J. A04015/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: N.M., MOTHER :
: No. 864 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered April 15, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County
Civil Division at No. CP-62-DP-007
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., AND SHOGAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 24, 2016
N.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered April 15, 2015, in the
Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, Civil Division, subsequent to the
petition of Warren County Children and Youth Services (“Warren County
CYS,” or “CYS”), adjudicating S.W. (“Child”), born in March of 2000,
dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302, and removing Child from
Mother’s home. After review, we affirm.
The factual history was summarized, in part, by the trial court as
follows:
[S.W.] is a 15-year-old child who has resided in her
mother’s home her entire lifetime except for periods
of hospitalization. Her father was identified by the
mother as [K.M.], a resident of North Carolina whom
the mother believes died shortly after [S.W.]’s birth.
The mother has moved repeatedly during [S.W.]’s
lifetime having resided in North Carolina as well as
other parts of Pennsylvania before residing in Warren
County. [S.W.] suffers from a genetic, lifetime
disorder that has resulted in global developmental
J. A04015/16
delays, intellectual impairment, limited language
development, limited motor skills, extremely short
stature and low body weight and microcephaly. The
condition was generally diagnosed as lactic acidosis
and has resulted in a number of emergency
hospitalizations. Most recently, [S.W.] was
diagnosed with Pyruvate dehydrogenase deficiency
[PDD] or pyruvate dehydrogenase complex
deficiency (PDCD), a neurodegenerative disorder
associated with abnormal metabolism. [S.W.]
operates on the level of an 18-24 month old. She
attends Beaty Middle School and has an IEP that
places her in the life skills classroom, as well as a
medical plan in the school setting that includes
constant nursing supervision and two meals per day
at school. . . . Because of her condition, [S.W.] can
require emergency medical care with a short onset of
symptoms including lethargy, paleness, loss of
appetite, irritability and extreme pain. As she cannot
verbalize the onset of symptoms, [S.W.] has had
numerous emergency hospitalizations. During her
most recent hospitalization at Children’s Hospital in
Pittsburgh, CYS intervened and obtained emergency
custody of [S.W.] She was placed in foster care and,
at the time of the hearing, was comfortable there.
Medical appointments have been rescheduled by
CYS.
Order of Adjudication-Child Dependent, 4/14/15.
While Mother acknowledged that she and Child had been previously
known to child welfare agencies in other counties, such as Columbia and
Northumberland, Mother and Child had been known to Warren County CYS,
receiving assistance since May of 2014. (Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at
117, 230-231, 237-238.) As a result of concerns regarding Mother’s care of
S.W., on April 9, 2015, Warren County CYS filed an application for
emergency custody. The application alleged various facts in support of the
-2-
J. A04015/16
custody request, including numerous hospitalizations, a failure to administer
medication properly, and a failure to provide adequate nutrition and
hygiene. By ex parte order the same date, the trial court granted the
exercise of emergency custody and scheduled a hearing for April 14, 2015.
Also on the same date, April 9, 2015, CYS filed a petition for dependency.
On April 14, 2015, the trial court held an adjudicatory and dispositional
hearing. Warren County CYS presented the testimony of former and current
CYS caseworkers, Melissa Baxter and Katie McGraw, Child’s pediatrician,
Dr. David M. McConnell, Jr., school nurse, Tina Zigler, and Child’s foster
parent, W.S. Mother offered her own testimony, as well as that of Child’s
attending physician and genetics expert, Dr. Gerald Vockley. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating Child
dependent without proper parental care and control, awarding legal and
medical custody to Warren County CYS, and finding that the agency had
made reasonable efforts to prevent removal.
On May 14, 2015, Mother filed a Motion to Add Entries to the Docket
Statement, Reconsideration and Supplemental Relief, asserting the
emergency custody order did not appear on the prothonotary’s docket
statement, and the occurrence of multiple procedural violations, including
the failure to conduct a shelter care hearing. By order dated May 15, 2015,
the trial court denied Mother’s motion. On the same day, Mother, through
-3-
J. A04015/16
appointed counsel, then filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review:
I. Was the trial court’s finding that CYS met their
burden of proof of clear and convincing
evidence that the minor was without adequate
parental care and control unsupported by the
record established at trial, and were the trial
court’s inferences and deductions from the
record an abuse of discretion?
