In the Int. of: R.A. , a Minor Appeal of: J.V.

J-S48001-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.V. No. 548 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered February 24, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County, Criminal Division at No. CP-54-DP-0000220-2013 IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.V. No. 553 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered February 24, 2014, Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County, Criminal Division at No. CP-54-DP-0000219-2013 BEFORE: DONOHUE, JENKINS and PLATT*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 01, 2014 urt on February 24, 2014, adjudicating R.A., age 14 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. A brief summary of the relevant facts and procedural history is as follows. On August 6, 2013, Schuylkill County Children and Youth Services *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S48001-14 ren dependent and issued protective orders on August 27, 2013. On February 5, 2014, the Agency filed a shelter care application with regard to the Children based on its concerns for the safety of the Children. The Agency requested the trial court to transfer custody of the Children to court held a hearing on February 24, 2014. the General Protective Unit of the Agency, testified at the hearing. Fehr testified that she filed the protective order and recommendation to transfer custody of the Children to contact with two 8-year-old- Id. at 6. In November 2013, Mother be if she entered into a relations Id. at 7. The Agency informed Mother that it would say no contact with the children until the Agency verified his charges and restrictions. Id. Despite receiving ted in December they had no unsupervised contact. Id. -2- J-S48001-14 D.F. met with the Agency and signed releases so the Agency could obtain records from his incarceration. Id. that although D.F. received treatment while in prison, he did not continue treatment after being released. N.T., 2/24/14, at 26-27. This information left the Agency with concerns that he may be at risk to re-offend. Id. at 27. Mother failed to complete a mental health evaluation as requested by the Agency and ordered by court in August 2013.1 Id. at 8. Mother scheduled an appointment, however, there were several delays caused by insurance issues, issues with determining the proper evaluator, and inclement weather. Id. at 9. Mother failed to return phone calls to reschedule the evaluation. Id. at 9. Agency, testified that Mother called the Agency up to 20 times a day. Id. at Children. N.T., 2/24/14, at 24. The police and the Agency investigated and determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Id. at 24. 1 The Agency requested the mental health evaluation because Mother a facility for mental health treatment. N.T., 2/24/14, at 15. The Agency al health to determine her ability to parent K.A. Id. -3- J-S48001-14 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated the obtain a psychological evaluation. Id. at 47. The trial court also accepted Father. Id. On March 26, 2014, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review: 1. Did the trial court err and commit an abuse of discretion when it determined that the [C]hildren continued to be dependent even though the evidence presented was not clear and convincing that dependency should continue? 2. Did the trial court err and commit an abuse of discretion when it determined that the best placement for the [C]hildren was with [] Father and, therefore, removed the [C]hildren from the home of their Mother without a showing that the [C]hildren were at risk? For her first issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred and committed an abuse of discretion when it determined that the Children continued to be dependent even though the evidence presented was not clear and convincing. We begin with our well-settled standard of review for dependency cases: [T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower -4- J-S48001-14 we review for an abuse of discretion. In re E.B., 83 A.3d 426, 430-31 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)). Sectio relevant part as a child who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A determination that there is a lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including evidence of the p alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1). The petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the child meets the statutory definition of dependency. In re J.J., 69 A.3d 724, 730 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re J.C., 5 A.3d 284, 289 (Pa. Super. 2010)). , weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super. 1997)). -5- J-S48001-14 Court Opinion, 4/29/14 2 Mother permitted D.F. s recommendation that Mother avoid contact. N.T., 2/24/14, at 7. In addition, Schumacher treatment after being released from incarceration, despite a court order to do so, would heighten his risk of re-offending. Id. at 26-27. The Agency also presented evidence supporting their concerns for mental evaluation and has since failed to reschedule the appointment. Id. at 8-9. Mother also made repeated and excessive phone calls to the Agency, up to 20 times in one day and made unfounded accusations of sexual abuse by Paternal Grandmother while choosing to be in a relationship Id. at 24. Moreover, despite her 2 Mother testified that she was no longer in a relationship with D.F. N.T., 2/24/14, at 30. However, Mother also testified at the hearing that she could no longer speak about D.F. under HIPAA because she is a licensed EMT and he became a patient of hers. Id. at 39. The Agency testified that they were unable to verify the status of their relationship. Id. at 8. The trial court did . to be credible. Id. at 46; Trial Court Opinion, 4/29/14, at 10. -6- J-S48001-14 unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse by Paternal Grandmother, Mother testified that she did not see a problem with the Children being at Id. at 39. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Agency established children at risk. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating the Children dependent. For her second issue on appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it determined that the best placement home without a showing that the Children were at risk. At the outset, we claim that the trial court removed the Children from her home without a showing that the Children were at risk is meritless given our We further conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in finding that the best placement for the Children was with Father. Section 6351 of the Juvenile Act governs the disposition of children adjudged to be dependent. It provides, in relevant part: (a) General rule.--If the child is found to be a dependent child the court may make any of the following orders of disposition best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child: -7- J-S48001-14 (1) Permit the child to remain with his parents, guardian, or other custodian, subject to conditions and limitations as the court prescribes, including supervision as directed by the court for the protection of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a)(1). In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing In re Sweeney, 574 A.2d 690, 691 (Pa. Super. 1990)). In this case, the trial court, citing to its obligation to ensure the safety of the Children, determine the evidence presented, the best interests of the [C]hildren were served by Opinion, 4/29/14, at 11. Furthermore, the trial court determined that transferring custody to Father was the least restrictive measure to ensure the safety of the Children. Id. at 9. Although Mother alleged that Paternal Grandmother sexually abused the Children, the Agency and the police determined that these allegations were unsubstantiated. Moreover, the trial court found credible the The Agency further recommended that all three of F -8- J-S48001-14 and her apparent mental health issues, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by placing the Children with Father. Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/1/2014 -9-