In the Int. of: M.R., Appeal of: C.R.

J-A13026-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.R., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 31 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered December 6, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-06-DP-0000103-2019
BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JUNE 12, 2023
C.R. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order of dependency
suspending her visits with her minor son, M.R. (Child) (born April 2016).1
After careful review, we affirm.
On July 27, 2020, Berks County Children and Youth Services (CYS) filed
a dependency petition regarding Child alleging lack of housing, parental
mental health issues, and lack of appropriate parenting skills. 2 Child was
adjudicated dependent on August 26, 2020. Physical and legal custody
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1An order suspending parental visitation is considered a collateral order, see
Pa.R.A.P. 313, and, thus, is ripe for interlocutory appellate review. See In
re: L.B., 229 A.3d 971, 976-77 (Pa. Super. 2020).
2 Mother has a history of involvement with several county children and youth
services organizations, dating back to 1998, due to lack of appropriate
parenting skills, domestic violence, lack of parental supervision, and
inappropriate physical discipline.
J-A13026-23
remained with Mother until October 28, 2021, when a hearing was held to
transfer custody of Child to CYS. Child was ultimately placed in foster care,3
where he remains to date. Mother was permitted to have supervised two-
hour visits with Child three times per week.
At a permanency review hearing held in July 2022, three witnesses
testified regarding Mother’s concerning behavior in the presence of Child.
Specifically, Child’s therapist and two CYS visit supervisors testified that
Mother:
• Instructed Child not to discuss things in his therapy sessions
because he “would go to jail” and that the police are not to be
trusted;
• Told Child when she was disciplining him during a visit that “they
would take him away” if he continued to misbehave;
• Accused CYS and other agencies of lying about her and “putting
ideas” in Child’s head;
• Told Child to “tell the police everything” after she reported CYS’s
behaviors to the police;
• Would speak negatively about the dependency process in front of
Child at visits; and
• Was having trouble with self-regulating and mental health issues,
often becoming angry in sessions.
____________________________________________
3 Foster parents requested their identifying information remain confidential
and be withheld from Mother due to Mother’s refusal to cooperate with CYS
for the well-being and educational needs of Child. The trial judge issued an
order in August 2022 granting CYS’ motion to keep Child’s foster parents’
names and address confidential and providing that Mother could only contact
Child at supervised visits. See Order, 8/17/22.
-2-
J-A13026-23
Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/23, at 6 n.4, 8-9 n.6. Although Child’s therapist
recommended Mother’s visits be suspended at that time, the trial judge
declined to suspend visitation and, instead, reduced Mother’s supervised visits
to once every two weeks.
On November 10, 2022, CYS filed a motion to suspend Mother’s
visitation with Child due to a report the agency had received stating that
Mother had threatened to bring a knife to the next visit with Child to kill him.
CYS also received a second report that Mother had whispered to Child during
a visit, “I’m going to kill you in front of your therapist.” Motion to Suspend
Visitation, 11/10/22, at ¶ 8. The motion further alleged that Child has been
“extremely anxious regarding visitation and has stated on multiple occasions
that he does not want to attend visits with Mother.” Id. at ¶ 9. Pending a
hearing on the motion, the court temporarily suspended Mother’s visitation.
See Order, 11/3/22.
On November 28, 2022, the court held a hearing4 at which Child’s
trauma therapist, Andrea Karlunas, and Mother testified. Prior to the hearing,
____________________________________________
4 Child was represented by Barbara Beringer, Esquire, who was appointed as
both guardian ad litem and attorney for Child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a)
(requiring trial court appoint attorney to represent child’s legal interest, i.e.,
child’s preferred outcome); but see In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.1218
(Pa. 2020) (attorney appointed as counsel to represent child’s legal interests
may also serve as child’s guardian ad litem, responsible for asserting child’s
best interests, so long as the child’s legal interests do not conflict with
attorney’s view of child’s best interests).
