately but rather had brief observations of him while
[Mother] was present. Dr. Bernstine noted that he never
observed behavior concerns in the Child but rather relied
entirely on [Mother’s] report regarding the Child’s alleged
history and conduct. The doctor opined he would never
have recommended isolation for the Child.
[Parents] next called the Child’s pediatrician as a witness.
The pediatrician indicated that during annual physicals, he
did not have any concern over the Child’s height or weight;
however, he recognized the Child’s last exam was November
26, 2019 when, at age 12, the Child weighed 83 pounds.
Despite his lack of concern over the Child’s height and
weight, the pediatrician acknowledged issuing a prescription
for PediaSure “years ago.” He noted the prescription ended
when it was rejected by the insurance company based upon
a medical review that failed to indicate any medical barrier
to the Child’s ability to consume and digest solid food. The
pediatrician also acknowledged there was an ongoing
prescription for diapers for the Child based upon a history
provided by [Mother] rather than an independent medical
examination. He further indicated he never witnessed any
inappropriate behavior by the Child nor ever interacted with
the Child unless [Mother] was present. The pediatrician
-8-
J-S28042-22
acknowledged he was personally unaware of the Child’s
living conditions.
[Parents] also called Dr. Steven Garland Gray, a clinical
neuropsychologist, to discuss the illness of reactive
attachment disorder. Dr. Gray noted the Child was not his
patient, he had not evaluated either the Child or his
treatment records, and he was not making a diagnosis
regarding the Child. Dr. Gray opined as to the causes,
symptoms, and potential treatment for reactive attachment
disorder. During cross-examination, Dr. Gray confirmed
that he would not recommend the isolation of a child who
suffers from reactive attachment disorder. He further
conceded that using fear tactics as a deterrent to behavior
is not helpful in addressing the needs of a child suffering
from reactive attachment disorder. Finally, Dr. Gray
conceded that poor nutrition is not a common symptom for
one suffering from reactive attachment disorder.
Finally, [Parents] testified as to the Child’s history with them
and their efforts to address their perceived concerns. They
denied paddling the Child but acknowledged using “push-
ups” as a punishment based upon information discovered
during their self-education on reactive attachment disorder.
Despite their belief that PediaSure was necessary to
supplement the Child’s nutrition, they acknowledged
stopping the same once insurance refused to pay for it.
[Parents] denied locking the Child in his room or forcing him
to wear diapers. [M]other claimed that the Child was
“wetting himself” at the age of three and began soiling
himself “around nine years of age.” [Parents] acknowledged
the Child resided in his bedroom in an unheated basement
and was subject to a rule that he could only leave his
bedroom with another family member. They also
acknowledged that despite the Child’s allergy to cats, they
permitted a dog, nine cats, a rabbit, and a rooster to reside
within the home.
(Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/22, 1-8) (some footnotes omitted).
On January 10, 2022, the Agency filed a motion for a finding of abuse.
The Agency filed a motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances on
-9-
J-S28042-22
January 12, 2022. The court conducted a hearing on these motions on March
8, 2022.2 On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order, docketed April 1,
2022, finding that Child had been the victim of abuse by both Parents.
Specifically, the court found that Parents recklessly caused serious physical
neglect of Child, and that their actions
endangered the Child’s health; threatened his well-being;
and impaired his health, development, and functioning
through failure to provide adequate essentials of life
including food, shelter, or medical care and by a repeated,
prolonged, and egregious failure to supervise the Child in a
manner that is appropriate considering the Child's
developmental age and abilities.
(Order, 3/31/22, at 1). On April 29, 2022, Parents filed a timely notice of
appeal together with a statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Parents present the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion or [err] as a matter
of law in determining that the Parents/Appellants are
perpetrators of child abuse against T.I.M.?
(Parents’ Brief at 4).
The applicable scope and standard of review for dependency cases is as
follows:
____________________________________________
2 The hearing on March 8, 2021 was not transcribed. Generally, the failure to
request a transcript for a hearing results in waiver of any claims that cannot
be resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript. See Commonwealth
v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super.2006) (en banc), appeal denied, 591 Pa.
663, 916 A.2d 632 (2007) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a)). Here, however, the
record is sufficient based on the evidence contained in the transcribed notes
of testimony for the other hearings to review the trial court’s finding of abuse.
Accordingly, we do not find waiver.
