202 A.3d 723
Pa. Super. Ct.2019Background
- Infant S.L. (b. Nov. 2016) was brought to CHOP ER in Feb 2017 with multiple rib fractures in various healing stages and a fresh proximal tibia fracture; CHOP concluded injuries were non-accidental.
- DHS investigated; a CPS report named Mother (J.B.) and Father (E.L.) as perpetrators after neither could explain injuries and both denied knowledge.
- Mother told CHOP staff she suspected Father, described his suggestion to blame the family dog, and sought to bar his hospital visits; she later reported verbal domestic abuse and intended to leave him.
- DHS obtained protective custody; S.L. was placed first with kinship care then foster care after Mother's visit violated placement terms.
- DHS presented prima facie evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d) (injuries unlikely absent caregiver acts/omissions); trial court found Mother a perpetrator and that aggravated circumstances existed, relieving DHS of reunification efforts.
- Trial court barred Mother from presenting testimony of the court‑appointed psychologist (and other witnesses) as irrelevant; Mother appealed claiming denial of opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption and a due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by excluding Mother's witnesses (esp. court‑appointed psychologist) | Testimony was relevant to rebut the prima facie presumption that Mother perpetrated the abuse and to establish she suspected Father | Evidence was irrelevant to the narrow child‑abuse determination at that time | Court erred: exclusion violated Mother’s right to present evidence to rebut presumption; remand for a new hearing |
| Whether evidence was sufficient (clear & convincing) to find aggravated circumstances and Mother as perpetrator | Mother did not contest severity of injuries but argued she was entitled to present rebuttal evidence to disprove perpetrator presumption | DHS relied on prima facie statutory presumption from the injuries and caretakers’ denial of knowledge | Not finally decided—remanded so Mother may offer rebuttal evidence; prior findings vacated |
| Whether trial court denied due process by not allowing Mother to call witnesses | Denial deprived Mother of opportunity to confront/cross‑examine, present rebuttal, and a fair hearing | Exclusion purportedly because testimony was irrelevant at that stage | Held that procedural due process entitled Mother to present rebuttal evidence; exclusion violated due process |
| Whether court erred in not scheduling a permanency review within 30 days after finding aggravated circumstances | Mother argued statutory/permanent review deadline violated | Trial court had not scheduled/held required review timely | Not reached—court’s resolution of admissibility/due process issue controlled; remanded for new hearing (other issues reserved) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (statutory prima facie presumption of caregiver abuse is rebuttable; parent entitled to present evidence to rebut)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency matters; trial court credibility findings afforded deference)
- In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child safety is paramount; dependency focus on safety and permanency)
- M.O. v. F.W., 42 A.3d 1068 (Pa. Super. 2012) (in‑court presentation of evidence and confrontation are core due process protections in dependency/child‑abuse proceedings)
- Brooks–Gall v. Gall, 840 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2003) (dependency proceedings implicate due process rights of notice and opportunity to be heard)