In the Interest of: A.B., a minor, Appeal of: G.B.
567 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Child 1 (A.B., b. 2002) testified that her stepfather (R.B.) sexually touched her on at least two occasions, first when she was ~8; she told Mother three months after the first incident.
- Mother (G.B.) did not act to protect Child 1 after being told, and Father later again molested Child 1.
- Bedford County CYS filed emergency protective custody petitions (Feb 11, 2016); the trial court removed Child 1 and three younger siblings (the Siblings) from the parents’ home and placed them with kinship caregivers/CYS.
- At hearings, Child 1 testified; Father disrupted earlier proceedings with an outburst, and the court found Child 1 credible.
- On April 12, 2016 the trial court adjudicated Child 1 and the Siblings dependent, found father sexually abused Child 1 and mother neglected to protect her, ordered removal and supervised visitation.
- Parents appealed; the Superior Court consolidated appeals and affirmed the dependency adjudications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the children were "dependent" under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1) | Mother: trial court abused discretion; insufficient evidence Child 1 was abused and insufficient basis to declare Siblings dependent | Parents: Child 1 testimony lacked specificity, had delays/contradictions; Father denied abuse; no evidence Siblings were abused | Court: Affirmed. Child 1 credible; evidence supports Father’s sexual abuse and Mother’s failure to protect; siblings may be dependent based on risk and family dynamics |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported adjudication of child abuse under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303 | Father: insufficient proof of sexual abuse by clear and convincing standard | Father: challenged credibility and factual sufficiency | Court: Affirmed. Child 1’s testimony, Father’s courtroom conduct, and legal principles about delayed/omitted details in child sexual abuse cases satisfy standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunkle v. Commonwealth, 602 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1992) (children may omit details or delay reporting due to fear/embarrassment/coercion)
- Murray v. Commonwealth, 597 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. 1991) (contradictions affect weight, not necessarily admissibility or credibility)
- In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (standard of appellate review in dependency cases)
- In re M.T., 101 A.3d 1163 (Pa. Super. 2014) (burden on petitioner is clear and convincing evidence in dependency proceedings)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (dependency disposition to protect child welfare)
- In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (two-part dependency inquiry: current lack of care and immediate availability)
- In re S.B., 833 A.2d 1116 (Pa. Super. 2003) (finding sexual abuse as to one child can support dependency adjudication for siblings)
- In re M.W., 842 A.2d 425 (Pa. Super. 2004) (siblings may lack proper parental care even absent direct evidence of abuse)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733 (Pa. Super. 2015) (credibility determinations are for the trial court)