J-A19026-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.D., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: N.D., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 450 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered January 3, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0001606-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.D., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: N.D., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 451 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered January 3, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-51-DP-0001607-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
N.D. (“Father”) appeals from the order adjudicating as dependent his
two children, N.D. (“Child 1”) and N.D. (“Child 2”) (collectively, “Children”).
We conclude the trial court did not err in finding the Philadelphia Department
of Human Services (“DHS”) proved by clear and convincing evidence that
Children were dependent children. We therefore affirm.
J-A19026-20
The trial court gave a full statement of the factual and procedural history
of this case, and we adopt it as our own. See Trial Court Opinion, filed Apr.
23, 2020, at 1-3, 4-6 (“1925(a) Op.”). We will give only a brief summary here.
Child 1 was born in February 2012 and Child 2 was born in March 2014. DHS
became involved with Children in October 2019 due to concerns that T.C.
(“Mother”) had an alcohol addiction and was unable to care for Children.
Father resided in Florida and had not seen Child 2 since 2015 and Child 1 since
2016. Although Father told DHS he was employed and had appropriate
housing, he did not present documentation to support these claims. DHS filed
the subject dependency petitions.
The court continued the dependency hearing on two occasions to
provide DHS an opportunity to explore whether Father could take custody of
Children. Following a January 3, 2020 hearing, the court adjudicated Children
dependent, finding DHS established by clear and convincing evidence that
Children were “without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education
as required by law, or other care or control necessary for [their] physical,
mental, or emotional health, or morals.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. Children were
reunified with Mother at Mother’s treatment program. The court ordered that
Father was to have visitation with Children, and referred Father and Children
to Behavioral Health Services for consultation and/or evaluation for family
therapy. Father was also ordered to verify his employment, and DHS was to
inform Father of all medical and education appointments.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises the following issue:
-2-
J-A19026-20
1. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse
of discretion in finding that the [DHS] met its burden of
presenting clear and convincing evidence of dependency as
to . . . Father?
Father’s Br. at 4.
Father argues that DHS did not present clear and convincing evidence
that Children would be without proper parental care and control if they were
placed with him. Although he had not had contact with Children for several
years, he asserts that he “was ready, willing, and able to take on the role of
custodial parent when asked if he would do so by [DHS].” Father’s Br. at 10.
He maintains the court relied on hearsay in determining otherwise and that,
even with the hearsay, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of
dependency. Id. at 13. He further claims that his prior lack of involvement
should not control, stating that “whether proper parental care and control is
immediately available does not turn on the historic contact between parent
and child.” Id. at 14. He notes that Child 1 resided with him for eight months
after Mother moved to Pennsylvania. He also claims that DHS failed to
investigate Father as a potential caretaker.
We review the grant of a dependency petition for an abuse of discretion.
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). We “accept the findings of fact
and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the
record.” Id. However, we are not bound by the trial court’s “inferences or
conclusions of law.” Id.
The Juvenile Act defines a dependent child as a child “without proper
parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other
-3-
J-A19026-20
care or control necessary for [the child’s] physical, mental or emotional health,
or morals.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. The “burden of proof in a dependency
proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that a child meets [the] statutory definition of dependency.” In re
M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1173 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (quoting In re G.T.,
845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa.Super. 2004)). Clear and convincing evidence is
defined as evidence 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 A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super.
2013) (quoting In re C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 843 (Pa.Super. 1997)).
“[A] court cannot adjudge a child to be dependent when his non-
custodial parent is ready, willing, and able to provide the child with proper
parental care and control[.]” In the Int. of Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1199
(Pa.Super. 1988). In In the Interest of Justin S., we concluded:
[I]t is the duty of the trial court to determine whether the
noncustodial parent is capable and willing to render proper
parental care and control prior to adjudicating a child
dependent. If the court determines that the custodial parent
is unable to provide proper parental care and control ‘‘at this
moment’’ and that the non-custodial parent is ‘‘immediately
available’’ to provide such care, the child is not dependent
under the provisions of the Juvenile Act. Consequently, the
court must grant custody of the allegedly dependent child
to the non-custodial parent.
Id. at 1200.
In In re B.B., 745 A.2d 620 (Pa.Super. 1999), this Court affirmed an
order adjudicating children dependent over their father’s claim there was no
-4-
J-A19026-20
evidence that he was not “immediately willing and able to provide the children
with proper parental care and control.” Id. at 622. We concluded the court did
not err, noting that the father had not been actively involved in the children’s
lives, and was “virtually [] a stranger” to the children. Id. at 623.
