In the Interest of: H.S., a Minor ( 2017 )

J-S59002-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: H. S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: M. S., MOTHER
No. 1047 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000158-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: B. S. JR., A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: M. S., MOTHER
No. 1048 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered February 21, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000159-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 07, 2017
M.S. (Mother) appeals from the February 21, 2017 orders that granted
the petitions filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS),
requesting the adjudication of dependency of H.S. (Child 1), born in January
of 2016, and B.S., Jr. (Child 2), born in October of 2012.1 After review, we
affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 This Court consolidated these two appeals sua sponte by order filed on
April 2, 2017.
J-S59002-17
On appeal, Mother presents the following two issues for our review:
1. Did the [t]rial judge rule in error that the Philadelphia City
Solicitor’s Office meant [sic] its burden of proof that the
child[ren] should be adjudicated dependent under 42 Pa.C.S. [§]
6302?
2. Did the judge rule in error that the children be committed to the
Department of Human Services?
Mother’s brief at 3.
Our standard of review for dependency cases is 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
lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Accordingly, we
review for an abuse of discretion.
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).
Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a dependent child, in part, as
a child who
(1) 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 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. § 6302(1).
In In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004), we stated:
-2-
J-S59002-17
The question of whether a child is lacking proper parental care or
control so as to be a dependent child encompasses two discrete
questions: whether the child presently is without proper parental
care and control, and if so, whether such care and control are
immediately available.
Id. at 872 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The burden of proof
in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that a child meets that statutory definition of
dependency.” Id.We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable
Joseph Fernandes of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, filed
on May 24, 2017. We conclude that Judge Fernandes’s well-reasoned
opinion correctly disposes of the issues raised by Mother in these appeals
and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt
Judge Fernandes’s opinion as our own and affirm the February 21, 2017
orders on that basis.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/7/2017
-3-
J-S59002-17
-4-