In the Interest of: N.C., a minor, Appeal of: J.B.
1115 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 9, 2017Background
- Child N.C., born August 2015, was removed to Blair County CYF custody after hospital exams (Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 2015) revealed multiple injuries: healing and acute rib fractures, frenulum injury, "bucket-handle" metaphyseal leg fractures, and a Grade II liver laceration.
- Two pediatric experts (Drs. Castel and Clarke) concluded the injuries were highly suspicious for non-accidental trauma and inconsistent with normal handling; physicians reported the injuries to the agency.
- Parents J.C. (father) and J.B. (mother) gave multiple, inconsistent explanations (falls, dropping/catching incidents, pushing on chest, car-seat handling) that experts rejected as insufficient to account for the injuries.
- Agency filed a petition for a finding of child abuse and a motion for aggravated circumstances against both parents; dependency proceedings followed and CYF obtained emergency custody.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that N.C. suffered child abuse and that both parents were perpetrators: J.C. failed to rebut the Section 6381(d) prima facie presumption; J.B. failed to rebut the presumption and was found a perpetrator by omission given her near-constant care during the period when healing rib fractures occurred.
- The court denied the agency’s motion for aggravated circumstances, concluding the injuries did not, on this record, rise to life-threatening or protracted-impairment levels required for aggravated-circumstances findings.
Issues
| Issue | Agency's Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.C. suffered child abuse | Medical testimony shows injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma | (Mother) concedes abuse but disputes perpetration; (Father) offered alternative accidental explanations | Yes; clear and convincing evidence of child abuse (rib fractures, frenulum, leg fractures, liver laceration) |
| Whether J.C. perpetrated the abuse | Prima facie presumption under 23 Pa.C.S. §6381(d) shifts burden; J.C. had unsupervised access and failed to rebut | J.C. claimed accidental incidents (falls, catching, chest pressure, car-seat maneuvers) | J.C. failed to rebut presumption; court found he perpetrated the abuse |
| Whether J.B. perpetrated abuse by omission | J.B. was primary caregiver when healing rib fractures occurred; failure to notice/seek treatment supports omission-perpetrator finding | J.B. said she was unaware of most injuries, sought medical care when child seemed ill, and at times J.C. was alone with child | J.B. failed to rebut presumption as to rib fractures and frenulum injury; court found she perpetrated abuse by omission |
| Whether aggravated circumstances exist (justifying cessation of reunification efforts) | Agency: multiple serious injuries and mother's omissions justify aggravated-circumstances finding | Parents: oppose such a finding; point to child’s recovery and lack of life-threatening injury | Denied: injuries did not meet statutory standard (life-threatening or protracted impairment) for aggravated circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (explains clear-and-convincing standard and rebuttable prima facie presumption under Section 6381(d))
- In re L.V., 127 A.3d 831 (Pa. Super. 2015) (applies Section 6381(d) to find parent a perpetrator by omission where healing fractures occurred during parent’s care)
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (example of aggravated-circumstances finding where injuries were life-threatening)
- In re J.R.W., 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1993) (discusses rationale for applying Section 6381(d) presumption when likelihood of noncustodian perpetrator is small)