In Re: B.L.F., a minor, Appeal of: B.M.F., 735 WDA 2017

Background

Mother has an extensive CPS history: substance abuse, untreated mental health issues, unstable housing, prior involuntary TPRs and findings of aggravated circumstances relating to her older children. Mother gave birth in Feb. 2017 and Agency took Child into emergency protective custody at the hospital.
Paternity testing later established Father (B.M.F.) as Child’s biological father; Father lives with his parents, is employed full‑time, has no criminal history or prior Agency involvement, and regularly attended supervised visits.
Agency’s primary concern was Father’s ongoing relationship and contact with Mother, who the court found poses a safety risk to Child; Facebook evidence and witness testimony suggested a more-than-platonic relationship despite parental denials.
Trial court adjudicated Child dependent by clear and convincing evidence, granted legal custody to the Agency, found aggravated circumstances as to Mother, and placed Child in foster care with reunification as the primary goal with Father (concurrent goal adoption).
Father appealed, raising: (1) improper admission/judicial notice of prior proceedings; (2) insufficiency of evidence to adjudicate dependency based on Father’s association with Mother; and (3) lack of a showing of clear necessity for removal from Father’s home.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Agency/Father as applicable)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Admitting testimony from Mother’s prior dependency/TPR proceedings	Agency relied on judicial notice of prior records to show Mother’s risk and history	Father objected only on relevance at trial and now argues hearsay error on appeal	Waived on appeal for lack of a hearsay objection at trial; no relief granted
Whether Father’s relationship with Mother sufficed to adjudicate dependency	Agency contended prognostic evidence of an ongoing relationship with Mother (a known risk) supports dependency	Father argued mere association without proof of actual risk to Child is insufficient	Court held relationship + credibility findings about parents showed clear and convincing evidence of present risk; dependency affirmed
Whether trial court erred in removing Child from Father’s custody without showing clear necessity	Agency pointed to Child’s placement with sibling/adoptive foster home and Mother’s risk as supporting removal	Father argued alternative in‑home services and court orders could prevent Mother's unsupervised contact and allow Child to remain with Father	Court found trial court failed to make required findings on feasibility of less‑restrictive alternatives and vacated dispositional removal; remanded for a hearing to decide clear necessity
Scope of remand relief	N/A	Father seeks custody or at least in‑home placement with services	Court remanded for factfinding whether alternative services could enable placement with Father and whether removal is clearly necessary; otherwise adjudication stands

Key Cases Cited

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and dependency law principles)
In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of dependent child and clear-and-convincing standard)
In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000) (parental duty includes protecting child from harm others may inflict)
In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000) (noncustodial parent ready/willing/able doctrine bars dependency finding)
In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (removal requires a finding of clear necessity)
In Interest of K.B., 419 A.2d 508 (Pa. Super. 1980) (court must find alternative services unfeasible before removing child)
In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prognostic evidence may support dependency)
A.N. v. A.N., 39 A.3d 326 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court as factfinder on removal necessity)