In the Interest of: A.U., a Minor, In the Interest of: A.U., a Minor No. 3237 EDA 2016

Background

DHS removed four children (born 2001–2013) after allegations that the oldest, J.U., was raped by her stepfather D.G.; D.G. was arrested and jailed.
Mother obtained a PFA and sought new housing but was accused of interfering with the criminal investigation and not cooperating with authorities.
Mother violated court orders and DHS placement conditions by secretly communicating with the children (texts, calls), visiting them unsupervised, and encouraging them to lie to foster parents, therapists, and prosecutors.
J.U. developed suicidal ideation and was placed in a mental-health facility; the other children became secretive and uncooperative with DHS.
At a permanency review hearing, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s moral deficiencies posed a grave threat and ordered suspension of visits pending further hearing; Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHS/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether suspension of visitation based on "moral deficiency"/grave threat was supported	Mother: Court lacked competent evidence of mental or moral deficiency; she can change via therapy; communications with younger children were harmless	Trial court: Mother's repeated, unauthorized contacts, interference with prosecution, and instruction to children to lie caused emotional harm and posed a grave threat	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of moral deficiency posing a grave threat justified temporary suspension
Whether visitation posed a present danger during/after visits	Mother: No evidence of physical or psychological harm from visits; older children should self-regulate	DHS: Mother’s actions had already caused significant psychological harm (J.U.’s hospitalization) and undermined therapeutic/placement efforts	Affirmed — demonstrated emotional harm and foreseeable future harm justified suspension
Whether practicable alternatives to suspension existed	Mother: DHS could devise supervised methods despite her being mute; contempt rather than suspension was appropriate	DHS/Trial court: No practicable supervised option would protect children given Mother’s secret, coercive conduct; temporary suspension with early review was appropriate	Affirmed — no practicable viable alternatives shown; temporary cessation permissible pending remediation
Whether suspension was an impermissible long-term foreclosure of parental rights	Mother: Suspension unduly abridges visitation rights; reunification goal undermined	Trial court: Suspension was temporary, tied to completion of therapy/parenting classes, and scheduled for early relisting	Affirmed — suspension was temporary and review was scheduled; not an improper permanent termination

Key Cases Cited

In re L.V., 127 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2015) (defines "grave threat" standard; moral deficiency and continued association with abuser can justify restricting visitation)
In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2004) (moral depravity or sexual abuse in family can justify suspension of visitation to protect child)
In re B.G., 774 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parental lapses of judgment do not automatically constitute a grave threat absent evidence of harm)
In re Mary Kathryn T., 629 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 1993) (courts should not foreclose visitation unless clear and convincing evidence that even supervised visits would severely endanger child)
In re Damon B., 460 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 1983) (temporary reduction or suspension of visits may be upheld where visits cause measurable psychological harm, with prompt review)
In re Rhine, 456 A.2d 608 (Pa. Super. 1983) (state must show no practicable visitation options exist that both permit visitation and protect the child)