In the Int. of: W.P., Appeal of: W.P.

J-A08007-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: W.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: W.P., MINOR :

:

:

:

: No. 2974 EDA 2024

Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2024

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at

No(s): CP-51-DP-0001126-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 18, 2025

W.P. (Child), a minor,1 appeals from the order, entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Juvenile Division, denying the

Philadelphia Department of Human Services’ (DHS) petition for dependency. 2

We affirm.

____________________________________________

1 Child is represented on appeal by the Defender Association of Philadelphia,

Child Advocacy Unit. DHS has not filed a brief in this matter. See Letter

from the City of Philadelphia DHS, 1/29/25.

2 The court’s order reads as follows:

The Child is not Dependent pursuant to the Pennsylvania Juvenile

Act and [] the petition for dependency is dismissed. Any

temporary legal and physical custody by the Philadelphia County

Human Services of the Child shall be discharged. . . . Mother is

ready[,] willing[,] and able to care [for Child]. Child advocate and

DHS to cooperate for [Child’s] safe return back to Brazil.

Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 11/4/24.

J-A08007-25

In 2021, when Child was fourteen years old, he came to the United

States3 to live with his maternal uncle, W.M. (Uncle) and an unidentified aunt.

His parents remained in Brazil. Child’s parents were told that he was going to

school, but, according to Child, he was working in Uncle’s auto shop for

approximately two years, six days a week, and he was never enrolled in

school. See N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 40-41. Child testified

Uncle mistreated him. Id. at 42.

On December 13, 2023, DHS received a Child Protective Services (CPS)

report alleging that Child was being labor-trafficked by Uncle. On December

20, 2023, DHS obtained an order of protective custody (OPC); Child was

placed in a group home and eventually in a foster home. The court held a

shelter care hearing on December 22, 2023. Following the hearing, the court

placed Child in the temporary custody of DHS.

On January 4, 2024, DHS filed a dependency petition, and the court

listed the matter for an adjudicatory hearing on February 1, 2024. The

adjudicatory hearing, continued five times, was ultimately held on November

4, 2024. Mother, who lives in Brazil, did not attend the hearing, but was

represented at the hearing by Robin Banister, Esquire.

____________________________________________

3 It appears Child was abandoned at the airport in New York by the person

who accompanied him on the flight from Brazil. Police contacted Uncle, who

is Mother’s brother, in Philadelphia. Child testified: “I came here because

the guy that brought us said he was going to bring my mother afterwards, but

when we got to the airport the guy that brought me abandoned me. . . . He

was my mom’s ex’s friend.” N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 36.

-2-

J-A08007-25

On November 4, 2024, following the hearing, the court entered an order

finding Child was not dependent, discharging the dependency petition, and

discharging the temporary commitment to DHS. On November 11, 2024,

Child filed a motion for reconsideration4 and an application for a stay of the

discharge of the dependency petition and commitment to DHS. On November

27, 2024, Child filed a notice of appeal, and, on December 3, 2024, Child filed

an application for stay in this Court.

On December 13, 2024, this Court entered an order remanding the case

for the trial court to address the application for stay. On December 16, 2024,

the trial court denied the motion to stay the order, finding Child did not meet

the statutory definition of a “dependent” child pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

6302(1), because Mother was “ready, willing, and able to care for [] Child.”

Order, 12/16/24. The trial court found Child’s needs and welfare would be

best served in Mother’s care and that it would be in Child’s best interest “to

be reunited with his Mother forthwith.” Id. Thereafter, Child sought a stay in

this Court. On January 30, 2025, this Court entered the following order:

The “Application for Stay,” filed December 26, 2024, by the Child

Advocate on behalf of Child to stay the Order of November 4,

2024, is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, in the best

interest of the Child. The November 4, 2024 Order is STAYED

except for the directive that DHS and Child Advocate continue the

process of obtaining Child’s birth certificate from the Consulate in

New York.

____________________________________________

4 The court did not act on the motion for reconsideration, and it was denied

by operation of law. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3) - Explanatory Note.

-3-

J-A08007-25

Per Curiam Order, 1/24/25.

On appeal, Child raises the following issues:

1. The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its

discretion by not adjudicating Child dependent when the

evidence presented by [DHS] and Child established, by clear

and convincing evidence, that Child was a dependent child

under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6302.

2. The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its

discretion by not adjudicating Child dependent in a manner

that effectuated the purposes of the Juvenile Act, where

DHS and Child presented clear and convincing evidence for

the trial court to conclude that adjudicating Child dependent

best served Child’s needs and welfare under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.]

§ 6301(b)(1.1).

Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

The standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court

to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the juvenile

court if they are supported by the record; but it does not require the appellate

court to accept the juvenile court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Interest

of I.R.-R., 208 A.3d 514, 519 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d

1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)). As such, we review for an abuse of discretion. Id.

The appellate court must ensure that the record represents a comprehensive

inquiry and that the trial court has applied the appropriate legal principles to

the record. See In re L.B., 229 A.3d 971, 977 (Pa. Super. 2020).

At the adjudicatory hearing, the court heard testimony from various

individuals and representatives of agencies that were instrumental in

protecting Child and obtaining foster care placement for him. Additionally, the

-4-

J-A08007-25

court heard from Child, who is doing well in placement and in school.

However, the court determined the evidence did not support a finding of

dependency where Mother was ready to care for Child:

Based on the evidence that I have received, all of the allegations

are as to the uncle [from] whom he’s been removed or actually

escaped. There are no allegations indicating that his mother is in

any way unable to care for her son. [DHS] appropriately followed

up with the Brazilian government in order to obtain the necessary

reports that are reflected in [Exhibits] DHS-1 and DHS-2

[International Social Services Home Study.] [5] It appears we have

a Justin S.[6] case, where the mother has presented herself as

ready, willing, and able. I have no idea where the father is.

However, [M]other appears to have expressed that she wants to

care for [Child], and I have not heard anything to indicate

otherwise. I cannot under these circumstances adjudicate [Child]

____________________________________________

5 The report reads, in part:

[Mother] said her biggest dream in life right now is to pick up her

children at the airport. [She] feels a lot of guilt and regret, which

can be seen not only in her words but in her countenance when

she tells the story of having authorized her children to go to the

U.S in July 2022 since she was organizing to go in September of

the same year. It turns out that when [Mother] tried to migrate,

Mexico’s borders were closed and[,] sometime later, the person

who would lend her the money to emigrate no longer had a way

to help her. Since then, [Mother] has been trying to bring her

children back to Brazil. She says that [Child,] since he arrived,

wants to return, while [Mother] herself advised her son to seek

some police service in the United States and said that he was

without his mother and wanted to return to Brazil.

Exhibit DHS-1, at 4.

6 In the Interest of Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1197 (Pa. Super. 1988)

(“Only if the court concludes by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that proper

parental care and control are not available will it adjudicate a child dependent,

and, absent such a finding, custody must be returned to the parents

immediately.”). See also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302.

-5-

J-A08007-25

dependent. The Child Advocate and [DHS] are to cooperate in

terms of working with the Brazilian government for safe transport

back to Brazil.

N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 57.

After our review, we discern no reason to doubt the trial court’s findings.

Though our review is quite broad, it is fundamentally limited by our inability

to nullify the factfinding responsibilities of the lower court. See Interest of

I.R.-R., supra. See also N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 10, 11

(Mother’s counsel stating Mother “wants [Child] to return to her in Brazil[,]

and Mother is “ready, willing, and able.”). See also id. at 24 (Theo Ciccarellii

Cornetta, Child Advocate Supervisor, testifying she talked with Mother “via

the WhatsApp app,” and Mother was “ready to care for [Child.]”); id. at 26

(Kristen Abney, DHS social worker, testifying Mother was employed in Brazil

and that international home study indicated her home was “approved”); id.

at 28-29 (January Llaverias, Child’s case manager at Community Umbrella

Agency, testifying Mother wants Child to come home to Brazil); id. at 53

(Stephanie Lubert, Child’s immigration attorney, testifying Child, an

undocumented immigrant, has a “relatively strong case for a labor trafficking

[-]based T visa.”).7

____________________________________________

7 T nonimmigrant status is a temporary immigration benefit, generally granted

for four years; T nonimmigrants who qualify may also be able to adjust their

status and become lawful permanent residents, i.e., obtain a Green Card. See

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/victims-of-human-trafficking-t-

nonimmigrant-status (last visited 7/30/25).

-6-

J-A08007-25

After careful consideration of the notes of testimony from the

adjudication hearing, the certified record, Child’s brief, and the relevant case

law, we affirm on the basis of the opinion authored by the Honorable Cateria

R. McCabe. Accordingly, we lift the stay entered in this Court on January 30,

2025, and we affirm the trial court’s order denying DHS’s petition for

dependency. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge McCabe’s

decision in the event of further proceedings in this matter.

Order affirmed.

Date: 8/18/2025

-7-

Circulated 07/31/2025

Circulated 07/31/2025 01.36

01:36

01.36 PM

PM

.. _-5 3'. 23

IN THE

IN THE COURT

COURT OF

OF COMMON

COMMON PLEAS

PLEAS .