Here, the trial court adjudicated Children dependent. It concluded, “DHS
met its statutory burden by clear and convincing evidence regarding Children’s
dependency adjudication pursuant to paragraph (1) of the definition of
‘Dependent Child’ under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302, and Father is not ready, able,
and willing to reunify with Children.” 1925(a) Op. at 7. It pointed out that
Father had not had contact with, or made attempts to contact, Children in at
least four years, and had not contacted authorities despite allegedly having
concerns about how Children were living. The court added that Children
wanted to live with Mother and that Child 1 wanted to visit with Father, but
not live with him. It noted that the court “went out of its way to continue the
adjudicatory hearing . . . to further allow Father to be explored, but Father
failed to cooperate fully with DHS by providing documentation and verification
of housing, payment of child support, employment, and the names and
personal information of individuals that live in his home in order to allow DHS
to obtain child abuse and criminal clearances.” Id. at 6.
After review of the briefs and the certified record, we have determined
that the opinion of the Common Pleas Court judge, the Honorable Joseph
Fernandes, ably and aptly disposes of Father’s arguments. We therefore affirm
on the basis of Judge Fernandes’s opinion. Id. at 3-7.
-5-
J-A19026-20
In the argument section of his brief, Father argues an additional issue.
He claims that the testimony regarding allegations of abuse constituted
inadmissible hearsay evidence. However, he did not raise the issue in his Rule
1925(b) statement. He has therefore waived it for appellate review. Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived”).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2020
-6-
Circulated 09/15/2020 08:49 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
r-:»
t.:'t:::.
f .......:,
In the Interest ofN.D., a.Minor CP�51-DP-OOO 1606-2019 v :c,..,,
";···-·
,.::r �-i·---
1// c :r!
••V
-,,::, N
In the Interest ofN.D., a Minor CP-5 l-DP-0001607-2019 c.
.-
FID: 51-FN-001613-2019
v,
-
-·-·
.•..·. ..
..
•"1"
T,;
APPEAL OF: N.D.,Father 450 EDA 2020 t:::;
.c.-·
451 EDA2020
OPINION12
Fernandes, J.:
Appellant N.D. (''Father'') appeals from the trial court's order entered on January 3, 2020,
adjudicating N.D. ("Child 11') and N.D. ("Child 2'") (collectively "Children") dependent pursuant
to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 6302 "Dependent Child." Father's counsel, Meredith M.
Rogers, Esquire, (·'Father·s Counsel"), filed a timely Notice of Appeal (vNortce") and Statement
of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule I 925(b).("Statement of Errors") on February
2, 2020.
Factual.and Procedural Background:
This family became involved with the Department of Human Services C'DHS") on October 11,
2019, when DHS received a General Protective Services ("GPS") report alleging that Children's
Great Aunt was contacted on October 8, 2019. after Mother' was unable to be contacted regarding
Child 1 's body odor at school, which was getting increasingly worse over time. The report further
indicated that, Mother appeared at the school, denied any issues in the home, and entered into a
physical altercation with Child 1 's teacher in the school office: Great Aunt and Maternal
Grandmothervisitedthe school and indicated that they were concerned for Children's Well-being;
I The trial court requested the Notes of Testimony for January 3, 2020. on February 5, 2020, The trial court received
the Notes of Testimony on February 18, 2020.
·2 On March 17, 2020, the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (''F JD'') closed all FJD courts and related offices due
to public health concernsrelated to COVIo-·19. On March 19, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a11
order directing that all Pennsylvania courts are generally closed. Tb date, all Pennsylvania courts remain closed and
are not.set to reopen until June I, 2020, at the earliest. ·
5 Mother is not involved in this
appeal.
Pagel of8
------·------ _________ -.. ·-� ·
---·--· -··-··· � ..
Maternal Grandmother resided in Arizonabut traveled to Philadelphia on October 8, 2019, due to
calls from neighbors regarding the poor condition of the family home where Mother and Children
were residing; Mother was struggling with alcohol addiction; Mother refused to bathe herself or
Children; Child 1 was functioning well in the classroom both academically and socially; Children
were afraid to bathe in fear of upsetting Mother; and when Mother dropped off Child 1 at school
on October 10, 2019, Mother appeared.intoxicated. This.report was validated. (N.T. 01/03/20, pg.
53). On that same day,DHS received a supplement to the GPS report, which alleged that Children
were living in a deplorable home; Mother and Children were transient; the home was filthy and
smelled of urine; the home had exposed wire hanging from the ceiling in the dining room; the
bathroom sink was out of order and the shower was inoperable; there was trash all over the home;
Children were unkempt; Child 1 was being bullied at school due to his body odor; Child 2 suffered
from epilepsy and there was concern that she was not receiving medical treatment; Mother
consumed alcohol all day and in the presence of Children; Children's siblings resided with other
relatives; and Mother was unable to care for Children. 011 that same day, DHS visited the family
home of record. When Mother answered the door; DHS observed that Mother was intoxicated.
