In the Interest of E.B.
83 A.3d 426
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- DHS became involved after reports that Father physically abused older children J.B. and D.B.; D.B. suffered a fractured clavicle and both older children were placed in kinship care with the maternal grandfather in December 2011.
- Father faced criminal charges (aggravated assault, EWOC, etc.) related to D.B.’s injury and a stay-away order existed regarding the older siblings; some charges remained pending at the time of the adjudication.
- E.B. (born Jan. 2013) was prematurely born, discharged from the hospital in March 2013, and DHS learned of her release the day after a permanency review for the older siblings. DHS implemented a safety plan placing E.B. with the maternal grandmother, who received training to supervise E.B.’s special medical needs (including an apnea monitor).
- DHS filed a dependency petition for E.B.; at the April 9, 2013 adjudication hearing the caseworker testified as to the prior abuse reports, Father’s criminal history and the safety concerns for the infant.
- The juvenile court adjudicated E.B. dependent and placed her in kinship foster care with the maternal grandmother, granting liberal supervised visitation to both parents; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Child Advocate’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that E.B. was without proper parental care and control | Father: pending criminal charges and prior reports regarding the older children are insufficient; E.B. was in parents’ care and there was no evidence of abuse to E.B. | Child Advocate: Father’s criminal history, indicated reports regarding siblings, and DHS’s immediate placement/safety plan upon learning of E.B.’s discharge showed risk to E.B. | Court held DHS met its burden on prognostic evidence and found E.B. lacked immediate proper parental care and control due to totality of circumstances |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts prior to removal to prevent placement | Father: DHS failed to show reasonable efforts to prevent removal | Child Advocate: DHS offered services and promptly implemented a safety plan and placement with grandmother when E.B. was discharged; IHPS waitlist limited services | Court found DHS offered preventive services; placement was reasonable and necessary given urgent safety concerns |
| Whether separation from parents was clearly necessary under the Juvenile Act | Father: separation was unnecessary absent showing of direct harm to E.B. | Child Advocate: separation was necessary to protect infant given Father’s history and pending charges | Court concluded separation into kinship care was appropriate and not an abuse of discretion; visitation preserved |
| Whether adjudication can rest on evidence of sibling abuse and prognostic evidence | Father: adjudication cannot rely solely on sibling-related allegations | Child Advocate: prognostic evidence and sibling adjudications are relevant to assess risk | Court affirmed that prognostic evidence and sibling-related history can support dependency adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and appellate deference to juvenile court findings)
- In re G.T. (Appeal of S.S.), 845 A.2d 870 (Pa.Super. 2004) (burden of proof in dependency proceedings is clear and convincing)
- In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10 (Pa.Super. 2003) (prognostic evidence can support dependency adjudication)
- Matter of DeSavage, 360 A.2d 237 (Pa.Super. 1976) (dependency definition is broad; court may act prospectively to prevent harm)
- In re J.M., 652 A.2d 877 (Pa.Super. 1995) (child cannot be separated from parents absent showing separation is clearly necessary)