Child Abuse "Aggravated Circumstances" Dependency Sufficiency of Evidence
In the Interest of J.M., a minor, PICS Case No. 17-1117 (Pa. Super. June 27, 2017) Solano, J. (40 pages).
Family court was precluded from making a finding of aggravated circumstances in a petition alleging child abuse unless the court first determined the victim child to be dependent. Order of the family court vacated.
Ja.M., mother of J.M., a minor, appealed the order of the family court holding that J.M. was the victim of physical abuse perpetrated by mother and that mother's conduct constituted "aggravated circumstances," and further holding that because J.M.'s father was available to assume custody J.M. was not dependent. While J.M. was legally in mother's custody, but was being watched by his maternal grandmother, he was diagnosed with a fractured right wrist. Mother testified that the injury occurred while J.M. was with her mother, but later sought to blame the injury on J.M.'s paternal grandmother.
J.M. was evaluated by Dr. Stephanie Deutsch of the hospital's Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect team. Deutsch noted that there was no explanation for J.M.'s injury, and further noted mother's unfounded allegations of abuse by J.M.'s paternal grandmother. Deutsch's report concluded that J.M.'s injury was common for children learning to walk, since it was consistent with an attempt to break a fall with an outstretched arm. However, Deutsch could not rule out intentional injury. DHS investigated the report of J.M.'s fracture, concluding that the basis of the indication was mother's and maternal grandmother's egregious lack of supervision.
DHS filed an application for protective custody and a dependency petition. Caseworkers testified that mother was fully compliant with her case plan goals. However, the family court found that mother's testimony was not credible, and concluded that mother was responsible for J.M.'s injury, granting the petition for aggravated circumstances. The family court did not find J.M. to be dependent, granting legal and physical custody to father.
On appeal, mother argued that because J.M. was not determined to be dependent, the family court was precluded as a matter of law from making a finding of "aggravated circumstances." Mother further argued that the family's court's finding of child abuse was not supported by the record.
The court first agreed that the family court lacked authority to make a finding of aggravated circumstances without a finding of dependency. The court noted that the Juvenile Act's terms required that it apply exclusively to proceeds where a child was alleged to be dependent. The act further provided that if a court determined a child not to be dependent, it was to dismiss the petition. Finally, the act allowed DHS to file a dependency petition alleging "aggravated circumstances," the petition had to include a statement of facts intended to prove and support the allegation. If a court determined that a child was dependent, only then could it determine whether aggravated circumstances existed. Thus, the court ruled that the family could only make a finding of aggravated circumstances only if it found J.M. dependent.
Turning to the family court's finding of child abuse, the court first noted that finding was separately authorized by the Child Protective Services Law. However, the court vacated that finding as well, agreeing with mother that there was no evidence showing that J.M. was abused. The court noted that medical testimony demonstrated that J.M.'s injury was consistent with a normal accident experienced by children his age. The court found there was no evidence suggesting that the injury was more likely to have been caused by abuse than by accident, and held that the absence of an explanation from mother was not proof of abuse, and that the trial court's suspicions about mother were not a substitute for clear and convincing evidence.