Mother subsequently refused to allow DHS into the home and become aggressive. DHS contacted
the Philadelphia Police Department for assistance. DHS determined that the home was in
deplorable and unlivable condition. DHS subsequently obtained an Order of Protective Custody
("OPC") for Children. Child I was placed with a maternal aunt and Child 2 was placed with a
different maternal aunt. DHS conducted an interview of Child 1, who stated that he was bullied at
school due to this body odor and dirty clothes.
On October I 1, 2019, Father contacted DHS via telephone. Father indicated that hewas underthe
impression that Children were residing in Arizona with Maternal Grandmother. Father stated that
he was in Jacksonville, Florida, and that he would travel to Philadelphia. Father did not disclose
his address before ending the call.
On October 14.2019, a shelter care hearing was held for Children. Father was not present for this
hearing. The trial court lifted the OPC and the temporary commitment to DHS was ordered to
stand. The trial court ordered Father to attend supervised visitation with Children at the agency.
On October 21, 2019, DHS filed dependency petitions for Children.
Page 2 of8
On January 3, 2020 an adjudicatory heating was held for Children} Father was present for this
hearing. After all testimony was given, the trial. court found clear and convincing evidence to
adjudicate Children dependentwith supervision on the finding of presentinability. The temporary
commit was discharged and Children were reunified with Mother at Mother's treatment program.
The trial court.ordered Father to attend visitation with Children for three hours, which can occur
in the. community, and may be.modifiedbyagreement.ofthe parties.The trial court referred Father
and Chi1dren to Behavioral Health Services ('"BHS'') for consultation and/or evaluation for family
therapy, when Fatheris available by phone or is in town. The trial court ordered Father to provide
verification of employment to CUA. DHS/CUA was ordered to assist Father with transportation
and lodging, if necessary, for visitation. CUA was ordered to inform Father of all medical, dental,
and educational appointments for Children and Father may attend these appointments in person or
via telephone. On February 2, 2020, Father's Counsel filed this appeal on behalfof Father.
Discussion:
On appeal,5 Father asserts:
1. The trial court committed an error of law and abuse of discretion when it found Children
to be a Dependent Child by clear and convincing evidence as to Father.
Although Father has appealed the finding of Child 1 and Child 2 as a Dependent Child, Father has
not appealed the trial court's determination regarding Children's placement with Mother with DHS
supervision. This Opinion will only address the matter on appeal and will not address Children's
placementwith Mother.
Father's first issue on appeal asked whether the trial court. erred in adjudicating Children
dependent. A "Dependent Child" will be adjudicated dependent if the trial court determines, by
clear and convincing evidence, that Child is without proper parental care or control, subsistence,
education, as required by law; or other care or control necessary for Child's physical, mental, or
emotional health, or morals. A determination that there is a lack-of proper parental care or control
4
Adjudicatory hearings were originally scheduled for Children on October 29, 2019, and November 25, 2019. The
trial court granted a continuance on both dates for service; further investigation, and to allow the exploration of Father.
5 Father's Counsel filed two
Notices, one for each child. However, the Statement of En-ors included with each Notice
list the same en-ors.
Page 3 of8
)�
--------------· ------··--------·---·---------
�.
.-.,_
may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent guardian. or other custodian. Clear and
convincing evidence has been defined as testimony by credible Witnesses who clearly relate facts
that ate so clear, direct. weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear
conviction without hesitance of the truth of precise facts in issue.' In Interest ofJ M, l 66 A.3d 408,
427 (Pa; Super. 2017) (ciling li1 Re Novosiel.,;ki, 992 A.2d 89, 107 (Pa.2010)). In orderto determine
whether a child is lacking the proper parental care and control encompasses two questions: "1) ls
the child 'at this moment without proper care or control"; 2) If so, is such care and control
'immediately available?" In Interest o(Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1198 {Pa. Super. 1988). The
purpose of the Juvenile Act is to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible. 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§630l(b)(l). Nonetheless, a child will be .adjudicated dependent when the child is presently
without proper parental care and the care is not immediately available. In re R. T., 592 A.2d 55, 57
(Pa. Super. 1991) (citing In Re Lakue. 366 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1976)}. Superior Court has
defined proper parental care as the care which is geared to the-particularized needs of the child
and, at a minimum, is likely to prevent serious injury to the child, In t·e C.R. S., 696 A.2d 840, 843
(Pa. Super. 1997) (citing In Interest of Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1200 (Pa. Super. 1988)). The
burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner. bi re C.R.8., supra at 842-843.