. »'

.' ‘

»'

FOR THE COUNTY

FOR THE OF PHILADELPHIA

COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA

FAMILY COURT DIVISION

FAMILY COURT DIVISION -- DEPENDENCY

DEPENDENCY BRANCH

BRANCH

IN RE:

IN RE:

W.P.,

W.P. aa minor,

W.P. minor, D/O/B:

D/0/B: 01/04/2008

D/0/B: 01/04/2008 : CP-51-DP-0001 126-2023

CP-51-DP-0001126-2023

CP-51-DP-0001126-2023

: 51-FN-001777-2023

SL-FN.001777.2023

SL-FN.001777.2023

APPEAL OF: W.P.

APPEAL OF: W.P. : Superior Court

Superior Court No.

No, 2974

No, 2974 EDA

EDA 2024

2024

OPINION

OPINION

I.II INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

W.P. (“the Child”), by

(the Child"),

W.P. (the Child"), by and

and through Guardian Ad

his Guardian

through his Ad Litem/Child Advocate ("Appellant"),

Litem/Child Advocate (“Appellant”),

("Appellant"),

appeals from the

appeals from the Order entered by

Order entered by this Court on

this Court on November 4, 2024,

November 4, 2024, finding

finding that

that the Child was

the Child not

was not

Testimony for

dependent. Testimony

dependent. the Adjudicatory

for the Adjudicatory Hearing

Hearing was

was heard on November

heard on 4, 2024.

November 4, 2024. The

The

transcript attached as

is attached

transcript is Court’s Exhibit

as Court's

Court's A. At

Exhibit A. the close

At the close of

of the

the evidentiary

evidentiary hearing,

evidentiary the trial

hearing, the

hearing, court

trial court

found that clear

found that and convincing

clear and convincing evidence

evidence did

did not

not exist

exist to adjudicate the

to adjudicate Child dependent

the Child dependent based

dependent on

based on

present inability because

present inability because Mother

Mother was

was ready,

ready, willing,

willing, and able to

and able care for

to care for the Child in

the Child Brazil.

Brazil. The

in Brazil. The

Court discharged

Court discharged the Child’s dependency

Child's

the Child's dependency petition

petition on

on November

November 4,

4, 2024,

2024, and

and ordered the Child

ordered the Child

Advocate and

Advocate and the

the Philadelphia

Philadelphia Department of Human

Department of Services (DHS)

Human Services (DHS) "to

“to cooperate for

"to cooperate

cooperate for youth’s

youth's

youth's

safe return

safe return back

return to Brazil.”

back to Brazil." (See

Brazil." (See Trial Court Order

Trial Count

Count 11/4/2024). For

Order 11/4/2024).

11/4/2024). For the following reasons,

the following this

reasons, this

Court’s decision

Court's

Court's decision should

should be

be affirmed.

affirmed

affirmed

II.

II. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL

FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

HISTORY

The

The relevant facts and

relevant facts and procedural

procedural history

history of

of this

this case are as

case are as follows. DHS became

follows. DHS became aware of

aware of

this

this family December I9,

on December

family on 19,

I9, 2023, when itit received

2023, when received aa Child

Child Protected

Protected Services (CPS) report

Services (CPS)

(CPS) report

report

allegations that

containing allegations

containing that W.P.

W.P. was

was being labor trafficked

being labor by this

by

trafficked by this maternal

maternal uncle.

uncle. During the

During the

During

1

investigation, the Child stated that his Mother was told that he would be attending school while

living with his uncle.

uncle. He was never enrolled in school in Philadelphia. On December 19, 2023,

DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OP€)

(OPC) for the Child. Mother resided in Brazil and

the Child was at risk for further abuse in the care of his uncle in Philadelphia. DHS filed a

Dependency

Dependency Petition on behalf of the Child on January 4, 2024.

2024

An Adjudicatory

Adjudicatory Hearing was held on November 4, 2024.'

2024. 1Counsel for DHS called their first

witness, DHS Investigator, Kristin Abney.

Abney. (N.T. 11/4/2024,

11/4/2024, p. 14-26 (Exhibit A)).

A)). Ms.

Ms. Abney

testified that the Child entered DHS care in December 2023 due to allegations that the

fifteen-year-old

fifteen-year-old child was living

living with his uncle, was not enrolled in school, and instead worked in

auto body

body shop throughout day. (N.T. 1

throughout the day.(N.T 1/4/2024, p. IS

11/4/2024, 15

IS at 2-21 (Exhibit A)). When Ms.

