In the Interest of: L.S.-A., a Minor
686 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Child L.S.-A., born March 2016, was hospitalized in September 2016 with multi-layer retinal hemorrhages, an acute subdural hematoma, unexplained brain bleeding, and a frenulum tear; neurosurgery and a drain were required.
- DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody and placed the child in foster care; a dependency petition was filed October 4, 2016.
- Adjudicatory hearings occurred January 3 and February 10, 2017; DHS presented medical and investigative witnesses; parents attended but did not testify.
- Medical expert Dr. McColgan testified the injuries were not accidental and were diagnostic/suspicious of inflicted head trauma; prior symptoms (vomiting, poor feeding) preceded the critical hospitalization.
- DHS investigative testimony reported inconsistent statements by parents and cooperation/consistent accounts from caregivers who found the child unresponsive; DHS concluded the parents were perpetrators.
- The trial court adjudicated the child dependent under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302 and found aggravated circumstances as to both mother and father; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence Father caused or neglected to prevent the child’s injuries (dependency) | Father: DHS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he directly or by neglect caused the injuries | DHS: Medical and investigative evidence shows inflicted traumatic brain injury and inconsistent parental accounts supporting dependency | Court: Affirmed — record supports finding child was without proper parental care and dependency was proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether aggravated circumstances existed as to Father | Father: No clear and convincing proof he was a perpetrator; he acted appropriately and there is no evidence of wrongdoing | DHS: Serious, inflicted injuries (requiring neurosurgery) satisfy aggravated circumstances definitions | Court: Affirmed — aggravated circumstances established based on physical abuse and serious bodily injury |
| Whether adjudication should be reversed because child was not presently without proper parental care | Father: Adjudication lacks required proof; evidence insufficient to show lack of proper care | DHS: Expert medical testimony and investigative findings show conduct placing child at risk and lack of proper care | Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility determinations supported dependency finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court factual findings in dependency cases)
- In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (dependency review principles)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s discretion on credibility and evidence adoption)
- In re Diaz, 669 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 1995) (credibility determinations and conflict resolution of evidence)
- In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1997) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and proper parental care)
- In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of proper parental care and dependency requirements)
- In re R.T., 592 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 1991) (child declared dependent only when presently without proper parental care)
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (aggravated circumstances focus on children’s safety, not parental rights)