II. Was the trial court’s finding that Warren
County Children and Youth Services took
reasonable steps to avoid removal from the
home unsupported by the record; did the
agency meet the applicable burden of proof of
clear necessity; and were the inferences and
deductions in support of this finding an abuse
of discretion?
III. Did the trial court’s failure to conduct a Shelter
Care Hearing and attendant procedural
irregularities [sic] violations [of] the mother’s
constitutional rights to substantive due
process, procedural due process, and effective
counsel?
Mother’s brief at 7-8.
As set forth, our standard of review for dependency cases is as
follows:
[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
court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Accordingly,
we review for an abuse of discretion.
-4-
J. A04015/16
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010), quoting In re D.P., 972 A.2d at
1225.
Further, to adjudicate a child dependent, a trial court must determine,
by clear and convincing evidence, that the child:
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.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. “Clear and convincing”
evidence has been defined as testimony that is “so
clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable
the trier of facts to come to a clear conviction,
without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in
issue.” In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super.
1997) (citation omitted).
In accordance with the overarching purpose of
the Juvenile Act “[t]o preserve the unity of the family
wherever possible,” see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b)(1),
“a child will only be declared dependent when he is
presently without proper parental care and when
such care is not immediately available.” In re R.T.,
405 Pa. Super. 156, 592 A.2d 55, 57 (Pa. Super.
1991) (citation omitted). This Court has defined
“proper parental care” as “that care which (1) is
geared to the particularized needs of the child and
(2) at a minimum, is likely to prevent serious injury
to the child.” In re C.R.S., supra at 845 (citation
omitted).
In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013).
-5-
J. A04015/16
With respect to when a child should be removed from parental
custody, we have explained:
The law is clear that a child should be
removed from her parent’s custody and
placed in the custody of a state agency
only upon a showing that removal is
clearly necessary for the child’s
well-being. In addition, this court had
held that clear necessity for removal is
not shown until the hearing court
determines that alternative services that
would enable the child to remain with her
family are unfeasible.
In re K.B., 276 Pa.Super. 380, 419 A.2d 508, 515
(1980) (citations omitted). In addition, this Court
has stated: “[I]t is not for this [C]ourt, but for the
trial court as fact finder, to determine whether [a
child’s] removal from her family was clearly
necessary.” In re S.S., 438 Pa.Super. 62, 651 A.2d
174, 177 (Pa.Super. 1994).
A.B., 63 A.3d at 349-350.
With her first issue, Mother challenges the finding of dependency as
supported by the record. In adjudicating Child dependent, the trial court
stated as follows:
All right. Thank you. All right, obviously this
is an extremely difficult case with [S.W.]’s diagnosis
of PDD. And, that medical condition alone could be
the cause, certainly the cause of her failure, her
brain to grow, her intellectual impairment, her failure
to thrive. Her developmental delays. All of that,
obviously, could be caused by the PDD.
And, therefore, the agency had the burden
coming into court showing by clear and convincing
evidence that [S.W.]’s out [sic] not with appropriate
care and control in the mother’s home.
-6-
J. A04015/16
. . . . It’s clear that the mother did not follow up
with the CP specialist in a timely manner. I don’t
buy the comments that it was about some type of
group to help each other out.
Other families that suffer from that. Clear, it’s
a medical appointment. [S.W.] has cerebral palsy
and she needed to see that specialist in a timely
manner.
The delay in the genetic testing that could very
well have resulted in this diagnosis four or five years
ago, and could have changed the track of [S.W.]’s
medical treatment.
There is just no, I saw a recommendation in
2009 for that. I don’t understand why that wasn’t
complied with.
And, I should note that it’s very easy to sit
back and say what a parent should be doing when
they have a child with this type of medical condition.