Ms. Abney

spoke to the Child about the allegations,

spoke allegations, the Child stated that when he immigrated to the United

States, he was abandoned in New York.

York. Police stopped him and called his uncle, who then picked

him up.

up. The Child stated that he began

began residing with his uncle in Philadelphia for approximately

two years. (N.T. 1

years. (N.T 1/4/2024, p.

11/4/2024, 16 at 6-24 (Exhibit A)).

p. I6 to Ms.

A)). The Child also stated to Ms. Abney that he

was never enrolled in school since arriving

arriving in the United States. He instead worked in an autobody

shop

shop with his uncle.

uncle. He also told Ms.

Ms. Abney that his uncle would physically threaten him if he did

not “complete

"complete certain work tasks."

tasks.” (N.T. 11/4/2024, p. 16

I16 at 25; p. 17

I7 at 1-13 A)). The

I-13 (Exhibit A)).

Child also stated that when he told Mother about the physical threats, she told him to

to “find

find a police

station,”

station," which prompted

prompted the Child to flee from his uncle’s

uncle's home and contact the police. (N.T.

police, (N.T

11/4/2024, p.

p. 17 at

at 22-25; p. 18 at 1-2 (Exhibit A)). When questioned by Mother’s

Mother's counsel,

1The Adjudicatory

Te Adjudicatory Hearings

Hearings scheduled for February 1, 2024, March 20, 2024, May 15, 2024, and July 3, 2024, were

continued due to further

further investigation.

investigation. The September 4, 2024, Adjudicatory Hearing was also continued due to

further investigation.

investigation. The Brazilian home study and criminal clearances were not completed and returned to DHS

DHS.

2

Ms. Abney testified that Mother's

Mother’s actions and response to the incident were appropriate.

appropriate. (N.T,

(N.T.

1 1/4/2024, p. 25 at 23-25; p. 26 at I-7

11/4/2024, 1-7 (Exhibit A)).

A)).

Prior to immigrating to the United States, the Child resided with Mother in Brazil. Mother

Ms, Abney spoke to Mother about the allegations

continues to reside in Brazil. When Ms. allegations via

WhatsApp, Child’s uncle was supposed

Whats.App, Mother stated that the Child's supposed to enroll him in school in

Philadelphia while the Child resided with him.

him. Mother also stated that she wished for the Child to

return

retum to her care in Brazil and that she was ready to care for him. Ms.

Ms. Abney

Abney also testified that

the report was invalid, but she was not certain. (N.T,

(N.T. 11/4/2024, p. I8

18 at 7-14; p.

p. 19

I9 at 16-23;

16.23;

p.p. 24 at 22-24; p. 25 at 10-12 (Exhibit A)).

at22-24;

When Ms. Abney concluded her investigation, she testified that she submitted paperwork for

an international home study on Mother’s

Mother's home in Brazil as well as for background

back ground clearances to

be completed. The results of the international home study and the background clearances for

Mother’s home were entered in evidence as DHS-

Mother's DHS-1 and DHS-2.

DHS-2. They

They are attached as Count's

Court’s

Exhibit B.

B. The clearances indicated that there was no criminal history found for Mother or the two

other adults residing in the home. (N.T. 11/4/2024, p.

p. 20 at 1-17 (Exhibit A)). On

cross-examination by Mother’s

Mother's counsel, Ms.

Ms. Abney testified that there was no information

indicating that Mother was not ready, willing, and able to care for the Child.

Child. Ms. Abney also

testified that Mother was employed in Brazil and that the international home study indicated that

Mother’s

Mother's home was "approved."

“approved.” (N.T. 11/4/2024,p.

11/4/2024, p. 26 at 8-19 (Exhibit A)).

Counsel for DHS called their next witness, Community Umbrella Agency

Agency (CUA) Case

Manager, January Llaverias. (N.

(N.T.

T. 11/4/2024, p.

p. 27-35 (Exhibit A)). Mr.

Mr. Llaverias testified that

he was assigned to this case in July 2024.

2024. Mr

Mr. Llaverias testified that when he spoke with Mother,

she indicated that she wished for the Child to be returned to her care in Brazil and her position has

never wavered.

wavered. (N.T. 1 1/4/2024, p. 27 at 20-25; p. 28 at 24-25; p. 29 at 1-6 (Exhibit A)).

11/4/2024, A)). When

3

Mr. Llaverias spoke to the Child regarding his wishes, the Child indicated that he wished

wished to remain

to remain

in the United States because he has a more comfortable life and more opportunities

opportunities in

in the

the United

United

States than in Brazil. When Mr. Llaverias spoke to the Child, he testified that the Child

Child worked in

worked in

a mechanic shop for at least six days out of the week and that his uncle never enrolled him in

enrolled him in

school. The Child told Mr. Llaverias that Mother knew this but felt she could not do anything

anything about

about

itit because she was still in Brazil.

