In the Interest of: Z.I., a Minor Appeal of: K.R.
In the Interest of: Z.I., a Minor Appeal of: K.R. No. 366 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 18, 2017Background
- Child (born Feb. 2010) was placed in Lancaster County CYS custody in Feb. 2016 after a report that mother’s paramour physically abused a sibling; mother was adjudicated dependent and found to have aggravated circumstances in April 2016.
- Father’s paternity was unknown until genetic testing confirmed he was the child’s father on Oct. 28, 2016; Father had previously refused testing.
- After learning paternity, CYS discovered a Northumberland County CY-48 report indicating Father was an indicated perpetrator of physical abuse (April 1, 2015) against another biological child, who suffered severe scalding/burns to her hands causing permanent scarring and possible deformity.
- CYS filed a motion alleging aggravated circumstances against Father on Nov. 3, 2016 (attaching the CY-48 report) and petitioned to change the permanency goal to adoption and discontinue reunification efforts.
- The Juvenile Court held a hearing Jan. 30, 2017, heard CYS worker testimony summarizing the CY-48 report, found aggravated circumstances as to Father, approved CYS’s permanency plan (goal: adoption), and ordered no visitation; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYS/Juvenile Court’s Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances (physical abuse causing serious bodily injury) against Father | Cites insufficiency: CYS relied only on caseworker testimony summarizing the CY-48 report, did not offer the CY-48 author or Northumberland CYS testimony, and evidence was a single-incident report | CYS relied on the CY-48 report (attached to its motion) and caseworker testimony that the other child’s injuries constituted serious bodily injury | Court found the CY-48 report and testimony sufficient to show aggravated circumstances under the Juvenile Act and affirmed the finding |
| Whether the court erred by approving a permanency plan with no reunification (discontinuing reasonable efforts) | Court erred by basing dispositional order solely on the CY-48 report; Father requested opportunity to demonstrate ability to parent | Once aggravated circumstances are found, the court may discontinue reunification efforts to protect the child’s safety and permanency | Court held it was within its discretion to discontinue reunification after finding aggravated circumstances and affirmed the dispositional order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (sets standard of review and explains Juvenile Act/ASFA emphasis on child permanency over parental rights)
- In re M.S., 980 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 2009) (affirming that a finding of aggravated circumstances permits discontinuation of reunification efforts)
- In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2004) (explaining ASFA’s limited exception to reunification where aggravated circumstances exist)
- In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000) (noting decision to pursue reunification is case-specific and within court’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (procedural waiver principle for issues not raised below)
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (applying waiver rules in family law appeals)