And the lifetime commitment a parent has to make
to that child.
But, these are specific findings that cause me
concern. The noncompliance with the recent
medication prescription. Clearly, strongly
recommended or was indicated it’s very important
that [S.W.] receive that around lunch time in the
school setting.
The school put the wheels in motion to do that.
The mother went there three days to do that. And,
then changed her mind on that. I don’t buy the
explanation as to why that was done.
That was a clear recommendation. It’s on the
bottle. It’s in the contract from Children’s Hospital.
So, there is noncompliance with her medications.
The mother’s lack of presenc[e] at some or all of
[S.W.]’s appointments or hospitalizations causes a
concern.
-7-
J. A04015/16
The business about [S.W.] being ready in the
morning from discharge, for discharge from Warren
General; I don’t know what other pressing business
the mother had, but she certainly didn’t reach out to
the hospital from the morning until the evening when
she showed up.
And, I believe the testimony, and the medical
records support, that they couldn’t communicate
with her. Similarly, the mother going down to
Children’s on December 16th, last year, and deciding
that [S.W.] would stay there, driving back home.
The agency came back with her a few days
later to get her home. But, the testimony was also
clear that large chunks of these hospitalizations in
Pittsburgh, the mother wasn’t at.
And, certainly, she understood that the agency
would drive her there, because the caseworker did in
December of 2014. She was provided either gas
cards or other methods to get down there. And, she
wasn’t there.
I reviewed records from Geisinger where the
mother wasn’t available to provide medical history or
wasn’t at a consult or appointment to provide that
history.
I understand some of it is based upon the
mother’s economic circumstances, and that can’t be
the sole basis for that finding of dependency, but
certainly it’s played a part in this.
Medical records I reviewed indicate that all or
most providers have incomplete records because of
the number of moves the motherly [sic] made with
[S.W.]
That her own testimony about her
transportation issues very precluded her from full
involvement. Her current circumstances are that she
-8-
J. A04015/16
is $1700 behind on rent and in the middle of an
eviction action.
Again, those are economic factors. But, they
are playing a part in [S.W.]’s treatment. Her
consistent, thorough medical treatment suffered
because of the relocations, the lack of medical
records.
The lack of follow up, whether it’s because of
financial issues or otherwise, it’s interfered with
[S.W.] receiving full handled, consistent treatment.
Two school districts, two school settings have
avised [sic] the same complaint with weekend
weight loss. The school in the Columbia area, via
the medical record, indicated consistent weight loss
over the weekend.
The mother testified [S.W.] was getting meals
at school there, as well. Ms. Zigler’s testimony
about the same concern in Warren County for this
school year, that’s two school years and two schools
that have the same concerns about this weight loss
over the weekend.
The sporadic weight gains and weight losses
that [S.W.] has had, the 14 and a half pound weight
gain late 2009, early 2010. The eight and half or
nine pound weight loss more recently. Those are
concerning.
I don’t understand why the school has to bathe
[S.W.]. The mother is at home. She is not working.
I don’t know why two times a week school personnel
has to interfere with the regular routine for [S.W.]
by bathing her or showering her.
I believe the testimony of Ms. Zigler that
[S.W.] comes to school dirty, sometimes with a bad
odor. Sometimes with diapers that would indicate
long-term failure to change.
-9-
J. A04015/16
Those hygiene issues are concerns. All those
provide a concern, particularly when you are dealing
with somebody with the type of condition that [S.W.]
has and the constant need for addressing any
changes in her condition.
For those reasons, I do find that the agency
has met its burden of proof by clear and convincing
evidence that [S.W.] is presently without appropriate
parental care and control. She is adjudicated
dependent.
Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 248-254.