It was established from the testimony that DHS became involved in this case when OHS received
a GPS6 report alleging substance abuse as to Mother. (N.T. 01/03/20, pg. 11}. As part of the
investigation, DRS spoke with Father at the courthouse on November 25, 2019. (N.T. 01/03/20,
pg, 17). Father currently resides in Jacksonville, Florida, (N.T. Oi/03/10, pg. 30). Father indicated
to DHS that he had not seen Children for at least four years prior to DHS involvement. (N.T.
01/03/20, pgs. 17-18, 21, 93). Father had not had any contact with Child 2 since Mother left Florida
for Philadelphia with Children in approximately 2015. Father had not seen Child l since Child 1
briefly returned to. Florida to reside. with Father for approximately eight months after Mother
moved to Philadelphia. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 17, 34, 86, 92, 117). Father also indicated that he had
not made any attempts to visit Children since he last saw them in Florida at least four years ago.
(N. T. 01/03/20, pgs. 17� 18, 21): Father claimed that he didn't attempt to visit Children because he
did not know where they were living, although he was aware that Children were living in
<, OHS indicated that the report was a Child Protective Services ("CPS") report, but for the rest of the trial, alt partles
refer to the report as a dPS report.(N.T.01/03/20, pgs. 11, 29, 44, 53, 72. 122).
Page4 of 8
Philadelphia with Mother. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 21; 49). Father admitted that even though he did
not hear from Children for years and had concerns about how Children were living, Father did not
make any outreach to police or the Philadelphia courts. Father claimed that he once visited a
courthouse in Florida to try and obtain custody of Children. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 21, 99-101).
When DHS spoke with Father, Father indicated that he is employed and has housing in Florida,
although Father has not provided any verification of his employment. Additionally, although
Father has provided a copy of his lease to DHS, the two other individuals listed on Father's lease
have not received security clearances. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 32, 51, 52, 66, 67). Father claimed that
the individuals listed on the lease are a niece mid nephew that do not actually reside in the home,
but instead visit on occasion: because it helped him obtain the apartment. (N.T. 01/03/20,, pgs. 94-
95). Father claimed that he had documentation verifying his employment and child support
payments but failed to bring the documentation to the courtroom from his car. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs.
l 02:- 103). Child 1 was seven-years-old and Chiid 2 was six-years-old at the time of the
adjudicatory hearing. (N.T. 01/0,3/20, pg. 127). Children indicated to DHS that they want to reside
with Mother. Child 1 also indicated that he did not want to reside with Father, although Chilo 1
does want to visit with Father. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 28, 33�34). Child 1 indicated to DHS that he
was tearful of living with Father because the last thing that Child l remembers from living with
Father was when Father's paramour instructed Father to give Child 1 a "beating" due to a broken
ashtray. DHS determined Child l's statements constituted a safety threat, (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 26-
28). After the hearing on November 25, 2019, Father and Children attended one supervised visit.
OHS indicated that when Children first saw Father, Children did not recognize him. (N.T.
Ol/03/20. PS· 52). Child l lut,n h1dicat-cd he had ··u little:· 1ncn'l�1�y <:>1' Fath,;:r, (N.·i-. 01/03120, Po·
53). Father claimed that Child 1 was happy to see Father atthe visit and asked Father not to leave
at the end of the visit. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 107-l 08). Attrial, Child l's resource parent ("Resoiirce
Parent P') indicated that Father did not visit nor make any outreach to Child 1 since the hearing
on November 25, 2019. DHS also indicated that Child 2 stated that she had not had recent contact
with Father, although Child 2's resource parent ("Resource Parent 2'') stated that Child 2 and
Father are in contact daily. (N.T. Ol/03/20, pgs. 36-37, 73). Child2 experiences seizures and takes
medication to regulate seizures, which makes Child 2 medically needy. (N.T. Ol/03/20, pgs. 44,
46). At the time Child 2 came into D HS care, Child 2 was not medically up-to-date. (N. T. 01 /03/20,
pg. 42). Resource Parent 2 indicated that Child 2 had a scheduled appointment with a neurologist
Page 5 of8
�-·------·-·---
regarding her seizures at a Philadelphia hospital in January 2020. (N.T. 01/03/20, pg. 44). Father
has not attended any medical appointments for Child 2, although he has been in contact with her
doctor. (N.'T. 01/03/20, pg. 80). Based on the testimony at the January 3, 2020 adjudicatory
hearing, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence to adjudicate Children dependent
based on present inability. DHS witnesses were credible. The trial court found that Children lacked
proper parental care and control. While Children were in Mother's care, Mother was abusing
substances and Father was not involved in Children's lives for several years. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs.
