In re Interest of M.Y.C.

230 A.3d 500

In the INTEREST OF: M.Y.C., a Minor

Appeal of: Y.L.C., Mother

No. 1467 WDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued February 19, 2020

Filed March 13, 2020

Ryan H. James, White Oak, for appellant.

Kerith S. Taylor, Brookville, for appellee.

Ross F. Ferraro, Brockway, for Jefferson County CYS, participating party.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.^*

OPINION BY PELLEGRINI, J.:

Y.L.C. (Mother) appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County (trial court) order entered on August 29, 2019, adjudicating her minor child, M.Y.C. (Child) dependent.^{1 ,2} After careful review, we affirm.

I.

We glean the following facts from the certified record. In July 2019, Jefferson County Children and Youth Services (CYS) received a ChildLine report that Mother was allowing a registered sex offender to reside in her home and spend time unsupervised with Child. Upon further investigation, CYS confirmed that Mother's paramour was listed on the registry and that he appeared to be living with Mother rather than at his listed address. When CYS attempted to speak with Mother about this issue at her home, Mother was hostile and denied that he was guilty of the sexual offense that resulted in his registration. Notes of Testimony, 7/29/19, at 3. Mother provided CYS with a court order from the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas dated August 9, 2018, ordering that he be removed from the registry. CYS then contacted the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and verified that Mother's paramour was still on the sexual offender registry because of convictions in two counties, but his status was under review.³

Accordingly, on July 25, 2019, CYS filed an application for emergency protective custody of Child on the basis that Mother was allowing Child to be left unsupervised with a registered sex offender.⁴ The trial court granted the application and placed Child with a local aunt and uncle. At the shelter care hearing, Child's guardian ad litem (GAL) represented to the trial court that Child was afraid to return to Mother's care and that she would prefer to stay with her aunts in North Carolina or her aunt and uncle in Pennsylvania. The GAL then stated that on behalf of Child, she would "waive" the requirement that the dependency adjudication hearing take place within 10 days. Id. at 7-8. The trial court scheduled the dependency hearing for August 28, 2019, or 30 days later.

On July 31, 2019, CYS filed the first dependency petition and alleged that Child was without proper parental care or control pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1), because Mother had allowed a registered sex offender to reside in the home and spend time unsupervised with Child. The petition further highlighted that Mother had denied those allegations and reacted with hostility when approached by CYS and the PSP, such that CYS believed Mother would not protect Child from her paramour. In response, Mother filed an Omnibus Motion for Relief Pre-Adjudication arguing, inter alia , that Child should be immediately released from placement because the adjudication hearing had been improperly delayed beyond the 10 days mandated by the Juvenile Act. The trial court denied that motion.⁵

On August 19, 2019, CYS filed a second dependency petition, this time alleging that Child was without proper parental care or control under the Juvenile Act and that she had been a victim of child abuse as defined in the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL), 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303. In this petition, CYS stated that after filing the first petition it received confirmation that Mother's paramour had been removed from the registry. Nevertheless, CYS had received a second ChildLine report on August 8, 2019, alleging that Mother engaged in physical and emotional abuse of Child since approximately October 2018. After the second ChildLine report was filed, Child confirmed incidents of abuse in a forensic interview and stated that she was terrified of being returned to Mother's care. CYS alleged that these alternative allegations were sufficient to support dependency independent of the first petition.

On August 23, 2019, Mother filed a Motion to Dismiss Dependency Petitions arguing that CYS had improperly filed its second petition as an amendment to the first without seeking leave of court pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1334. She further argued that the factual bases set forth in the second petition undermine those set forth in the first, and that CYS had removed Child from Mother's care based on legally insufficient grounds.⁶ Because the first petition was not factually sound and the second petition was filed without leave of court, she argued that both petitions should be dismissed.

At the onset of the dependency hearing on August 28, 2019, CYS made an oral motion to amend the first petition with the second petition, and the trial court granted it. Notes of Testimony, 8/28/19, at 5. Accordingly, the trial court denied Mother's motion to dismiss. Id.

