In the Interest of: JMP, Jr. Appeal of: C.P. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M.P., JR., J.M.P., J.R.P., AND J.P.R.P., MINOR CHILDREN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: C.P., BIOLOGICAL MOTHER No. 813 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order dated February 14, 2013, at No(s): CP-48-DP-0000001-2012, CP-48-DP-0000088-2010, CP-48-DP-0000089-2010, CP-48-DP-0000090-2010 BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED MARCH 19, 2014 C.P entered April 8, 2013, denying and dismissing her petition to vacate the adjudications of dependency with respect to her twin sons, J.M.P. Jr. and J.M.P. (born in July of 2009), her daughter, J.R.P. (born in May of 2010), 1 After review, we affirm. On May 19, 2010, the Northampton Department of Human Services, d with the -17. In pursuant to an emergency custody and shelter care order. The youngest child, J.P.R.P., was removed immediately after her birth. Mother attributes 1 2013. J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 September of 2010, the elder children were adjudicated dependent. J.P.R.P. was adjudicated dependent on January 31, 2012.2 Mother last saw the three oldest children in June of 2012, and in July of 2012, Mother last saw the youngest child. Id. at 79. In August of 2012, Mother was incarcerated for failing to pay child support. Id. at 13. Mother was released in October of 2012. Id. at 79. On January 11, 2013, Mother filed a petition to dismiss the dependencies with regard to the Children. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on February 14, 2013. At the hearing, the trial court concluded: Mother timely filed her notices of appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On March 11, 2013, Mother filed amended notices of appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court subsequently 2013. On August 9, 2013, directed the trial court to file an Opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). See In the Interest of J.M.P., Jr., J.M.P., J.R.P., and J.P.R.P., 813 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). 2 The trial court filed its On December 27, 2012, Mother gave birth to a daughter, J.S.P., who is not care. J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on August 16, 2013. On September 30, 2013, Mother presents one issue for our review: The trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of ion to dismiss the dependencies? [sic] We review this matter under the following standard of review: Our standard of review in dependency cases is well established; the standard this Court employs is broad. We s factual findings that are supported determinations. We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge because he is in the position to observe and rule upon the credibility of the witnesses and the In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted). Our Supreme Court stated that a court: is empowered by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(a) and (c) to make a finding that a child is dependent if the child meets the statutory definition by clear and convincing evidence. If the court finds that the child is dependent, then the court may make an appropriate disposition of the child to protect the child's physical, mental and moral welfare, including allowing the child to remain with the parents subject to supervision, transferring temporary legal custody to a relative or a private or public agency, or transferring custody to the juvenile court of another state. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a). In re M.L., 562 Pa. 646, 757 A.2d 849, 850 51 (2000). J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 To adjudicate a child dependent, a trial court must determine that the child: 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. the petitioner to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2004). Even after a child has been adjudicated dependent, however, a court may not separate that child from his or her parent unless it finds that the separation is clearly necessary. Id. at 873 (citations omitted) (alterations in original). Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law by denying her petition to dismiss the dependency adjudications. Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Mother did not make significant progress or remain in J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 dependencies was necessary and appropriate, and that the Children were safe in their placements. Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/13, at 4. The [trial court] also determined that notwithstanding her admirable goals of furthering her education and providing a stable, nurturing living environment for [the C]hildren, Mother had made little to no progress on the goals of the [C]hildren permanency plans, and likewise, had made little progress toward placement. In this regard, [the trial court] note[d] that at the time of the hearing, Mother was residing in a home at the kindness of a friend, who themselves were residing there without a lease. While Mother had started to pursue an education, her belief that her youngest child should not be left to the care of another while she pursued her education had swiftly derailed her from those goals. She provided no testimony as to any current employment, nor did she testify with specificity as to any past employment. [Mother] plainly testified that she did not believe she had to comply with the mental health component of her permanency plans, nor did she believe that she had any duty to maintain contact with [CYF] and keep them apprised of her whereabouts, or to take any responsibility for ensuring visits with [the C]hildren. Id. at 4-5. The trial court found that Mother admitted that she had not seen the Children since August of 2012, and that Mother had no explanation for her failure to attend visits with the Children. Id. at 4. Moreover, CYF Caseworker Ms. Moriah Harms, testified that Mother did not complete her permanency plan, and had unresolved issues concerning housing, domestic violence, and instability. N.T., 2/14/13, 87-89. Ms. Harms also testified that the Children are happy and well-adjusted in their foster home. Id. at 62. Consequently, the trial court fou J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 adjudications. Trial Court Opinion, 8/16/13, at 4-5. After careful review of the record, we find that competent evidence supports the tria that placement of Children with CYF is warranted and appropriate. See in Re G., T., 845 A.2d at 873. Although Mother evinced a desire to care for the Children, the trial court concluded that Mother did not make any progress with her permanency plans. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when competent evidence supported the conclusion that the Children did not have proper parental care. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/19/2014 J-S46029-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.