In the Interest of: S.P. Appeal of: W.R.F., In the Interest of: S.P. Appeal of: W.R.F. No. 2052 MDA 2016

Child S.P. (b. Oct 2002) was living with maternal relative W.R.F. (Guardian) in a non‑winterized camper; Child shared a bunk with Guardian’s teenaged son. CYS had an open case involving Guardian’s family, including concerns about housing and prior sexual abuse allegations involving Guardian’s nine‑year‑old daughter.
Mother has a history of drug abuse and conceded the dependency finding; Father was unavailable to provide care.
CYS removed Child and placed her (with sibling B.K.) in the Bethany Shelter; permanency plans were admitted into evidence.
At the adjudicatory/dispositional hearing, testimony from agency staff, chambers interviews of Child and B.K., and the permanency plans were considered. The court found Child without proper parental care or control and not immediately able to receive such care from parents or Guardian.
The court adjudicated Child dependent, removed Child from Guardian’s home, placed Child in temporary legal and physical custody of CYS, and directed the agency to seek foster placement rather than the shelter.
Guardian appealed, arguing (1) insufficient clear and convincing evidence of dependency and (2) removal was unnecessary because temporary legal custody or limited orders could have addressed medical consent and housing issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Guardian)	Defendant's Argument (CYS/Respondents)	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence showed Child was a "dependent child" under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302	Guardian: No—she met Child’s basic needs; court applied best‑interests rather than required clear and convincing standard regarding housing	Agency: Mother and Father cannot provide care; Guardian lacks authority for medical consent and housing is inappropriate, so Child lacks proper care and control	Court: Affirmed dependency — findings of fact and credibility supported; care/control not immediately available from parents or Guardian
Whether removal from Guardian was necessary and less restrictive alternatives were feasible	Guardian: Could have been resolved by temporary legal custody to her or by dispositional order authorizing medical consent and limiting sleeping arrangements	Agency/Court: Placement with Guardian unsuitable due to inability to consent for medical needs and inadequate housing; removal protects Child’s safety and welfare	Court: Removal and transfer to CYS custody were appropriate; disposition best suited to Child’s safety, protection, and welfare

In Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review and deference to trial court fact findings in dependency cases)
In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (dependency analysis requires present lack of proper parental care and unavailability of such care)
In re J.C., 5 A.3d 284 (Pa. Super. 2010) (followed G., T. two‑part dependency inquiry)
In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court's dispositional powers upon finding dependency)
In Interest of T.M., 689 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. 1996) (distinguishable precedent concerning sufficiency of evidence for dependency)