In the Interest of: J.M., a Minor
166 A.3d 408
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child (b. 2015) presented to CHOP with right forearm fractures discovered Feb 28–Mar 1, 2016; fracture type medically consistent with a common accidental fall; no other injuries found.
- Mother and Father shared custody; custody timing around the injury was disputed and Mother gave inconsistent accounts about when Child was in whose care.
- CHOP’s Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect team consulted; Dr. Deutsch testified the fracture could be accidental and that intentional injury could not be ruled out.
- DHS investigated, indicated Mother and Maternal Grandmother for egregious lack of supervision, and filed for protective custody and a dependency petition that also alleged child abuse.
- Family court returned the Child to Father (found Child not dependent because Father could assume custody) but simultaneously entered an “Aggravated Circumstances Order” finding (1) aggravated circumstances under the Juvenile Act and (2) Mother perpetrated child abuse under the Child Protective Services Law.
- Superior Court reversed: (1) held court lacked authority to find aggravated circumstances after finding no dependency, and (2) found DHS failed to prove child abuse by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Child Advocate Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could find aggravated circumstances after finding Child not dependent | Aggravated-circumstances finding requires prior dependency finding; court lacked authority once Child was found not dependent | Court may still find aggravated circumstances where facts meet statutory definition even if custody transferred | Reversed — court had no authority to find aggravated circumstances absent a dependency finding |
| Whether DHS proved child abuse by clear and convincing evidence | DHS failed to show injury was nonaccidental or that Mother caused it; Mother consistently said she did not know cause | Conflicting histories, Mother’s inconsistencies and demeanor supported an abuse finding; medical ‘red flags’ noted | Reversed — evidence did not meet clear and convincing standard to establish child abuse |
| Whether identity-of-perpetrator presumption (prima facie) justified finding Mother was abuser | Application improper because DHS failed to prove abuse in the first instance | Prima facie presumption applies in some cases to identify abuser when abuse is established | Not reached substantively after reversal of abuse finding; court emphasized identity presumption cannot substitute for proof of abuse |
| Whether DHS proved aggravated neglect or other statutory abuse theories | Mother argued insufficient evidence of reckless/intentional conduct or serious physical neglect | DHS relied on alleged supervision failures and inconsistent custody explanations | Not applicable after reversal of aggravated-circumstances and abuse findings; Court held DHS did not meet clear and convincing burden for abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (distinguishes burden for proving abuse versus identifying perpetrator; identity may be established by prima facie evidence in some circumstances)
- In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849 (Pa. 2000) (child not dependent if a willing, able parent can provide proper care)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard—accept factual findings and credibility if supported, but review inferences de novo)
- In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89 (Pa. 2010) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard in dependency/abuse contexts)
- In re Read, 693 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 1997) (reversing abuse finding where medical testimony did not exclude accidental causation)
- In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1997) (abuse not proven where medical testimony could not definitively rule out accidental injury)
- In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000) (affirming abuse finding where medical evidence contradicted parental explanation and prior injuries were present)
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (multiple and varying-age injuries supported abuse finding)
- J.R.W. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1993) (multiple severe injuries and definitive expert testimony can establish abuse)
- In re Frank W.D., 462 A.2d 708 (Pa. Super. 1983) (medical testimony that described force inconsistent with stated explanation supported abuse finding)