In the Int. of: A.D.-G., a Minor
2021 Pa. Super. 177
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- Child born Feb 2019; Mother tested positive for illegal substances and violated a CYS safety plan; CYS obtained emergency custody and Child was adjudicated dependent in April 2019 and placed in foster care.
- Mother initially misidentified Child’s father; Father was not identified until a paternity test in Nov 2019 confirmed paternity.
- After paternity was confirmed, CYS discovered Father is a registered sexual offender and was convicted of indecent assault for long‑term sexual abuse of his sister; he had been designated a sexually violent predator (SVP).
- CYS moved for a finding of aggravated circumstances (Dec 2019). A de novo hearing on aggravated circumstances and Father’s motion to terminate dependency was held Feb 9, 2021.
- The juvenile court (Mar 29, 2021) found Child remained dependent, found aggravated circumstances based on Father’s indecent‑assault conviction and SVP status, denied reunification efforts with Father, and denied Father’s motion to terminate dependency. Father appealed; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYS/Juvenile Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Due process: notice/opportunity to be heard | Father: He was not notified of initial proceedings, never had chance to defend. | Court/CYS: Father was unknown at time of initial proceedings; once identified he received notice and a hearing. | No due process violation; later notice and de novo hearing satisfied requirements. |
| 2. Jurisdiction: need for a petition naming Father | Father: CYS never filed a dependency petition against him specifically, so court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate dependency as to him. | Court/CYS: Jurisdiction attaches to the child once a petition is filed; parents later identified receive notice and hearings. | Court had jurisdiction over the dependency; no separate initial petition naming Father required. |
| 3. Use of SVP status and prior juvenile conduct to find aggravated circumstances | Father: SVP status arose from conduct long before Child existed and therefore is irrelevant to dependency and to deny reunification. | Court/CYS: SVP designation and indecent‑assault conviction are statutory aggravated circumstances relevant to child safety. | Court properly considered SVP/conviction; could find aggravated circumstances and direct cessation of reunification efforts. |
| 4. Merits of dependency: can Father provide proper care? | Father: He can provide care; lack of bond is due to suspended/COVID visits and limited opportunity. | Court/CYS: Father had no meaningful bond, extensive history of child sexual abuse, discharge from long‑term treatment and polygraph issues created an unacceptable risk. | Evidence supported dependency under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6302(1); no abuse of discretion in finding Child remains dependent and ending reunification. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to juvenile court findings in dependency cases)
- In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000) (interpretation of dependent child lacking proper parental care under the Juvenile Act)
- In re B.B., 745 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 1999) (court may decline to place child with a previously unknown parent who lacks a bond)
- In re H.K., 172 A.3d 71 (Pa. Super. 2017) (permanency review hearings and review of dependent status)
- In re R.C., 945 A.2d 182 (Pa. Super. 2008) (aggravated‑circumstances order can be appealed as a collateral order)
- In re L.V., 127 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court discretion to cease reunification efforts upon aggravated circumstances)