In the Interest of: M.B. Appeal of: N.C.
101 A.3d 124
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Child (M.B.), age 15, has diagnosed bipolar disorder and ADHD, history of setting fires and other dangerous conduct, and was hospitalized inpatient for three months in 2011.
- After discharge, Child refused therapy and medication; Mother did not enroll him in ongoing mental-health treatment and admitted she could not control him and feared for her safety.
- DHS removed Child from Mother’s home in February 2014 and placed him in a treatment foster home; parties agreed Child should be placed out of home but disputed the legal bases for dependency.
- Juvenile court adjudicated Child dependent on two bases: (1) incorrigibility (not appealed) and (2) lack of proper parental care or control under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1).
- Mother appealed the § 6302(1) adjudication and argued the court failed to comply with Pa.R.J.C.P. 1408 and 1409 by not specifying which petition averments were proved and by not making detailed factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DHS / Juvenile Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported dependency under § 6302(1) (lack of proper parental care or control) | The facts only supported an incorrigibility finding; Mother had not been shown to have failed to provide proper care | Child had specific mental-health needs, Mother failed to secure follow-up treatment after inpatient stay, Mother admitted inability to control Child and fear for safety | Court affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported § 6302(1) adjudication (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether the court violated Pa.R.J.C.P. 1408 / 1409 by failing to specify which allegations were proved and by not making specific factual findings in the order | Court’s order was insufficiently specific; required identification of which petition averments were proved and detailed factual findings | Court’s order stated dependency was found by clear and convincing evidence and adopted the petition’s factual allegations; this provided a sufficient basis | Court held the order complied with Rules 1408 and 1409(C) and was adequate, though more detail would be preferable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; defer to trial court fact/credibility findings)
- In re L.Z., 91 A.3d 208 (Pa. Super. 2014) (dependency findings can have collateral consequences and avoid mootness)
- In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (exceptions to mootness where dependency findings cause future detriment)
- In re B.S., 923 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2007) (two-stage dependency process and disposition inquiry)
- In the Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1997) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
- In the Interest of R.T., 592 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 1991) (child declared dependent only when presently without proper parental care and such care not immediately available)