In the Int. of: B.G., a Minor ( 2023 )

J-S27012-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: B.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 724 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered April 17, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s):
CP-67-DP-0000115-2023
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 24, 2023
A.F. (“Mother”) appeals from the April 17, 2023 order finding her to be
a perpetrator of child abuse against her minor child, B.G. (born in October of
2022), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303, and adjudicating B.G. dependent.
Mother solely challenges the finding of child abuse against her. After careful
review, we affirm.1
The trial court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural
history of this matter, which we need not reproduce herein. See Trial Court
Opinion (“TCO”), 5/19/23, at 1-6. Briefly, this case stems from a domestic
dispute that occurred on December 27, 2022, during which Mother allegedly
stabbed Father multiple times while he was holding B.G. on his chest. See
TCO at 1, 3, 5. Mother was arrested and charged with numerous crimes,
____________________________________________
1 M.G. (“Father”) is not a party to this appeal.
J-S27012-23
including child endangerment. Id. at 5. She was released on bail with
conditions that restricted her contact with B.G. Because of the incident, the
York County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) received a Child
Protective Services referral for B.G., due to concerns for her safety. Id. at 1.
A few months later, after learning that Father and B.G. were evicted from a
hotel where they had been living, CYF filed a petition for emergency protective
custody, which was granted by the trial court. Id. at 2. On April 12, 2023,
CYF petitioned the trial court to adjudicate B.G. dependent, to find that B.G.
was a victim of child abuse, and to find that Mother perpetrated said abuse.
Id.
A hearing was held on April 17, 2023, during which the court heard
testimony from the officer who responded to the 911 call on December 27,
2022, and the CYF caseworker assigned to the case. Id. The court took
judicial notice of Mother’s criminal charges and accepted the officer’s report
into evidence. Neither Mother nor Father offered any evidence or testimony.
Id. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court adjudicated
B.G. dependent and found that Mother was a perpetrator of child abuse
against B.G. Id.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial
court filed a responsive opinion on May 19, 2023. Herein, Mother presents a
single issue for our review: “Whether or not the lower court erred when it
-2-
J-S27012-23
entered a finding of abuse against [Mother] without clear and convincing
evidence.” Mother’s Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).2
Preliminarily, we note:
The 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.
Interest of A.C., 237 A.3d 553, 557 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations omitted).
“The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented
and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts
in the evidence.” In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation
omitted).
It is also well-established that:
While dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act,
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6375, the Child Protective Services Law
(“CPSL”) controls determinations regarding findings of child
abuse, which the juvenile courts must find by clear and convincing
evidence. See In the Interest of J.R.W., … 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa.
Super. 1993). As the Supreme Court explained in In the
Interest of L.Z., [111 A.3d 1164, 1176 (Pa. 2015)], “[as] part of
[a] dependency adjudication, a court may find a parent to be the
perpetrator of child abuse,” as defined by the CPSL.
Interest of T.G., 208 A.3d 487, 490 (Pa. Super. 2019).
The CPSL defines “child abuse,” in relevant part, as follows:
____________________________________________
2 Mother’s concise statement filed in compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)
contained the same single issue. See Concise Statement, 5/16/23, at 1 ¶ 3
(“It is alleged that the lower court erred when it entered a finding of abuse
against [Mother] without clear and convincing evidence.”).
-3-
J-S27012-23
(b.1) Child abuse.—The term “child abuse” shall mean
intentionally, knowingly or recklessly doing any of the
following:
…
(3) Causing or substantially contributing to serious
mental injury to a child through any act or failure to
act or series of such acts or failures to act.
…
(5) Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a
child through any recent act or failure to act.
23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1)(3), (5).