However, in asserting a lack of clear and convincing evidence to
establish medical neglect, Mother questions that it was proven that Child
regularly experienced weight loss over the weekend. (Mother’s brief at
15-16.) Mother contends that such a finding not only ran contrary to recent
inquiry, but failed to consider Child’s activity level over the weekend and the
possibility of IV fluid retention while hospitalized. (Id. at 16-17). Moreover,
Mother indicates that the reliance on Child’s failure to gain weight in finding
dependency disregarded the testimony of Dr. Gerald Vockley regarding the
standard medical care for a patient with PDCD, the relation between Child’s
delay and her medical diagnosis, and significance of Child’s failure to gain
weight. (Id. at 18-21.) In addition, Mother highlights a lack of clear and
convincing evidence as to her failure to address Child’s diet. (Id. at 21.)
Mother argues that she understood and was involved with regard to Child’s
diet. (Id. at 21-23.) Further, according to Mother, the court’s other
findings and underlying inferences and deductions related to failure to
- 10 -
J. A04015/16
provide adequate care and control were not supported by the record. (Id.
at 23.) Mother references findings related to hygiene and medication. (Id.
at 23-28.) Mother also alleges that the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion by making findings of fact which were not alleged in the petition
for dependency. (Id. at 28.) In the alternative, Mother suggests such
findings were not supported by the record and did not meet the burden of
proof. (Id.) Mother discusses findings related to truancy, communication,
appointments and genetic testing, and eviction. (Id. at 28-33.)
Upon careful review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion.
We find that the competent evidence of record supports the trial court’s
order adjudicating Child dependent. For example, the evidence exposes a
history of Mother’s failure to follow medical advice and recommendations
regarding appropriate testing and follow-up, affecting Child’s diagnosis and
treatment. Although genetic testing was first requested by those treating
Child in 2009, testing resulting in diagnosis was not accomplished until
March 2015, with Child’s sample being supplied on December 9, 2014, while
hospitalized.1 (CYS Exhibit 1 at 40, 51, 87-88, 171; notes of testimony,
4/14/15 at 136-137, 213, 216-217; Mother’s Exhibit 3; Mother’s Exhibit 4.)
Likewise, Mother failed to keep suggested medical appointments for Child,
such as with the Cerebral Palsy Clinic at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, as
1
Mother’s sample, while not necessary, was not supplied until April 10,
2015. (Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 136-137.)
- 11 -
J. A04015/16
well as others. (Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 123-124; 132-134, 145,
224-225; CYS Exhibit 1 at 51, 78.) Additionally complicating and frustrating
Child’s diagnosis and treatment were Mother’s frequent relocations with
Child, which resulted in incomplete medical records and history, as well as
Mother’s history of lack of availability to medical providers during Child’s
hospitalizations, which again resulted in deficient medical records and
history and the Child being held in the hospital beyond readiness for
discharge. (CYS Exhibit 1 at 1, 3, 87, 96, 103, 106, 109, 114, 117, 118,
119, 128, 139, 144, 158, 162, 171, 172; notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 17,
24, 55, 74, 126-127, 138-139, 142-145.) Child’s pediatrician, Dr. David
McConnell, Jr., testified on this point as follows:
Q. Have there been any times when, since [S.W.]
has been under your service, that she has
been hospitalized and you had difficulty
communicating with her, with mother?
A. We have, at some times, tried to call her, and
got, get responses, when we had her
hospitalized at Warren General, and were
discharging her in the morning, weren’t able to
reach the mother until the evening, for her to
go home.
Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 55. In addition, Mother failed to
appropriately follow medication protocol for Child, opting not to have the
school give Child a dose of erythromycin before lunch, as prescribed. (CYS
Exhibit 4; notes of testimony 4/14/15 at 22-23, 53, 60-62, 82-85, 98-99,
107-109, 183-184, 201, 225-226.)
- 12 -
J. A04015/16
Further, the medical records and testimony of CYS case worker,
Melissa Baxter, and school nurse, Tina Zigler, reveal concerns by two
separate schools regarding Child’s weight. (CYS Exhibit 1 at 87, 143-44,
165, 170-171; notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 77-78, 100-102, 117-118,
229-230.) Specifically, record from GMC-Geisinger Medical Center from
November 1, 2013 states, “There has [sic] been significant concerns from
school regarding her nutrition and they feel that she gains weight during the
week but looses [sic] every weekend.” (CYS Exhibit 1 at 165.) Moreover,
record from November 15, 2013 indicates, in part, “It appears prolonged
fasting and dehydration as a reason for [S.W.]’s metabolic decompensation.
