In the Matter of: L.Z., Appeal of: L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164

Background

Twenty-one-month-old child presented at hospital with a deep penile laceration, bilateral cheek bruising consistent with squeezing, severe diaper rash/yeast infection, and poor hygiene; hospital reported suspected non-accidental injury to DHS.
Trial court (Jan. 6, 2012) found the child dependent, concluded the injuries constituted child abuse under the then-applicable CPSL, found Mother the perpetrator (either by act or omission), and ordered removal and restricted visitation.
Medical expert (Dr. Silver) testified the laceration was not self-inflicted/accidental, cheek bruises matched a common abuse pattern, and the diaper rash indicated prolonged urine exposure inconsistent with Mother’s explanations.
Superior Court (en banc) affirmed dependency but vacated the trial court’s finding that Mother perpetrated abuse, concluding only the penile laceration met statutory abuse and holding §6381(d) presumption inapplicable where record did not establish the child was in the parent’s care at the time of injury.
Commonwealth Court and some Superior Court precedents had restricted §6381(d) in multi-caregiver contexts; dissent and DHS/GAL argued the presumption properly applies across multiple caregivers and to omissions.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court: (1) deferred to trial court credibility and fact findings that cheek bruises and diaper rash met the then-definition of abuse; (2) held §6381(d) presumption applies in multi-caregiver and omission contexts unless rebutted; and (3) reinstated trial court’s finding that Mother perpetrated abuse (by act or omission).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (GAL/DHS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Did the Superior Court improperly reject trial-court fact/credibility findings and substitute its judgment?	Superior Court ignored trial court’s credibility assessment of Dr. Silver and wrongly reweighed evidence.	Mother relied on Superior Court’s re-assessment that some injuries did not meet statutory "serious physical injury."	Yes. Supreme Court held appellate court must accept trial-court fact/credibility findings if supported by record; trial court’s findings were supported.
Do cheek bruises and severe diaper rash/yeast infection constitute "serious physical injury"/child abuse under pre-2014 CPSL?	These injuries, considered individually and cumulatively, met the statutory standard of serious physical injury/serious physical neglect.	Argued bruising merely caused discomfort and rash was not abusive (responded to treatment).	Yes. Supreme Court held record supported trial court that cheek bruises caused severe pain and diaper rash constituted serious neglect.
Does 23 Pa.C.S. § 6381(d) presumption (prima facie identity of perpetrator) apply in multi-caregiver cases and where parent was not physically present at time of injury?	Presumption applies where injuries are unlikely except by acts/omissions of parent/responsible person; it covers omissions and multi-caregiver situations and is rebuttable.	Superior Court/Mother argued presumption limited to cases where parent was responsible at the moment of injury; otherwise due process and fairness concerns.	Supreme Court held the presumption applies to parents/responsible persons in multi-caregiver and omission cases; statute’s text, structure, purpose, and rebuttable nature permit application absent effective rebuttal.
Was Mother properly designated perpetrator under §6381(d) where Mother and Aunt were co-caregivers and Mother offered no sworn testimony to rebut?	Mother either inflicted injuries or failed to protect child; extrajudicial, unsworn statements did not rebut presumption.	Mother claimed she was absent when laceration occurred and thus could not be the perpetrator.	Supreme Court held Mother failed to rebut prima facie presumption; affirmed trial court finding Mother perpetrated abuse by act or omission.

Key Cases Cited

In the Interest of J.R.W., 631 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Super. 1993) (Section 6381(d) presumption may assign perpetrator status to custodial adults based on prima facie evidence to protect children)
In re J.G., 984 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2009) (dicta discussing limits of §6381(d) in multi-caregiver cases)
C.E. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 917 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (Commonwealth Court dicta limiting presumption where caregiver responsible only part of the day)
J.B. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 898 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (applied §6381(d) in expungement context; presumption rebuttable by substantial evidence)
C.S. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 972 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (required substantial evidence for expungement denial and questioned prima facie sufficiency in administrative expungement review)
J.W. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 9 A.3d 270 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (discussion whether §6381(d) applies in multiple-caregiver scenarios)
B.B. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 17 A.3d 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (interpreted §6381(d) as inapplicable where multiple caregivers cared for child during injury window)
In the Matter of A.H., 763 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000) (applied §6381(d) where mother was sole caretaker and explanations were not credible)
In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008) (applied presumption where cumulative evidence supported finding of abuse by omission)