In re J.J.
69 A.3d 724
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- CYF referred the four Children to CYF on December 6, 2011 after their mother’s death; older sister E.R. took custody and later arrangements placed each Child with maternal relatives.
- A custody dispute with Father arose; interim custody granted to E.R. with Father having limited unsupervised weekends, but Father participated poorly.
- In July 2012 the caregiver plan shifted: C.J. with maternal grandparents E.S. and S.S.; M.J. and S.J. with maternal aunt L.S.; J.J. with maternal aunt/uncle P.G. and M.G.
- CYF filed petitions August 16, 2012 seeking adjudication of the Children as dependent under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6802(1).
- A pre-hearing conference on September 4, 2012 ordered various assessments and limited Father’s visitation; caregivers were named as educational and medical decision makers for the Children.
- October 3, 2012 orders adjudicated the Children dependent and kept them in kinship placements; November 2, 2012 Father challenged the orders on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointment of educational/medical decision makers was proper | Father contends no record shows unavailability to serve. | Court acted within Rule 1145/1147 discretion given limited Father contact. | No abuse; decision affirmed. |
| Whether the dependency finding was proper and immediate care unavailable | CYF showed present lack of proper parental care and immediate unavailability. | Father argues lack of clear and convincing evidence and misapplied standard. | Dependency affirmed; proper standard applied. |
| Whether evidence beyond pleadings was improperly admitted | CYF’s evidence of substance abuse/domestic issues should be relevant to dependency. | Pleadings allowed such evidence to determine placement; not prejudicial. | Evidence admitted appropriately; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; abuse of discretion standard)
- In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa.Super. 2004) (two-step inquiry for dependency: current lack of care and immediate availability)
- In re J.C., 5 A.3d 284 (Pa.Super. 2010) (dependency burden and placement considerations)
- In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000) (court may place child for protection and welfare; clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In re B.S., 861 A.2d 974 (Pa.Super. 2004) (placement options under 6351(f)(1)-(5); duties of agency to present evidence of risk)