In the Interest of: J.W., a Minor, 830 EDA 2016

Child J.W., born May 1998, had prior DHS involvement after an indicated 2012 CPS report alleging sexual abuse by a former stepfather; she never received sexual-abuse therapy.
From Nov 2012–June 2013 J.W. lived with Father in Harrisburg; she ran away and later returned to Mother’s home. Prior to age 14 she had little contact with Father.
On Jan 28, 2016 J.W. voluntarily entered Pathways Youth Shelter (PYS) for conflict with Mother; by Feb 18 she reached the shelter’s limit and reported she did not want to return to Mother or go to Father in Harrisburg.
Father traveled to Philadelphia and attempted to take J.W. home but she repeatedly refused; DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody on Feb 22, 2016 and placed J.W. in foster care.
At the March 2, 2016 dependency hearing DHS, the caseworker, Child, Mother, and Father testified; the court adjudicated J.W. dependent and committed her to DHS custody.
Father timely appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to find him unwilling or unable to care for J.W. and insufficient evidence to support DHS custody.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported adjudication of dependency based on lack of proper parental care or control	Father: Record did not show he was unwilling or unable to care for the child	DHS: Child repeatedly refused to go with Father, reported conflict with Mother, history and needs show parental care not immediately available	Court affirmed dependency — findings supported lack of proper parental care and control
Whether placement of Child into DHS custody was supported	Father: Placement with DHS unnecessary; Father willing to care for Child	DHS: Placement was necessary for Child’s safety and wellbeing; best-interests standard permits foster placement after adjudication	Court affirmed placement with DHS as appropriate and necessary for Child’s welfare

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; defer to trial court’s factual and credibility findings)
In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (dependency analysis requires both lack of proper care and immediate availability of such care)
In re J.C., 5 A.3d 284 (Pa. Super. 2010) (dependency framework and review)
In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of proper parental care)
In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court’s authority to adjudicate dependency and dispose for child’s protection)
In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12 (Pa. Super. 2006) (best-interest standard governs placement after dependency adjudication)
In re E.F.V., 461 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 1983) (parent–child relationship is a status, not a property right; state protects child’s best interests)
Pub. Defender’s Office of Venango Cnty. v. Venango Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 893 A.2d 1275 (Pa. 2006) (mootness exception where party would suffer detriment without decision)
In re Sweeney, 574 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 1990) (post-adjudication custody/continuation of foster care determined by child’s best interests)