Sara Gow (Gow), a supervisor at CYS, was CYS's sole witness at the dependency hearing. She testified to the allegations that led to the filing of both dependency petitions. She admitted that there was ultimately no factual basis for the first dependency petition, as CYS learned that Mother's paramour had been removed from the registry after CYS filed the petition.⁷ However, she maintained that the second ChildLine report, received after the first dependency petition had been filed, supported dependency and Child's continued placement in kinship care.

Gow also testified regarding the Child's disclosures in her forensic interview.⁸ She stated that Child recounted multiple instances of physical abuse that resulted in bruises and a scar on her arm caused by Mother's fingernail. Child stated that she was afraid of Mother and would hide from her outside or under her bed. She also stated that they would frequently argue and have "stupid fights such as taking out the trash, various things of that nature." Id. at 13. Child alleged that Mother had commented that she wished she was dead because of Child. These instances occurred over the past five years, but most recently from October 2018 and onward. Gow acknowledged that CYS did not receive any reports of abuse prior to the ChildLine report in July 2019.

CYS also had Child attend a bonding assessment with Dr. Allen Ryen to determine the extent of her bond with Mother and any appropriate next steps to reunite the family.⁹ Dr. Ryen determined that Child was afraid of and angry with Mother, and Child indicated that she did not want to have any further contact with Mother. However, he did not diagnosis Child with any mental disorder arising from the alleged abuse. He recommended that Child continue to reside in her kinship placement and not have unsupervised contact with Mother. CYS also scheduled an emotional abuse assessment for Child, but it had not been conducted by the time of the dependency hearing. Gow testified that such an assessment is necessary to determine whether the parent's actions "rose to the level of emotional abuse" and caused a "serious mental injury" under the law. Id. at 23.

Gow testified that throughout the dependency proceedings, Mother was uncooperative with CYS. When confronted with the initial ChildLine report, Mother was evasive, non-responsive, spoke in negative and mocking tones, and initially refused to allow CYS to visit the home. Id. at 32-34. When CYS did visit the home, accompanied by the PSP, she refused to discuss the matter with them but was otherwise calm. After Child was placed in shelter care, Mother would decline to take calls from CYS. Based on the full history of the case, Gow requested that Child be adjudicated dependent based on lack of proper parental care and control and the allegations of abuse. Id. at 38-39.

Mother presented two witnesses, Carole Ishman (Ishman) and Kathryn Trinka (Trinka), to refute the allegations of abuse outline in the second petition. Ishman is Mother's aunt and lived nearby Mother and Child and saw both of them at least twice a week. Ishman testified that she often spent time alone with Child at her home and never observed any signs of physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect. Child never reported any incidents of abuse to her, but stated that Child did not like it when Mother drank alcohol or chewed tobacco. Id. at 91. Ishman reported that Child's grandmother resided with Child and Mother until passing away earlier in 2019 of cancer, and "things got a little bad in the house" with respect to the grandmother's illness and behavior toward the end of her life. Id. at 94-95.

Trinka's son was a good friend of Child, and Trinka became friends with Mother and spent a lot of time with the family. Trinka testified that Child never disclosed any instances of abuse, and she never noticed any signs of physical abuse. Id. at 101. Her son had spent time with Child once or twice a month in 2019, and prior to that, they saw each other several times a week. She also noted that her grandmother's illness had been difficult for Child.

Finally, Child was called to testify by her GAL. She confirmed that she was afraid to go back home and would prefer to stay in her kinship placement with her aunt and uncle. She stated that Mother has hit her in response to "stupid" arguments or sometimes when Child was being "disrespectful." Id. at 110-11. Child described one incident when she ran out of the house after arguing with Mother and began walking to Ishman's home. Mother followed her in her car and yelled at her to get in. Child and Mother continued to argue while in the car, and Mother smacked Child on the face. Id. at 112-13. She testified that Mother smacks her approximately once every two months, but grabs her arms and yells at her much more frequently. Id. at 114-15. She stated that Mother's moods are unpredictable, but the yelling and arguing occurred once or twice a week. On one occasion, Mother threatened to kill or "get rid of" Child's pet...