Mother essentially argues that the trial court entered a finding of abuse
against her without clear and convincing evidence. Mother’s Brief at 12. She
argues that there were no witnesses to corroborate Father’s claim that he was
holding B.G. when she allegedly stabbed him, and that B.G. bore no obvious
signs of injury or of even being in close proximity to Father during the alleged
stabbing. Id. Additionally, Mother questions the trial court’s finding Father’s
version of events credible, arguing that Father initially made false statements
to the police and that there is no evidence to support the statement he made
a week after the incident. Id. at 16.3
____________________________________________
3 To the extent that Mother argues CYF was not required to pursue a finding
of abuse against her at the adjudication hearing since she was incarcerated at
the time pending resolution of her criminal charges, and that the court’s
finding of abuse against her only served to prejudice her, see Mother’s Brief
at 19-20, we deem these issues waived for failure to include them in her Rule
1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement and her statement of questions involved.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“The statement of questions involved must state
concisely the issues to be resolved…. No question will be considered unless it
is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested
thereby.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (“The Statement shall concisely identify
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S27012-23
In reviewing Mother’s arguments, we have considered the briefs of the
parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed
the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph N. Gothie of
the Court of Common Pleas of York County. Judge Gothie’s opinion thoroughly
explains the basis for his finding “by clear and convincing evidence that
[Mother] was a perpetrator of child abuse.” TCO at 7. He provides a detailed
discussion of the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as an explanation
of his credibility determinations. Mindful of the evidentiary standard, Judge
Gothie found it “both clear and convincing that [Mother] stabbed [Father]
while he was holding [B.G.] on his chest[;]” thus, he concluded that Mother
“came dangerously close to stabbing [B.G.] … and created a reasonable
likelihood of bodily injury.” Id. at 9. Nevertheless, Judge Gothie conducted
an alternative analysis, giving credence to Mother’s theory that Father was
not holding B.G. when he was stabbed. He explained that even if Father had
removed B.G. from his chest before he was stabbed, “the court fully believes
that [B.G.] was … within the bedroom, possibly on the bed, as [Mother]
stabbed [Father].” Id. at 11. As such, Judge Gothie concluded that a finding
of abuse would still be proper, because regardless of where B.G. was in the
____________________________________________
each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to identify
the issue to be raised for the judge.”); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not
included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions
of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”); In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466
(Pa. Super. 2017) (“[I]t is well-settled that issues not included in an
appellant’s statement of questions involved and concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal are waived.”).
-5-
J-S27012-23
room, there was still a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury to B.G. Id.The record confirms that Judge Gothie’s decision is supported by ample,
competent evidence. Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own, and we
affirm the order finding Mother to be a perpetrator of child abuse against B.G.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/24/2023
-6-
Circulated 09/28/2023 11:46 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
JUVENILE DIVISION
In the Interest of: B.G., a minor NO: CP-67-DP-115-2023
OPINION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO_PA.R.A.P. 1925(a)
PROCEEDURAL BACKGROUND
This case involves the dependency of B.G., an infant child, and stems from a
domestic dispute that occurred in the early morning of December 27, 2022. B.G. was
just shy of being three months old at the time of the dispute. Because of the incident,
the York County Office of Children, Youth and Families ("YCOCYF") received a
Child Protective Services referral for B.G. due to concerns for her safety.
1
M. G.
B.G. and her father were evicted from the hotel they were living
at on March 27, 2023. Following news of the eviction, YCOCYF filed a petition for
emergency protective custody on March 29, 2023. The undersigned judge grantedthe
petition on the same day. On April 12, 2023, YCOCYF petitioned this court to
adjudicate B.G. dependent, to find that B.G. was a victim of child abuse, and to find
that B.G.'s mother,� perpetrated said abuse.
A hearing was held on April 17, 2023, during which the court heard testimony
from Patrolman Jonathan Hehnly, the West York Borough Police Officer who
responded to the 911 call on December 27, 2022, and Tess Shortt, the YCOCYF
caseworker assigned to the case. At the hearing the court took judicial notice of
A.F's
criminal charges and accepted Patrolman Hehnly's police report
4.G. A.F.
into evidence. Neither - nor offered any evidence or
testimony.'