-3-
J-A13026-23
the trial judge conducted an in camera interview of Child,5 by agreement of
the parties and with Karlunas present.6 See N.T. Visitation Suspension
Hearing, 11/28/22, at 8-14. Child told the trial judge that he did not like
seeing Mother at visits because she “grabs [his] arm” and that Mother told
him that she was going to “bring a knife to [a visit with the] therapist [and
that] she will kill [Child] and [his] brother[.]” Id. at 10-11. Despite telling
the trial judge that Mother’s threat scared him and that he is nervous when
he attends visits, he indicated that he still wanted to attend the visits with
Mother and wanted to see her that day in court. Id. at 11-12.
At the hearing, Karlunas testified that, as Child’s therapist, she
“discusses [with him] how he is feeling[,] works on feeling identification[, and]
talk[s] about . . . why he’s not living with [M]other at this time.” Id. at 18.
Karlunas testified that Child told a school counselor that during a visit with
Mother around November 2022, “[M]other had whispered in [Child’s] ear that
she was going to kill him with a knife in [the therapist’s] presence.” Id. at
19. Karlunas also testified that Child does not like how Mother holds him
during visits, that he is “fearful of [Mo]ther and that she is not going to be
able to care for him.” Id. Specifically, Karlunas testified that Child stated
“when [M]o[ther] is angry or redirecting[, she] grab[s Child’s] wrist or [] his
____________________________________________
5 Child was 6½-years-old at the time.
6The parties’ attorneys were able to observe the in camera interview remotely
via audio-video feed.
-4-
J-A13026-23
arms [and that] it makes him feel angr[y] . . and makes him feel that he’s not
able to express himself to [M]o[ther] to stop.” Id. at 20.
On December 6, 2022, the trial court entered an order suspending
Mother’s visits with Child. In accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2), Mother
simultaneously filed a timely notice of appeal and concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal. Mother presents the following issue for our
consideration: “Did the trial court err in finding Mother presented a grave
threat to [Child] such that visitation should be suspended?” Appellant’s Brief,
at 2.
[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) (citations omitted). “In
dependency cases, where reunification remains the goal, parental visitation
may not be denied or reduced unless visitation poses a grave threat to the
child.” See In re C.J., 729 A.2d 89, 95 (Pa. Super. 1999).
The “grave threat” standard is met when the evidence clearly
shows that the parent is unfit to associate with his or her
children; the parent can then be denied the right to see them.
This standard is satisfied when the parent demonstrates a
severe mental or moral deficiency that constitutes a grave
threat to the child.
In In re C.B., supra at 293-94 (emphases added) (citations and some
quotations omitted). "When making this determination, we must take into
consideration the express legislative policy of preservation of the family. See
-5-
J-A13026-23
42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1). “[T]he trial court is required to consider options
such as structured visitation with the aid of an agency; only where there are
no practicable visitation options can visitation be denied.” In Interest of
Coast, 561 A.2d 762, 772 (Pa. Super. 1989) (en banc) (citation omitted).
Instantly, Mother asserts that the court erred in suspending visitation
where the visit reports demonstrate that there has been “a significant
improvement from the [prior] reports,” that Child is “well-behaved,” that
“[t]here are no instances of [Mother] grabbing [C]hild or using physical
discipline,” and that Child “doesn’t regulate his [own] behaviors.” Appellant’s
Brief, at 8. Finally, Mother contends that CYS did not prove “how continued
visitation proves a grave threat to [C]hild” where Karlunas never “explain[ed]
why or how [Child] is fearful [of Mother, and t]here is no discussion about
[any] long-term psychological impact on [C]hild.” Id.While the visitation reports may not document Mother’s concerning
behavior, the reality is that supervisors are not able to memorialize everything
that happens between a parent and child during a visit. Less than one month
prior to the court suspending Mother’s visits, Mother allegedly whispered to
Child that she was going to bring a knife to the next visit and use it to kill him
in front of his therapist. Although Mother denied any allegations lodged
against her with regard to her threatening behaviors toward Child, the trial
judge “found Mother’s testimony in this regard incredible in the entirety.” Trial
Court Opinion, 2/6/23, at 7. Child corroborated Mother’s death threat to the
trial judge at an in camera interview. See N.T. Visitation Suspension Hearing,
-6-
J-A13026-23
11/28/22, at 11. Not coincidentally, Child’s therapist testified that Child is
noticeably less anxious since visits have ceased. See id. at 26.
