In re L.Z.
91 A.3d 208
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Child L.Z. was brought to the hospital with a deep penile laceration requiring surgical repair, bilateral cheek bruising, severe diaper rash/yeast infection, and poor hygiene. Pediatrician Dr. Deborah Silver testified the penile injury was non-accidental and caused severe pain.
- DHS filed a dependency petition; juvenile court adjudicated Child dependent and found Mother (L.F.) a perpetrator of child abuse and that aggravated circumstances existed, ordering no reunification efforts.
- DHS’s CPS report indicated Aunt (maternal aunt) as the perpetrator; Mother told investigators she had not seen the Child for two days before the injury and often left Child in Aunt’s care. Medical evidence suggested the penile laceration was less than 24 hours old.
- Mother appealed the perpetrator finding; she later relinquished parental rights and waived arguments on aggravated circumstances and reunification, leaving only the challenge to the finding that she was the perpetrator.
- The Superior Court majority affirmed dependency and that the Child suffered abuse (based on the penile laceration) but vacated the juvenile court’s finding that Mother was the perpetrator, concluding the record showed the injury occurred when Child was not in Mother’s care and DHS had not met the prima facie standard for naming Mother as perpetrator.
- Dissent would have upheld the perpetrator finding, emphasizing cumulative injuries, the prima facie standard under §6381(d), and Mother’s role as primary caregiver/omitter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Child suffered "child abuse" under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §6303 | Child Advocate: injuries (penile laceration + bruises + severe diaper rash) constitute child abuse | Mother: some injuries reflect neglect/discomfort but not statutory "serious physical injury" | Held: Penile laceration meets §6303 serious physical injury; bruises, rash, poor hygiene do not meet statutory serious-injury or endangerment thresholds |
| Whether Mother is a perpetrator under §6381(d) (prima facie presumption) | Child Advocate: as primary caregiver, Mother is prima facie perpetrator or liable by omission for injuries sustained while child was under caregivers' supervision | Mother: evidence shows Child was in Aunt’s care at time of fresh penile injury; DHS/CPS did not list Mother as perpetrator; no proof Mother committed or should have foreseen this act | Held: Vacated juvenile court’s perpetrator finding as record shows injury occurred when Child was not in Mother’s care and the §6381(d) presumption is not applicable or is rebutted |
| Whether adjudication and perpetrator finding are moot after Mother relinquished rights | Mother: relinquishment renders appeal moot | Child Advocate: collateral consequences (founded report, Statewide register, employment/adoption restrictions) render appeal live | Held: Appeal not moot — collateral legal consequences suffice to preserve appellate review |
| Whether juvenile court conflated dependency and abuse standards | Mother: court improperly used dependency evidence (neglect) to label Mother a perpetrator of abuse | Child Advocate: dependency findings support adverse inferences about Mother's care/knowledge | Held: Majority: court conflated standards; dependency supports removal but does not substitute for prima facie proof of perpetrator under the Child Protective Services Law |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (mootness exception for collateral legal consequences)
- In the Interest of J.R.W., 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1993) (distinguishing abuse finding vs. perpetrator identification; prima facie standard for caretakers)
- In re Read, 693 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 1997) (child abuse must be shown by clear and convincing evidence before §6381(d) presumption applies)
- In re J.G., 984 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2009) (§6381(d) presumption questionable where record is unclear who had care at time of injury)
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (caretaker omission can establish perpetrator liability where parent knew or should have known of abuse)
- In re Frank W.D., 462 A.2d 708 (Pa. Super. 1983) (dependency may be affirmed even when identity of abuser remains unresolved)