17-18, 21, 34, 86, 92-93, 117). Father did not return to Children's lives until Children were
removed from Mother's care. The record established that Father was aware Children were living
with Mother with concerns whether their needs werebeingmet by Mother but made no attempt to
contact that authorities; (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs. 17-18, 21, 49). Thetrial court went out of its way to
continue the adjudicatory hearing on October 29, 2019, and November 25, 2019, to further allow
Father to be explored, but Father failed to cooperate fully with DHS by providing documentation
and verification of housing, payment of child support, employment, and the names and personal
information of individuals that live in his home in order to allow DHS to obtain child abuse and
criminal clearances from the Florida Children and Youth Agency. (N.T. Ol/03/20, pgs. 32, 49-52,
66-68, I 02-103). Father has had the opportunity over a period of two months to present himself as
a ready, willing, and able parent for Children, but has failed to do so. Father failed to establish that
he has a safe and stable home and stable income for Children; and that he can provide for
Children's needs, especially the medical needs of Child 2, after failing to participate in Children's
lives for the last several years. Children have little memory ofFather and did recognize Father at
their first and oi"lly supervised visit Father uvui'l_c_d h.in"lsell' to at'cer Cl)ildren co rrre into DHS legal
custody. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs, 52-53). Both Childrenhave stated that they want to live with Mother.
(N.T. 01/03/20, pg, 28). DHS met their burden and Father failed to establish that he was able to
provide Children with the proper parental care and control at this time. The record also established
that Father had been abusive to Mother when Mother, in the past, lived with Father in Florida. Due
to the domestic violence in the relationship, Mother moved to Pennsylvania. (N.T. 01/03/20, pgs.
29, 111-112, 119). Furthermore, Mother further testified that Father used substances such as
marijuana and alcohol in front of her and Children. The trial court found Mother to be credible.
{N.T. 01/03/20, pg. 112). Consequently, the trial court found it to be in Children's best interests
not to be reunified with Father. It's Father's burden under the current law to show that he is ready,
Page 6 or s
...
able, and willing to parent. In Interest of' .fztsfin S, 543 A.2d 1192; 1200 (Pa. Super, 1988),
Therefore; the trial court did not e1T or abuse its discretion in finding Children dependent.
Conclusion:
For the aforementioned reasons, the court properly found that DHS met its statutory burden by
clear and convincing evidence regarding Children's dependency adjudication pursuant to
paragraph ( 1) of the definition of "Dependent Child"' under 42 Pa.C.S.A. *6302, and Father is not
ready, able, and willing to reunify with Children. Accordingly, the order entered by the trial court
on January 3, 2020, adjudicating Children dependent should be affirmed.
By the court,
I
Page 7 of8
""'....---�------�-----
""''·
----·--·---·--- --·-----
IN THE COURT OF COM.MON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
FAMILY COURT DIVISION
In the Interest ofN.D., a Minor CP-51-DP-0001606-2019
In the Interest of N.D., a Minor CP-5l-DP-0001607-2019
FID: 51-FN-000145-2019
APPEAL OF: N.D .. Father 450 EDA 2020
451 EDA 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this court is serving a copy of this duly executed Opinion upon all parties or
their counsel on April 23, 2020. The names and addresses of allpersons served are as follows:
Courtney McGinn, Esq. Meredith M. Rogers, Esq.
City of Philadelphia Law Department 5213 Knox Street
1515 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19144
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Attorney for Father
Attorney for DHS
Adrienne Box, Esq. Gary Server, Esq.
Defender Association of Philadelphia 52103 Delaire Landing
1441 Sansom Street, 9111 Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19114
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .19102 Attorney for Mother
Child Advocate
........ -�;
.:
"\
//
,,/.::;. .>V"�---.
-�-�, ,
.,.
,1
/t . , . _,,,..,j;,(.
BY·��-=--�-=-��
.
r '
1./ ..'(. t_:,/
�··'"-· . -:.,..-' ' •.j.·-···-·- ,;;::,_
�-....:.::::.::__
. �.. , .� . . .�����4�-. �
{.,., y· - y .........___ ---....._...........4
Ariel J. Bruce
Law Clerk to the Hon. Joseph L. Fernandes
First Judicial District.of Pennsylvania
Family Division
1501 Arch St., Room 143 l.
Philadelphia, Pa. 19102
T: (215) 686-2660 ! F: (215) 686-4224
rage 8 of B
\ ---
.... .