- 10 -
J-S28042-22
[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an
appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility
determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the
record, but does not require the appellate court to accept
the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law.
Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion.
In re 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 L.Z., 631
Pa. 343, 360, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015) (stating that standard of review in
dependency cases requires appellate court to accept trial court’s findings of
fact and credibility determinations if record supports them, but appellate court
is not required to accept trial court’s inferences or conclusions of law). In
addition, we have observed:
In dependency proceedings our scope of review is broad....
Although bound by the facts, we are not bound by the trial
court’s inferences, deductions, and conclusions therefrom;
we must exercise our independent judgment in reviewing
the court’s determination, as opposed to its findings of fact,
and must order whatever right and justice dictate.
In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287, 294 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted), appeal
denied, 582 Pa. 692, 871 A.2d 187 (2005).
Parents contend that the evidence introduced at the hearing does not
support a finding of abuse. They claim that the court erred in relying on the
- 11 -
J-S28042-22
testimony of Dr. Frasier, whose testimony they claim was contradictory, and
ignored the testimony of other medical experts who opined that Parents
diligently strived to meet Child’s unique needs. Specifically, parents claim that
Child’s weight and feeding issues were known by Child’s treating physicians
for years, and those professionals never alleged abuse by Parents. (Parents’
Brief at 25-26). Parents assert that they obtained a prescription for PediaSure
for Child and, after insurance denied the prescription, they asked for a referral
to a nutritionist. (Id. at 26-27). Parents further argue that nothing in the
record supports a finding that they withheld food from Child, and that the
court erroneously relied on a single forensic interview to find otherwise. (Id.
at 32-33).
Additionally, Parents claim that the trial court erred when it found that
Child was a victim of abuse based on the location of his basement bedroom
and the security arrangements for that room. Parents maintain that Child was
not isolated in the basement; rather, Parents insist that location happened to
be the location of his bedroom where he only spent time in the room while
sleeping or resting. (Id. at 35-37). They contend that the lock on the door
was to keep out cats, whereas the monitors were for Child’s protection.
Parents deny that Child was ever kept from using the bathroom.
Finally, Parents deny that they knowingly or recklessly failed to secure
mental health services for Child. They explain that Child has unique and
special needs stemming from early childhood trauma and contend that they
- 12 -
J-S28042-22
have constantly worked with Child’s pediatrician and psychiatrist regarding
these needs. (Id. at 41-42). We disagree.
Dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act,3 which
provides that a dependency petition may allege that there are “aggravated
circumstances” relating to an allegedly dependent child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
6334(b). The Act defines “aggravated circumstances” as “[a]ny of the
following circumstances”:
(1) The child is in the custody of a county agency and either:
(i) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is
unknown and cannot be ascertained and the parent
does not claim the child within three months of the
date the child was taken into custody; or
(ii) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is
known and the parents have failed to maintain
substantial and continuing contact with the child for a
period of six months.
(2) The child or another child of the parent has been the
victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury,
sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the
parent.
(3) The parent of the child has been convicted of any of the
following offenses where the victim was a child: [list of
offenses omitted].
(4) The attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of
the offenses set forth in paragraph (3).
(5) The parental rights of the parent have been involuntarily
terminated with respect to a child of the parent.
____________________________________________
3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6475.
- 13 -
J-S28042-22
(6) The parent of the child is required to register as a sexual
offender...or to register with a sexual offender registry in
another jurisdiction or foreign country.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. Aggravated physical neglect is defined as “[a]ny
omission in the care of a child which results in a life-threatening condition or
seriously impairs the child’s functioning.” Id.
Determinations regarding findings of child abuse are governed by the
Child Protective Services Law (CPSL).4 The CPSL defines “child abuse” to
include “any recent act or failure to act” which causes bodily injury, “any act
or failure to act” which causes or “substantially contribut[es] to serious mental
injury to a child,” “any recent act or failure to act” that creates a “reasonable
likelihood of bodily injury to a child,” “[c]ausing serious physical neglect of a
child,” and “unreasonably restraining or confining a child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§
6303(b.1)(1), (3), (5), (7), (8)(ii). The CPSL defines serious physical neglect
as follows:
“Serious physical neglect.” Any of the following when
committed by a perpetrator that endangers a child’s life or
health, threatens a child’s well-being, causes bodily injury
or impairs a child’s health, development or functioning:
(1) A repeated, prolonged or egregious failure to
supervise a child in a manner that is appropriate
considering the child’s developmental age and
abilities.