Apart from her possible working metabolic diagnosis, her repeated
decompensation at home are concerning.” (Id. at 131.) Interestingly,
Mother relocated shortly after these concerns were noted in November 2013.
(Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 186-187.) Finally, testimony from
Ms. Zigler confirms additional concerns related to Child’s hygiene. (Id. at
80-81, 96-98, 102-103, 110-111.) As such, the record substantiates the
lack of parental care and control and finding of dependency and we will not
disturb this finding.
Next, in Mother’s second issue, she disputes the finding of reasonable
efforts to avoid Child’s removal from the home. In finding reasonable efforts
were made to avoid Child’s removal from Mother’s home, the trial court
stated:
- 13 -
J. A04015/16
The agency has made all reasonable efforts to
try to avoid this. I heard from two separate
caseworkers that have been providing a number of
services in the hopes to avoid placement.
All of the in-school services that [S.W.] is
receiving. The medical plan. The individualized
education program for her. So, reasonable efforts
have been made to prevent this placement from
occurring.
Id. at 254.
Nonetheless, Mother argues that the record “showed failures of
communication by service providers that hindered her ability to understand
and comply with expectations.” (Mother’s brief at 37.) Mother references
hygiene and weight and diet. (Id. at 38-42.) Mother likewise avers that
Child’s removal from the home was premature, as Child’s diet was
experimental and had been altered. Mother, therefore, proffers that she was
not given the opportunity to employ the new diet prior to CYS obtaining
custody. (Id. at 43-44). Further, the truancy plan had only been
implemented one week prior to CYS’ application for emergency custody.
(Id. at 44.)
After review of the record, we again discern no abuse of discretion.
We find that the competent evidence of record supports the trial court’s
order removing Child from Mother’s home. CYS caseworker, Melissa Baxter,
testified to assisting Mother with coordinating insurance coverage for diapers
for Child and re-establishing insurance coverage for nutritional supplements
for Child, the latter of which had ceased due to relocation, scheduling
- 14 -
J. A04015/16
medical appointments, facilitating and/or providing transportation, and
conducting a family team meeting in order to create the family service plan.
(Notes of testimony, 4/14/15 at 121-128, 138-139.) CYS caseworker,
Katie McGraw, testified to aiding Mother with truancy concerns and
transportation, as well as the agency attempting to assist with inspection of
Mother’s vehicle. (Id. at 170-171, 174-176.) Further, school nurse,
Tina Zigler, testified to the school via a nurse assisting Child with daily needs
such as with hygiene, meals, and ambulating through hallway. Although not
part of Child’s medical plan, the school bathed Child approximately twice per
week. (Id. at 77-78, 80-81, 88-89, 102-104, 110-111.) However, these
services were in jeopardy as Mother expressed her desire to homeschool
Child and to yet again relocate, as she was dealing with eviction
proceedings. (Id. at 147, 172-173; CYS Exhibit 3.) Hence, when viewed in
context of Mother’s intentions, the record corroborates the trial court’s
finding of reasonable efforts to prevent removal and we will not disturb this
finding.
Lastly, Mother raises violations of her constitutional rights to
substantive due process, procedural due process, and effective counsel as a
result of the trial court’s failure to conduct a shelter care hearing and
attendant procedural irregularities. The trial court suggested that Mother
waived these issues “by failing to raise those issues in a timely manner.”
(Trial court opinion, 5/22/15 at 1.) The court stated:
- 15 -
J. A04015/16
At no point prior to the filing of a Motion for
Reconsideration approximately one (1) month after
the hearing did Appellant raise these issues.