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court adjudicated B.G.
dependent. The court also found that B.G. was a victim of child abuse and that
A.F.
was the perpetrator.
A.F
On May 16, 2023, filed an appeal challenging the finding of
abuse against her. She claims that the court entered its finding without clear and
convincing evidence. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the court issues this opinion in
support of its ruling.
A,f,
'At the time of the hearing had charges filed against her stemming from the
incident so it was not in her legal interest to offer testimony.
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At approximately 3:30 a.m. on December 27, 2022, 911 received a call
requesting emergency medical services to 1324 W. King Street in York, PA. West
York Borough Police Dept Incident Report at p. 3. The caller then cancelled the
request. Hearing Transcript at p. 14 lines 8-9. 911 received another call a few
minutes later and emergency services were dispatched. Id. at lines 9-10. EMS was
already at the scene bringing
M.. downstairs from the second floor when
M.G.
Patrolman Hehnly arrived. Id. at lines 12--14.had a deep cut in his forearm
and blood was soaking through the thighs of his pants. Id. at lines 18-19. Police
M.G. M..
spoke briefly with before he was taken to the hospital.(ii advised
them that he did not want to be classified as a victim. Id. at lines 19--20.
M.G. A.F.
Afer( departed, Patrolman Hehn!y spoke with lei ,6
�was holding B.G. at the time and her hands were covered in blood. Id. at
�gave
lines 23-24. the officer a fake name and date of birth. Id. at p. 19
_A.F. M.S.
lines 2-3.(also told the officer that was on the corner of King
Street and Hartley Street when he was stabbed. Id. at p. 15 lines 18-19 - �
was on the phone with�while she was speaking to Patrolman Hehnly. West
York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 3. They both communicated to the
officer that they did not want the police to investigate. Id. �would later tell
the officer at the hospital that he was stabbed in York City on W. Princess Street.
West York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 4.
3
A.F.
After speaking with at the scene, police proceeded upstairs and
M..
located the bedroom where EMS had found@i. Patrolman Hehnly found that
there was a large amount of blood on the bedroom's floor. Hearing Transcript at
p. 14 line 25-p. 15 line 1. There was specifically a large amount of blood on the bed.
Id. at p. 15 lines 1-2. A bloody knife was in plain view within the room. Id. at
lines 5-6. There was also a bloody towel on the floor and blood in the bathroom. Id.at lines 3-4.
M.G. .G.
Also in the home was older brother. ( told
'
M.G.
officers that both - and A5 I had been at home and that nobody
had entered or left the house. West York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p.
_M.G. A.F
3. He also told officers that he had heard @ and arguing and
fighting. Hearing Transcript at p. 16, lines 4-5.
Upon canvassing the home, police noted that the blood was localized to the
upstairs of the home in the bedroom and bathroom. Id. at lines 10-13, p. 28 line 24-
p. 29 line 2. There was no blood on the pavement outside, on the first floor, or on
the stairs leading up to the second floor. Id. at lines 14-20. Police also canvassed
H.. A..
both areas in York City where - and claimed the stabbing
occurred and found no blood at either location. Id. at p. 15, lines 22-24, West York
Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 4. Police ultimately concluded that the
stabbing occurred within the residence. Hearing Transcript at p. 28 lines 18-19.
M.G.
On January 4, 2023, about one week after the incident, ( spoke with
Patrolman Hehnly and gave a written and signed statement. West York Borough
4
M.G
Police Dept Incident Report at p. 4. - claimed that on the night of the
incident� drove to the home intoxicated with B.G. Id. at p. 5. Upon her
in�
arrival, the two started arguing room and with B.G. present. Id.
_A.F MG. M.G.
hi then began to strike Si with a bottle. Id. So took B.G.
and went to his room. Id. � eventually came into his room with a knife
M.G.
and stabbed him. Id. was lying on the bed and was holding B.G. at when
he was stabbed. Id., Hearing Transcript at p. 17 lines 16-17. � stated that
A.F,
threatened him that he would never get to see B.G. again if he told
police what happened. West York Borough Police Dep't Incident Report at p. 5,
Hearing Transcript at p. 15, lines 2-3.