Brazil. He testified that the Child and Mother spoke “on and off."

spoke "on off.” (N.T

(N.T.

1 1/4/2024, p. 29 at7-13;

11/4/2024, 7-13; p. 30 at 4-16, 24-25 (Exhibit

(Exhibit A))

A)).

The Child also testified at the Adjudicatory Hearing. (N.T. 1

Hearing. (N.T. 1/4/2024, p.

11/4/2024, p. 36-52 (Exhibit

(Exhibit A)).

A))

He testified that he came to the United States when he was fourteen years

years old.

old. The Child stated

stated

that he arrived with a family acquaintance who told him that he would bring

bring his Mother afterward,

afterward,

however he was abandoned at the airport. (N,T.

(N.T. 1 1/4/2024, p.

11/4/2024, p. 36 at 16-23 (Exhibit

(Exhibit A)).

A)). He testified

that he did not know the man and that the man told immigration

immigration authorities that he was the Chi4'¢

Child’s

father so they could enter the country. The man's

man’s name was listed on the Child's

Child’s birth certificate.

(N.T . 1

(N.T. 1/4/2024, p. 37 at 1I-11,

11/4/2024, -1 1; p.

p. 38 at 22-23 (Exhibit A)). The Child stated that he began residing

began residing

who immediately put him to work.

with his uncle who work. He testified that he asked his uncle about being

being

enrolled in school, but his uncle stated he had to "work

“work and not study.”

study." The testimony

testimony reflected

that he worked six

six days a week. The Child further testified that when he told Mother, she stated

that she could not do anything about it. He also testified that he spoke

spoke to Mother approximately

approximately

two or three times per week. The Child then testified that his uncle began

began hitting

hitting him shortly

shortly after

he arrived and deliberately cut his arm while they were working.

working. (N.T.

(N.T 1 1/4/2024, p.

11/4/2024, p. 40 at 3-25;

3-25;

p. 4l

41 at

at 1-24 (Exhibit A)). The Child told Mother about the incident and sent her pictures

pictures of the

cut. Mother stated that she "couldn't

“couldn’t believe he did that"

that” to him.

him. After Mother learned of the

incident, she told the Child to leave his uncle’s

uncle's house and to go to the police. The Child listened,

left his uncle's

uncle’s home, and did not return. (N.T.

retum. (N. T 11/4/2024, p.

p. 41 at 23-24; p.

p. 43 at 14-17; p.

p. 44 at

4

7-8 (Exhibit A)).

7.8 A)). The testimony reflected that the Child sometimes told Mother when his uncle hit

hit

him, and that she believed him. However, the testimony reflected that Mother felt that there was

was

nothing she could do to help the Child other than to tell him to go

go to the police.

police. (N.T.

(N.T. 1 1/4/2024,

11/4/2024,

p. 45 at 3-12 (Exhibit A)),

A))

On cross-examination by Mother’s

Mother's counsel, the Child testified that the original

original plan

plan was for

him to come to the United States first and that Mother would meet him here thereafter. Howevee

However,

the man abandoned the Child at the airport, Mother could no longer

after the longer come to the United States.

The Child further testified that when he resided in Brazil, he lived in a home with his Mother,

grandmother, and his other siblings. The Child stated that some of his siblings

siblings still reside with

Mother and grandmother, but that his younger brother currently resides in

in the United States. The

Child testified that Mother told him she felt sorry for sending

sending him and his brother to the United

States. 11/4/2024, p.

States. (N.T. 11/4/2024, p. 47; p. 48 at 17-20 (Exhibit

(Exhibit A)).

A)). On cross-examination by counsel for

DHS, the Child testified that when he resided with Mother in Brazil, he attended school, had

enough food in the home, and felt safe in Mother’s

Mother's home. (NT

(N.T. 1 1/4/2024, p.

11/4/2024, p. 50 at 10-22 (Exhibit

(Exhibit

A)).

Following argument of counsel on November 4, 2024, this Court found that W.P

W.P. did not meet

the definition of a dependent child pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6302(1)

$6302(1) of the Juvenile Aet

Act and that

Mother was ready, willing, and able to care for the Child in Brazil. The Court discharged the

Child’s dependency petition on November 4, 2024 and ordered the Child Advocate and DHS "to

Child's “to

cooperate for youth’s

youth's safe return back to Brazil.”