Moreover, at a July 2022 permanency review hearing, at least three
individuals testified that Mother was exhibiting erratic and concerning
behavior around Child during visits. In addition, Child’s therapist testified that
on October 26, 2022, Mother had appeared outside of the facility where the
therapist meets with Child for therapy sessions, despite being told not to have
contact with Child other than at supervised visits. Significantly, the court
recounted:
Mother stood outside the building, across the street, watching the
Child enter the building and she locked eyes with [] Karlunas. []
Karlunas said Mother was staring at her, standing outside a black
vehicle with a red duffle bag on the ground in front of her. []
Karlunas said Mother was not informed of the session as she did
not have custody. Because of Mother’s behavior, [] Karlunas’s
facility secured its doors to prevent public entry. On cross-
examination, [] Karlunas conceded Mother did not verbalize any
threats, but this did little to temp[er] Karlunas’s concerns
regarding the state of Mother’s mental health and emotional
dysregulation.
* * *
On re-direct, [] Karlunas explained that Mother appearing outside
her facility was clinically significant because, when someone has
been told not to come to the facility or surveil a child, it indicates
that such a person cannot honor externally implemented
behavioral or safety measures. [] Karlunas said specifically in the
matter at hand, Mother was aware she was not to be attending
the sessions and was not to be on the property (at the direction
of the facility’s executive director). Instead of honoring these
restrictions, [] Karlunas said [] Mother chose not to honor the
spirit of the instructions and instead “c[a]me up right to the edge
of violating that boundary.”
-7-
J-A13026-23
Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/23, at 6-7.7 In fact, even the trial judge noted that
“on more than one occasion, [Mother] lingered in the courtroom after a
proceeding and stared down the undersigned judge [and s]he has even shown
up on days not scheduled for court trying to gain access to the judge.” Id. at
8. To classify Mother’s behavior as erratic and deeply disturbing is an
understatement. See N.T. Visitation Suspension Hearing, 11/28/22, at 32
(Child’s therapist testifying, “it is also clinically significant that [Child] fears
his mother and that is a concern at this time”).
Following the November 2022 hearing, the court concluded that Mother
posed a grave threat to Child due to Mother’s mental health issues and
emotional dysregulation, her violent behaviors when redirecting Child during
visits, and inappropriate actions, not the least of which was the death threat
she made to Child during a recent visit. To quote the trial judge, “as of the
time of the [h]earing . . . Mother’s words and actions clearly and convincingly
demonstrated a severe mental or moral deficiency constituting a grave threat
to [] Child.” Trial Court’s Opinion, 2/6/23, at 9. See also In re C.J., supra.Because the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations
are supported by the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in ordering the suspension of Mother’s visits with Child. In re
____________________________________________
7 The trial judge noted in his opinion that he “personally witnessed Mother’s
unflinching glare where she attempted to lock eyes without breaking her gaze
in what appeared to be an effort to intimidate or otherwise show her
dissatisfaction with the [c]ourt.” Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/23, at 8 n.5.
-8-
J-A13026-23
R.J.T., supra.8 CYS demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Mother is “unfit to associate with Child.” See In re C.B., supra at 294.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/12/2023
____________________________________________
8 We note that the suspension of visits is not necessarily permanent. In fact,
the trial judge stated that if Mother complies with court-ordered services,
including receiving mental health treatment, cooperates with CYS partners,
and moderates her behaviors, the trial court would be inclined to revisit its
decision and potentially reinstate visitation. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/6/23,
at 9. See also id. (“As such, the [t]rial [c]ourt entered its [o]rder suspending
Mother’s visitations with Child, pending application to the [c]ourt for
resumption with proof to satisfy Mother no longer constitutes a grave
threat.”) (emphasis added).
-9-