M.G's A..
Based on statement and the evidence at the scene,
was arrested and charged with false identification to a law enforcement officer,
aggravated assault - attempts SBI or causes injury with extreme indifference,
aggravated assault- attempts to cause or causes BI with deadly weapon, intimidation
of a witness, and child endangerment. She was released on bail with conditions that
prohibited her from contacting I -
HG. [ and restricting her contact with B.G. to
supervised visits. Hearing Transcript at p. 51, 1 ines 14-15.
4.G. A.S.
Following YCOCYF's involvement, and finite were
M.G.
interviewed by the agency. - told the agency the same story he told
A..
Patrolman Hehnly. He stated that was driving drunk with B.G. in the
A.F.
car. Id. at p. 31 lines 10--11. He stated that came to the house and struck
him over the head with a liquor bottle before stabbing him. Id. at lines 12-13 ...
5
M.G.
j also said that he was lying down with B.G. on his chest when he was stabbed.
Id. at lines 21-22.
A.F.
When interviewed by YCOCYF, did not admit to stabbing
4.G. MG.
« Id. at p. 32 line 3. However, she admitted to being home with that
A.F.
morning. Id. at lines 7-10. ••· also told the agency that B.G. was in a car
seat. Id. at lines 5-6.
DISCUSSION
A court may only issue a finding of child abuse when there is clear and
convincing evidence to support the decision. 42 Pa.C.S. 6341, see also In the
Interest of N.B.-A., 657 Pa. 137, 149 (2020). In making its determination, the court
utilizes the definitions of the Child Protection Services Law ("CPSL"). See In the
Interest ofN.B.-A., 657 Pa. 137, 149 (2020), In the Interest ofL.Z., 631 Pa. 343,361
(2015).
The CPSL defines a perpetrator as a person who has committed child abuse
as defined in the CPSL.2 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). Child abuse is defined, in pertinent
part, as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(3) Causing or substantially contributing to serious mental injury to a
child through any act or failure to act or series of such acts or failures
to act.
2 Under the CPSL the definition of "perpetrator" only applies to certain individuals who commit
child abuse. A child's parent is specifically included within the definition. See 23 Pa.C.S. $ 6303.
6
( 5) Creating a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury to a child through
any recent act or failure to act.
23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1 ).
An act is recent if it is committed within two years of the date of the report to
the county agency. 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303.
With regards to culpability:
(2) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an
offense when:
() if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant
circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such
circumstances exist; and
(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is
practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
(3) A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an
offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk
must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive
it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the
circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the
standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's
situation.
18 Pa.C.S. § 302.
With the evidentiary standard and definitions in mind the court finds by clear
A.F.
and convincing evidence that ••••• was a perpetrator of child abuse. The
court heard credible testimony as to the events that occurred on December 27, 2022.
All the evidence that was presented to the court shows that a violent event occurred
AF. M.G.
in the parents' home that night and that tip stabbed The police
7
found that the only blood in the home was localized within the bedroom and attached
bathroom. The bed itself was saturated in blood. There was a bloody knife mere feet
away from the pools of blood.
M.G. A.F.
Despite the pools of blood within the bedroom, - and
denied that the stabbing occurred within the home. They both claimed the stabbing
occurred somewhere within York City but provided differing locations as to where
it occurred. Nevertheless, police searched the purported crime scenes and found no
evidence of a stabbing. Nor could police find any blood outside the parents'
residence or in the home leading upstairs to the bedroom that contained pools of l
M.6.'s
- blood. Upon interviewing another individual within the residence, police
M.G. A..
learned that both and ( were inside the home the entire night
M.G.'s
and had been arguing. All this, coupled with ••••• statements about not
wishing to be a victim, makes it clear that not only did an act of violence occur within
the home, but that both parties initially desired to cover up what occurred.