Brazil." (See Trial Court Order 1 1/4/2024). Appellant

11/4/2024). Appellant

filed the present Notice of Appeal and a Concise Statement of Errors Complained

Complained of on Appeal

Appeal on

November 6, 2024.

5

HL

II. STATEMENT OF

OE MATTERS COMPLAINED ON APPEAL

In the Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal,

Pa. R.A.P. regarding the

Appeal, regarding

April 17, 2024, Order,

Order, the Appellant identifies the following

following issue(s):

issue(s):

1

•. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion byby not

adjudicating Appellant dependent when the evidence presented

presented byby the

Department of Human Services ("DHS")

(“DHS”) and Appellant established, by

by clear

and convincing evidence, that Appellant was a dependent child under the

Act, 42 Pa. C.S.

Juvenile Aet, C.S. §6302.

$6302

2. The

The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by by

determining that Mother was a ready, willing, and able parent, where DHS and

Appellant proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother sent Appellant

Appellant

to the United States with an acquaintance, was aware of Appellant'sAppellant’s

mistreatment at the hands of his caretaker, and nonetheless did nothing

nothing to

protect Appellant.

Appellant

Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by

3. The Trial Count by

determining that Mother was a ready, willing, and able parent, where Mother

was not immediately available to care for Appellant.

4. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by by not

adjudicating Appellant dependent in a manner that effectuated the purposes

purposes of

the Juvenile Act, where DHS and Appellant presented clear and convincing

evidence for the Trial Court to conclude that adjudicating

adjudicating Appellant dependent

best served Appellant’s

Appellant's needs and welfare under 42 Pa. C.S. $6301(b)(1.1).

§6301(b)(l . 1

).

5. Child Advocate reserved the right to amend this Concise Statement of Matters

Complained of on Appeal upon receipt and review of the final transcript in this

matter.

IV. OF REVIEW

STANDARD OE

The proper standard of review in dependency cases is abuse of discretion.

discretion. "An

“An abuse of

discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or

misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly

unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been

abused.” Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107,

abused." 107. 111 Super. 2007)

1H1 (Pa. Super. 2007).

6

Our standard of review of dispositional orders in juvenile proceedings

proceedings is settled. The Juvenile

Juvenile

Act grants broad discretion to juvenile courts in determining appropriate dispositions, In

appropriate dispositions. Irere CA.

C.A.G.,

G

89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2014). Indeed, the Superior Court will not disturb the lower court's

court's

disposition absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In the Interest of

ofJ.D.,

4.D, 798 A.2d 210,

210, 213 (Pa

(Pa.

Super. 2002). The standard of review requires an appellate

review in dependency cases requires accept the

appellate court to accept

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported

supported by

by the record

but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court's inferences or conclusions of

law.

law. In

Irere R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1

RAT,9A.3d 179, 1190 (Pa.

1179,1190 (Pa. 2010). Appellate review of a weight

weight of the evidence claim

is limited to a review of the judge's exercise of discretion. See Commonwealth v. 689

• Widmer,689

A.2d 21 1 (Pa. 1997), and Commonwealth v.v. Brown, 648 A.24

211(Pa. A.2d 1177,1189.1192

1177, 1189-1192 (Pa.

(Pa. 1994)

1994).

v.

V. DISCUSSION

A. The Trial

Trial Court did not Abuse its Discretion when it Found that that Chit

Child Was Not

Dependent

Dependent Pursuant to42Pa.CS.A.

Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A, 86302(1

§6302(1 ) of the Juvenile Act

Aet

Appellant alleges in their Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal,

Appeal, that this

Court erred when it found that clear and convincing evidence was not present to adjudicate the

Child dependent because Mother was a ready, willing, and able parent. This Court disagrees

disagrees.

The burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by

by clear

and convincing evidence that a child meets the statutory definition of dependency.

dependency. In

Irere GT,

G.T.,845

845

A.2d 870,872

870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2004). Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as testimony

testimony by

credible witnesses who clearly relate facts that are so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing

convincing as to

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction without hesitance of the truth of precise facts

of J.M.,

in issue. In Interest of JM, 166 A.3d 408, 427 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing

(citing In

I re Novosielski, 992

A.2d 89, 107 (Pa. 2010)).