Appellant appeared for a six (6) Hour hearing
represented by counsel. At no time did Appellant
assert the alleged procedural violations, ask for a
continuance, or otherwise assert any objection
whatsoever to the Court conducting an adjudicatory
hearing. In fact, all counsel were present in
chambers for a pre-hearing conference and
Appellant’s counsel requested he be permitted to call
a medical expert out of order at the start of the
proceeding. The hearing was clearly announced at
the commencement of the hearing to be a
“dependency” hearing.
Id.
Mother, however, argues that not only do the Rules of Juvenile Court
Procedure allow a broad motions practice, but that the issue was raised and
appealed within 30 days. (Mother’s brief at 49.) Mother avers that no
shelter care hearing or contested proceeding to allow for findings of fact
pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1242(C) was contemplated, scheduled, or conducted,
which resulted in multiple procedural irregularities. (Id. at 50-51.) Mother
further indicates that the process as a whole severely compromised her
ability to present her case. (Id. at 51.) Moreover, Mother posits that the
procedural irregularities were so deficient, and the process so rapid, that a
finding of waiver for failure to preserve by objection may not be equitable.
(Id. at 53.)
- 16 -
J. A04015/16
We agree with the trial court and adopt its opinion as our own with
regard to this issue. For the reasons set forth by the trial court, these issues
are waived.
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record, including the notes
of testimony of the April 14, 2015 hearing, the extensive exhibits presented,
the trial court opinion, as well as the parties’ briefs, as we discern no abuse
of discretion, we affirm the order of the trial court adjudicating Child
dependent, and removing Child from Mother’s home.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/24/2016
- 17 -
Circulated 05/04/2016 10:05 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF THE 37th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE INTEREST OF:
WARREN COUNTY BRANCH
JUVENILE DIVISION
-rn
r-
r::,
SABRINA WRIGHT
MEMORANDUM OPINION PURSUANT ·ro P A.R.A.P. 1925(A)
Appellant's, the mother, Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal raises four
issues. The first two Matters Complained of on Appeal allege due process violations. The
remaining two Matters Complained of on Appeal challenge the sufficiency of evidence.
With respect to Matters Complained of on Appeal I and II, clearly the Appellant waived
those issues by failing to raise those issues in a timely manner. Appellant argues that the Court
conducted an adjudicatory hearing in violation of Pa.RJ.C.P. 1363 and the scheduling order did
not give Appellant adequate notice of the type of hearing to be conducted. At no point prior to
the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration approximately one (I) month after the hearing did
Appellant raise these issues. Appellant appeared for a six (6) Hour hearing represented by
counsel. At no time did the Appellant assert the alleged procedural violations, ask for a
continuance, or otherwise assert any objection whatsoever to the Court conducting an
adjudicatory hearing. In fact, all counsel were present in chambers for a pre-hearing conference
and Appellant's counsel requested that he be permitted to call a medical expert out of order at the
start of the proceeding. The hearing was clearly announced at the commencement of the hearing
to be a "dependency" hearing. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held:
In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and
specific objection at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial court.
Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of
the issue. On appeal the Superior Court will not consider a claim which was not
called to the trial court's attention at a time when any error committed w.ould have
been corrected. In this jurisdiction ... one must object to errors, improprieties or
irregularities at the earliest possible stage of the adjudicatory process to afford the
jurist hearing the case the first occasion to remedy the wrong and possibly avoid
an unnecessary appeal to complain of the matter.
In re S.C.B., 990 A.2d 762, 767 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). This rule has been applied specifically to
dependency proceedings. In re J.A., 107 A.3d 799, 820 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). Therefore,
Appellant has waived these issues for purposes of appeal.
With respect to the errors asserted in III and IV, the Court addressed these issues in its
opinion on the record following the hearing and in its Order of Adjudication entered in this
matter. No further opinion shall follow.
~
..,,
<=
~~)~ c.n
. ~),,- :ic
~ (:ill :::v >
5:-171
':?:i-;
GD C!t• 7.:
-<
N
N
-r
__ ,
'"'11Zc,
... ,
~-., 1::;:> ,...~-
~ rn
<;:) J> c; :x
<=:.:t..,Z
::;o -t' _., ~ CJ
-;-l
er» '·< CJ1
°'
2