The court also heard credible testimony from Patrolman Hehnly that,
M.G.
approximately a week after the stabbing occurred, approached police to
M.G.
tell them what exactly happened.(provided the police with a written and
signed statement explaining the incident in detail. It was credibly stated that, in
�wn words, he was on the bed with B.G. sitting on his chest when he was
stabbed. Furthermore, Patrolman Hehnly testified credibly that �told him
AF.
that he initially lied to police because ••• used B.G. as a tool to prevent
M.G.
( from telling the police what actually happened.
8
M.G.
Ms. Shortt testified that& ii gave her a similar, if not identical account
M.G.
of the incident. She testified that @told her that they got into an argument
A.F. M.G.
and that (it struck him over the head with a liquor bottle. ( told
A.F.
her that then proceeded to stab him as he was lying down with B.G.
on his chest.
M.G.'s
statements to ese witnesses are all but uncontroverted. The only
.F.'s
evidence to the contrary was statement to YCOCYF saying that B.G.
was in a car seat that night. Her statement is contradicted by Patrolman Hehnly' s
testimony that he did not see a car seat when at the house. Hearing Transcript p. 23
AF'S
line 22. The court also must question (credibility, considering she lied
to police about her name, date of birth, and what happened. No other evidence or
M.'$
testimony was produced to counter story of the morning's events.
M.G.'s
This leads the court to believe that statements to the police were
truthful. The court finds it both clear and convincing that
MG.
•• stabbed •
M.GS.
while he was holding the child on his chest. The court notes that @
had a stab wound on his forearm, which, if he were holding the child at the time,
A.F.
means - came dangerously close to stabbing the three-month-old child.
A.E's
In doing so, - actions created a reasonable likelihood of bodily injury.
A.F.'s MG.
Further, actions were at least reckless. By stabbing -
while he was holding the toddler, she ignored the substantial and unjustifiable risk
that she might stab B.G. as well. Her ignorance of the risk was quite clearly a gross
deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in her
9
situation, as the court places its faith in the belief that a reasonable person would not
stab someone who is holding a three-month-old child. It is both clear and convincing
M.G. A.E.
to this court that, by stabbing while he was holding B.G., (ii
perpetrated child abuse.
AF.
The court hypothesizes that will claim that the evidence was not
_MG.'5
sufficient enough to establish that the child was on - chest. This goes
M.G's
completely against the evidence that the court heard. In own words --in
a statement he signed- B.G. was on his chest when he was stabbed. There was no
evidence presented that would lead the court to believe otherwise. But the court
nevertheless humors this theory.
First, there is the fact that the officer testified that he did remember seeing any
blood on B.G. However, when Patrolman Helmly arrived at the scene, he was under
M.G.
the impression that - was stabbed somewhere else. Patrolman Hehnly had
no reason to suspect that B.G. would be injured as he had no reason to believe the
child was present at the stabbing. Therefore, he very likely was not specifically
A.F.
looking for any blood on the child. Also, when he spoke to she was
holding B.G. and had blood on her hands. Therefore, it is almost impossible for the
child not to have blood on her.
The court finds it more reasonable that there was blood on the child and that
considering
A..
Patrolman Hehnly did not take sufficient notice of it to remember that fact, especially
was holding B.G. while her hands were covered in blood.
In fact, Patrolman Hehnly testified that he was too preoccupied with everything else
10
going on to even recall the child's demeanor or what she was wearing. Hearing
Transcript, p. 23, lines 1--8. Therefore, the court gives little to no weight to the fact
that Patrolman Hehnly did not see any blood on B.G.
M.G.