7

The Juvenile Act

Aet defines a dependent child, in relevant part, who “is

part, as a child who without proper

is without proper

parental care or control, subsistence, education as required

required by law, or other

by law, other care

care or

or control

control

necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A determination that there is

that there is aa

lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon

upon evidence of conduct

conduct by

by the

the parent,

parent,

guardian, or other custodian that places the health, safety,

safety, or welfare of the child at risk, including

risk, including

controlled substance

evidence of the parent's, guardian's or other custodian's use of alcohol or a controlled substance

that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.” 42 Pa. C.S.A. $§ 6302(1).

risk." 42PA. 6302(1). The

The purpose

purpose

of the Juvenile Act

Aet is to preserve the unity of the family possible. 42 Pa.

family whenever possible. C.S.A.

Pa. CS.A

§63 01 (b)(1). A dependency trial is a two-part process. The first part

56301(b)(D). pant requires

requires the trial count

court to hear

hear

evidence and to determine, by clear and convincing

convincing evidence, that the child is without proper

proper

parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for the child's

child’s physical, mental, moral,

physical, mental, emotional

moral, or emotional

health. In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa Super.

health. I the child dependent,

Super. 2013). If the trial court finds the dependent,

the trial court may then move to the second part, in which it must make an appropriate

appropriate disposition

disposition

based upon an inquiry into the best interests of the child.

child. In re LC.,

LC, II,

IH, 900 A.2d 378, (Pa.

378, 381 (Pa.

Super. 2006).

2006). See In re A.E., A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. Super.

A.E, 722 A.24 Super. 1998)).

1998))

In finding that the Child did not meet

mcet the statutory

statutory definition of a "dependent

“dependent child"

child” pursuant

pursuant

42 Pa. CS.A.

to 42Pa. C.S.A. §$6302(1),

6302(1), this Count

Court determined that clear and convincing

convincing evidence was not

presented to demonstrate that the Child was without proper

proper parental

parental care and control.

control. The trial

court also based its determination on the Pennsylvania Superior Court's

Court’s holding

holding in In the Interest

S, a court cannot adjudge

ofJustin S., wherein this Court held that “a adjudge a child to be dependent

dependent when his

non-custodial parent is ready, willing, and able to provide the child with proper

proper parental

parental care and

control." In

control.” l the Interest of Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1199 (Pa.

(Pa. Super.

Super. 1988).

1988). At the

November 4, 2024, Adjudicatory Hearing, Mother presented herself as ready,

ready, willing,

willing, and able to

care for the Child. There were no dependency concems

concerns or allegations

allegations asserted regarding

regarding Mother

8

in the dependency petition filed on January 4, 2024.

2024. It simply

simply stated that she resided in Brazil

Brazil.

After being informed of the allegations in the dependency

dependency petition,

petition, Mother consistently

consistently maintained

maintained

the position that she wished for her son to be returned to her care in Brazil. The circumstances that

brought the Child into care were due to the actions of his uncle. They occurred outside of Mother’s

uncle. They Mother's

knowledge and control.

control. It is clear to

to this Court that when sending

sending the Child to live with his uncle

in the United States, Mother believed that uncle would care for and enroll the Child in school,

school. It

is clear to this Court that Mother did not intend for the Child's

Child’s uncle to force him to work rather

than attend school. When Mother sent the Child to the United States, she planned

planned to arrive here

herself shortly thereafter. However, when the acquaintance who transported

transported the Child to the United

States abandoned him at the airport, his whereabouts become unknown.

unknown. He did not help

help Mother

come to the United States. The testimony and evidence reflected that Mother expressed

expressed remorse

and regret for sending

sending the

the Child to the United States.

The evidence and testimony also reflected that an international home study

study was

was conducted on

Mother’s

Mother's home and the home was deemed to be appropriate. The home study

study indicated that Mother

was employed and cared for two of the Child's

Child’s siblings in Brazil. The Child’s stepfather and

Child's stepfather

maternal grandmother also reside in the home with Mother. The international home study

study also

described Mother's

Mother’s willingness and motivation to care for the Child in great detail. Specifically,

Specifically, it

“her biggest dream in life right now is to pick up her children at the airport."

stated that "her airport.” The home

study also outlined Mother’s Child’s basic needs including

Mother's plan for providing for the Child's salary

including her salary

and access to medical and dental services in Brazil.

Brazil. (See DHS-1). Additionally,

Additionally, criminal clearances

were done on Mother and the residents of her home.

home. The

The results indicated that there was no

criminal history found for Mother or the other two adults residing

residing in the home. (See

(See DHS-2)

DHS-2).