(2) The failure to provide a child with adequate
essentials of life, including food, shelter or medical
care.
____________________________________________
4 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387.
- 14 -
J-S28042-22
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a). A finding of child abuse must be established by clear
and convincing evidence. In re L.Z., supra at 360, 111 A.3d at 1174.
Instantly, in addressing Parents’ claim, the trial court reasoned:
This [c]ourt’s findings, as addressed above and supported
by the evidence, clearly establish [Parents] engaged in
conduct that intentionally, or at least recklessly, threatened
the Child’s well-being and impaired his health, development,
and functioning through a repeated failure to provide
adequate essentials of life including food, shelter, or medical
care in a manner appropriate for his developmental age and
abilities.
Dr. Frasier credibly opined that the Child suffered nutritional
and emotional abuse at the hands of [Parents]. Despite
[Parents’] complaints of some discrepancy in the medical
testimony of witnesses, Dr. Frasier was unwavering in
expressing her opinion. Dr. Frasier’s opinion is corroborated
by undisputed evidence that the Child: (1) lived in semi-
isolation from other family members in an unheated
basement bedroom; (2) was significantly underweight for a
child of equivalent age; (3) was required to wear diapers
when there was no verifiable medical or psychological
reason for the same; (4) was specifically advised against,
and physically and emotionally deterred from,
independently leaving the confines of his bedroom; and (5)
suffers significant mental health issues which, as recognized
by [Parents’] own expert, were likely compounded by his
isolation.
Dr. Frasier’s opinion is supported by the credible testimony
of trauma art therapist Amanda Evans-Freet, who opined
that the Child’s observed behavior suggested [Parents]
neglected the Child in favor of their natural children.
Specifically, Ms. Evans-Freet credibly described the Child’s
depiction of going hungry so other family members could be
fed. She also expressed concern over the Child’s physical
treatment in [Parents’] home.
The foregoing opinions are corroborated by the Child’s
consistent statements to various people. Those statements
include allegations of being hit with a stick, being “locked”
- 15 -
J-S28042-22
in a bedroom, being forced to wear diapers, being punished
for eating Cheerios intended for the animals, being isolated,
and being required to ask permission before using the
bathroom.
Although the Child has extraordinary needs, the record is
replete with instances of [Parents’] repeated, prolonged,
and egregious mistreatment of the Child in light of his
developmental age and abilities. [Parents] responded to the
Child’s special needs by isolating the Child in an unheated
basement room containing little, if any, age-appropriate
decor or access to activities; placing him in diapers in lieu
of access to bathroom facilities; subjecting him to discipline;
and depriving him of sufficient nutritional intake.
[Parents’] claim throughout this litigation that they were
repeatedly denied access to requested services is incredible
and irrelevant to the finding of abuse. While there is no
doubt as to the Child’s extraordinary needs, the more
pertinent focus is on [Parents’] response to those needs. It
is true that [Parents] occasionally sought treatment
alternatives during the years that the Child was under their
care. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the record as
to what treatment actually was provided and the success, if
any, that resulted. Rather, the record paints a picture of
recommendations never brought to conclusion as [Parents]
faulted the alleged unavailability of services or the lack of
insurance coverage for the same. For instance, throughout
the litigation, [Parents] highlighted the insurance denial of
payment for the nutritional supplement PediaSure.
However, [Parents] were unable to explain why the $ 1,200
monthly adoption subsidy that they received for the
adoption of the Child was insufficient to cover the cost of the
supplement. Rather, they simply discontinued providing a
health item they previously considered to be critical to the
Child’s well-being. [Parents’] attempt to deflect
responsibility simply ignores the reality that [Parents]
subjected the Child to terrible mistreatment.
(Trial Court Opinion at 9-11) (footnote omitted).
We agree with the trial court’s analysis. Here, the Agency presented
clear and convincing evidence that Parents intentionally or at least recklessly
- 16 -
J-S28042-22
engaged in conduct that threatened Child’s well being and impaired his health
through repeated failures to provide the adequate essentials of life. See In
re L.Z., supra. Therefore, we conclude there was no abuse of discretion in
the trial court’s finding of child abuse by Parents’ serious physical neglect of
Child. See id.; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303. Parents’ claim merits no relief.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/2/2022
- 17 -