The court also humors the idea that - removed the child from his
chest before he was stabbed. Even if this occurred, the court fully believes that the
A.F.
child was nevertheless within the bedroom, possibly on the bed, as -
M.G.
stabbed The court can only imagine two individuals fighting, one
swinging a knife, as the child lay close by. The court still believes this clearly
constitutes the reckless disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the child
would suffer bodily injury. Therefore, even if B.G. were on the bed or in a car seat
on the floor, there was still a substantial and unjustifiable risk that B.G. could be
injured either by the knife or by the parties toppling over onto her while they were
fighting. A finding of abuse is nevertheless still proper regardless of where B.G. was
located in the room.
It is both clear and convincing that the child was in the room with the parents
at the time of the stabbing. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the court whether the child
M.G.'s
was 1n arms or in a car seat. The act of an intoxicated parent swinging a
knife around while in the presence of the child is enough for this court to find that
abuse occurred. The act was reckless and placed B.G. in a situation where she was
likely to be harmed. The fact that she was not harmed is both a blessing and irrelevant
to the finding at hand.
11
Also, the court believes that the fact that the child witnessed the attack is
enough to substantiate a finding of abuse. Although the child is very young, it is
unimaginable that there will be no repercussions from witnessing one parent brutally
attack another with a weapon. The child was a captive observer to a horrific act of
domestic violence, and such behavior is now likely engrained within the child's
mind and could forever affect the child's behavior. For this reason, the court believes
A.F's
actions also recklessly caused or substantially contributed to mental
injury. As such, the court believes abuse may also be found simply because the child
witnessed the attack.
Lastly, the court believes this appeal may have been raised because the court
initially vocalized a different standard when it made its finding.3 This was ultimately
corrected on the record. The court opines that this was a simple and harmless error.
Even though the court initially mentioned a lesser standard, the court fully believes
that the evidence presented is both clear and convincing. There was clearly an
M.G.
altercation that occurred within the residence.( was clearly stabbed by 6
�
Patrolman Helmly credibly testified that � gave a signed and
written statement saying that B.G. was on his chest when he was stabbed. Even
A.F's
taking statement as truth that the child was in a car seat, the fact of
the matter remains that all the evidence points to the fact that the child was in the
3 The court initially stated there was "substantial evidence" before being asked to clarify.
Hearing Transcript p. 58 lines 2-4, p. 59 lines 13-17.
12
A..
room. The fact that was swinging around a knife in the presence of the
child is enough for this court to find abuse occurred and that she was the perpetrator.
A..'s
actions clearly created a reasonable likelihood that B.G. would
M.G.'9
be injured. Regardless of whether B.G. was in arms or on the floor in a
AF. _MG.
car seat, when - stabbed r she ignored the substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the child would also be injured. She therefore acted at least
recklessly, if not with the knowledge that B.G. may have sustained bodily injury. If
A.FE
this is not clear and convincing evidence that B perpetrated child abuse,
then this court is at a complete loss.
M.G's
4s a final matter, signed statement to the police noted that f.
A.F. MG.
i drove while intoxicated and with B.G. in the car. ( gave YCOCYF
A.'s
an identical statement when they interviewed him. intoxication is
M.G.
further substantiated by the fact that claims she conked him on the head
_M.Gs
with a liquor bottle. The court found@ account of the evening's events to
be credible and accurate.
A.F
The fact that was driving while intoxicated with a three-month-
old toddler in the car is abuse in the court's eyes. By driving while intoxicated, (
A.F.
ignored the substantial and unjustifiable risk that her actions created a
likelihood that B.G. would suffer bodily injury. Her actions in taking her three-
month-old toddler along for a drive while intoxicated constituted a gross deviation
13
from the standard of care that a reasonable person in her position would observe.4
Therefore, the stabbing incident aside, the court finds that clear and convincing
evidence exists to show that� perpetrated child abuse by driving while
intoxicated with her child in the car.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this court finds by clear and convincing evidence
A.F
that perpetrated child abuse upon B.G. It is respectfully requested that
the Superior Court affirm this trial court's findings.
BY THE COURT,
SEPH N. GOTHIE, JUDGE
4
The court prays that a reasonable person would avoid driving under the influence with a three-
month-old child in the car.
14