In the Interest of: B.G., Appeal of: CYF
1596 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- B.G. (the Child), born 1997 in Guatemala, entered the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor in 2013 and lived with his adult cousin (Adult Cousin) in Allegheny County. Child was treated for spinal tuberculosis (Pott’s disease) and required ongoing specialist follow‑up and a 6–9 month medication regimen.
- Adult Cousin had no court‑issued authority to consent to medical care; a temporary guardianship was appointed upon hospitalization but later expired and did not secure recommended follow‑up care. The county TB clinic provided directly observed therapy but there were gaps in other recommended treatment.
- Child’s parents live in an isolated Guatemalan village, speak only a Mayan dialect (Chuj), do not receive mail, and are effectively unavailable to exercise legal decision‑making in Pennsylvania. Mother waived formal notice and testified with an interpreter at the hearing.
- Casa San Jose filed a private dependency petition and requested findings to support Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. CYF intervened and appealed after the trial court adjudicated Child dependent and found eligibility for SIJ.
- Trial court adjudicated Child dependent under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(4) (no parent/guardian/legal custodian) and § 6302(1) (lack of proper parental care or control), and found SIJ eligibility; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | CYF (Appellant) Argument | Trial Court / Petitioner Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether adjudication proceeded without proper notice to parents | Hearing should not have proceeded because petitioner failed to serve parents under Pa.R.J.C.P. rules | Reasonable efforts were made (telephone contact, interpreter); Mother waived notice through counsel and participated | Court: No abuse of discretion; proceeding was permissible given practical barriers and waiver |
| 2. Whether Adult Cousin lacked standing to be a party | Adult Cousin was not the legal custodian; form petition only checked §6302(4), so he lacked party status | Adult Cousin’s care and control were directly challenged by the petition; case law allows party status for the person whose care is in question | Court: Adult Cousin properly recognized as a party; no abuse of discretion |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate dependency under §6302(4) and §6302(1) | Insufficient evidence that Child lacked a parent/guardian/legal custodian or lacked proper parental care | Parents are effectively unavailable to exercise legal authority; Adult Cousin failed to secure necessary follow‑up care | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported dependency under §6302(4) and §6302(1); affirmed |
| 4. Whether SIJ‑focused testimony was improperly used to support dependency | Trial court relied on testimony elicited for SIJ findings to establish dependency | Court heard both SIJ and dependency evidence in same proceedings and distinguished what supported each determination | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence was sortable and admissible for both matters |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review and deference to trial court fact‑finding in dependency matters)
- In the Interest of J.O.V., 686 A.2d 421 (Pa. Super. 1996) (accept trial court factual findings if supported by competent evidence)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate court not bound by trial court legal conclusions)
- Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard)
- In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (dependency inquiry: present lack of care and availability of care)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (juvenile court’s dispositional powers following dependency finding)
- In re L.J., 691 A.2d 520 (Pa. Super. 1997) (focus on care and control regardless of provider’s status)
- In re L.C., II, 900 A.2d 378 (Pa. Super. 2006) (who qualifies as a party in dependency proceedings)
- Sprague v. Walter, 656 A.2d 890 (Pa. Super. 1995) (relevance rulings are within trial court discretion)
- In re Manuel, 566 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial court’s duty to advise unrepresented parties of right to counsel)