There was no testimony presented that Mother failed to provide

provide appropriate

appropriate care for the Child

when he resided with her in Brazil. The Child’s uncontradicted testimony

The Child's testimony reflected that he was

9

enrolled in school when he resided with Mother in Brazil. was well fed and felt safe in Mother's

Brazil. He was Mother’s

care. There was no testimony presented that Mother labor-trafficked the Child. In fact, the

the

school, and that

testimony reflected that Mother sent the Child to live in the United States to attend school, tat

Mother was surprised to learn

leam that the Child was not enrolled.

enrolled. When Mother later became aware

that the Child was not attending school in his uncle's

uncle’s care, there was little she could do to rectify

rectify

the situation from Brazil.

Brazil. Appellant asserts that this Court erred in determining

determining that Mother was

ready, willing, and able to care for the Child because Mother was aware of the Child'g

Child’s

maltreatment in his uncle's

uncle’s care and "did

“did nothing to protect”

protect" him. However, the testimony

testimony

reflected that when Mother learned of the abuse by his uncle, she instructed the Child to leave the

house and to go to the police. The Child heeded Mother's

Mother’s advice and has not resided with his uncle

since then. Mother did all that she felt she could do

do to help her son while residing

residing in another

country. The DHS investigator also testified that Mother’s appropriate given

Mother's actions were appropriate given the

circumstances. There was also no testimony presented regarding Mother’s

circumstances. Mother's inability to protect

protect the

Child from further abuse if he were returned to her care in Brazil.

Brazil. Additionally,

Additionally, there is no reason

to believe that Mother would not reenroll the Child in school and provide for his needs in Brazil if

he were returned to her care.

The fundamental purpose of proceedings under the Juvenile Act is to preserve the unity

unity of the

family whenever possible. During the DHS investigation, the Child initially stated that he wished

to return to Mother's

Mother’s care in Brazil. (See Dependency Petition Paragraph C).

C). While the Child may

may

now prefer to remain in the United States, his reasons are not supported by

by the Juvenile Act.

Aet. The

opportunities that are available in the United States rather than in Brazil do not make this Child

dependent. Additionally, the Child's

Child’s preferences must be weighed against

against Mother's

Mother’s right to parent

child. The Child felt safe and well cared for in Mother’s

her child. attending school there.

Mother's home and was attending there

Two of his siblings reside in the home as well as his maternal grandmother

grandmother and stepfather.

stepfather. The

The

10

Child has many familial supports in Brazil who are willing

willing to assist him

him and

and Mother.

Mother. To allow this

To allow this

Child to in foster care and separated from

to remain in family when Mother is

from his family is a ready, willing, and

ready. willing. and

contrary to the purpose of the Juvenile Act.

able parent would be contrary Act. Applying

Applying the holding

holding in Justin

in Justin

S,- this Court properly

S properly found that W.P.

W.P. did not meet the definition of a dependent

dependent child pursuant

pursuant

to 42 Pa. C.S.A.$§6302(1).

to42Pa.C.SA. 6302( 1). Thus, this Court properly determined that the Child's needs and welfare

needs and welfare

would be best served in his Mother’s care.

Mother's care

I.

VI. CONCLUSION

(O\CL!SI0y

For these reasons,

reasons. this Court respectfully requests that the Order dated November 4, 2024.

2024. be

AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED

COURT:

BY THE COURT

^^y

" ut4

'abe. Judge

11

II

CERTIFICATE OE

(ERTIEI(ATE OF SERVICE

SERVILE

1l hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing opinion has been filed and

foregoing opinion

served upon the following parties, as

as set forth

forth below

below:

PACFILE

AKFILF

Guardian Ad Litem: Counsel for Appellant, W.P.:

Theo

Theo Ciccarelli Coretta.

Cometta. Esquire

Lsquire F. Ehrlich. Esquire

Ilana F.

lana

Defender Association of Philadelphia Defender Association of Philadelphia

Philadelphia

1441 Sansom Street_

Street, 9lh 1or

Floor 1441 Sansom

Sansom Street. 9lh Floor

Street_9 p]or

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Philadelphia. Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Mother:

Robin Winthrop Banister,

Banister. Esquire

181 0 S. Rittenhouse Square. #806

1810S.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Trial Counsel for DHS:

I rial (ounsel DHs:

Anne Cunningham. Esquire

Law

Law Department, Child Welfare Unit

1515

I515 Arch Street. I6th

Arch Street. 16th Floor

Philadelphia. Pa 19102

Appellate DHS:

ppellate Counsel for D4Is: Appellate

Appellate Counsel for DHS:HS:

Kathleen Bola Kim, Esquire Robert D. Aversa. Esquire

Law

L.aw Department. Child Welfare

welfare Unit Law Department, Child Welfare Unit

La

1515 Arch Street. 16th

I6th Floor 1515 Arch Street, I6th

Arch Steet, 16th Floor

Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Date Cateria R. McCabe. Judge

12