In the Int. of: T.I.M., a Minor

J-S28042-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.I.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: T.M. AND S.M., :

PARENTS : No. 668 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-01-DP-0000012-2021

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: DECEMBER 2, 2022

Appellants, T.M. (“Father”) and S.M. (“Mother”) (collectively “Parents”),

appeal from the order entered in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas,

which entered a finding of abuse against Parents concerning their minor child,

T.I.M., born in February 2007 (“Child”). We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

March 3, 2021, the Adams County Children and Youth Agency (“Agency”)

received a referral regarding Child. After the court compelled Parents to

cooperate, the Agency conducted an inspection of the house on March 4, 2021.

Following the inspection, Child was admitted to the hospital for concerns of

his wellbeing. The Agency was granted emergency protective custody of child

on March 4, 2021.

On March 16, 2021, the Agency filed a petition for dependency and

J-S28042-22

sought a concurrent finding that Child was a victim of child abuse. The court

held hearings on the petition on May 20, 2021, June 21, 2021, July 22, 2021,

August 5, 2021, and August 10, 2021. The court adjudicated Child dependent

on August 10, 2021.1

The court summarized the basis for the finding of dependency as

follows:

The Child was born [in February 2007]. He was initially

placed in the custody of [Parents] when he was six months

old and has remained in their sole custody since that time.

Ultimately, the parental rights of his natural parents were

terminated, and the Child was adopted by [Parents] on

September 15, 2011. In addition to the Child, the [Parents’]

home includes their two natural male children, J.M. age 14,

and E.M. age 12; and a natural female child, E.I.M. age 10.

The record is undeveloped concerning the Child’s history

with his natural parents; however, there is some indication

that the Child suffered from nutritional and physical neglect.

By all accounts, the Child has significant mental health

concerns having been diagnosed throughout his life with,

inter alia, oppositional defiance disorder, disruptive mood

disorder, reactive attachment disorder, attention

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and bipolar

disorder.[1] During his life, the Child has been evaluated and

treated by a variety of professionals including his family

physicians, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and numerous

therapists. Although his treating psychiatrist, among

others, recommended the Child for therapeutic residential

treatment, the same was rejected by his insurance carrier

and not further pursued by [Parents]. The outstanding

question, which has not been credibly answered is unlikely

to ever be known, is whether the Child’s significant issues

were precipitated by the six-month contact with his natural

____________________________________________

1 With the agreement of the parties, the court separated the dependency

proceedings from the finding of abuse. Parents initially appealed the

adjudication of dependency; however, they later withdrew that appeal.

-2-

J-S28042-22

parents or, alternatively, by the Child’s interaction with

[Parents] while living in their home for approximately 13

years.

[1]The bipolar diagnosis has recently been determined

to be medically inaccurate.

* * *

On March 3, 2021, the Agency received the referral

underlying the current litigation. The allegations included

claims that the Child was underweight, was eating his own

feces, and was being physically abused. An after-hours

caseworker for the Agency responded to the home that

same date. The caseworker was able to speak briefly with

[Mother] but was refused access to either the Child or the

home. Due to the exigency of the allegations, the Agency

sought, and was granted, court permission to compel access

to the Child. On March 4, 2021, Agency workers,

accompanied by the Pennsylvania State Police, returned to

[Parents’] home. After initial reluctance and some delay,

[Mother] permitted law enforcement and Agency workers

peaceful access to the Child and the home.

Upon entry to the home, Agency staff observed significant

clutter and at least ten cats and dogs in the residence.[2]

The bedrooms for all family members except the Child were

on the heated upper level of the home; by contrast, the

Child’s bedroom was located in an unheated basement.

Photographs of the other children’s rooms depicted

decorated living areas with age-appropriate toys and

accompaniments. The Child’s room, however, lacked

decoration and was more consistent with a storage room.

His room had two doorways, one that led to the remainder

of the unfinished basement area and the second that led to

a hallway and stairway, which is the sole access to the

upper-level living area of the house. There was no

bathroom or other known facilities in the basement as the

sole bathroom in the residence was located on the upper-

level heated portion of the house. On the inside of the

doorway accessing the Child’s bedroom was a hook and

eyebolt latch located near the top of the door.[3] [Parents]

incredibly claimed the purpose of the hook and latch was to

permit airflow into the Child’s room while keeping the cats

-3-

J-S28042-22

out of the room. [Parents’] explanation, however, accounts

for neither the height location of the lock nor the need for

the restriction on the Child’s bedroom door as compared to

restricting the animals’ freedom at other locations in the

house.

[2]Child has been medically diagnosed to be allergic

to cats.

[3]From the photographs, it is conceivable that with

some effort, the Child had the physical ability to

unlatch the hook although it was located at a height

higher than his short stature. Whether the Child was

psychologically or emotionally capable of the same is

unknown as evidence was presented at the hearing

that corroborates the Agency’s concern as to the

[Parents’] psychological manipulation of the Child. As

discussed above, [Parents’] explanation concerning

the location of the latch was rejected by this [c]ourt

as not credible.

The record also supports the existence of a similar

lock at an elevated height on a door at the top of the

stairway. The record neither credibly explains the

reason for the lock on this second door being located

at a height level that is difficult to access nor the need

for the duplicative restrictions hampering access to

the living portion of the home from the Child’s

bedroom.

Upon entering the home and interacting with the Child, the

caseworker observed the Child to be approximately 4 feet,

6 inches tall and to weigh 78 pounds. The Child was wearing

a diaper and appeared dirty. While speaking to the Child in

the home, the Child provided inconsistent answers as to his

eating habits and personal hygiene practices. Despite

wearing a jacket, the caseworker noted that the Child’s

basement bedroom was too cold for the caseworker to

remain there for any amount of time.

The Child’s appearance prompted paramedics who had

responded to the scene to seek a medical wellness

assessment of the Child. [Parents] agreed, and the Child

was taken to the Gettysburg Hospital Emergency Room.

-4-

J-S28042-22

While at the emergency room, the Child confirmed to his

treating physician that he lived in a home with a lot of

animals. He also confirmed he lived in the basement while

other family members resided in the upper level of the

home. He indicated he was not free to leave his room when

he wanted because the door “was locked.” The Child

indicated he wears diapers because he is unable to “make it

to the bathroom in time” because the doors are locked and

he is unable to use the bathroom. He added that he is not

permitted to use the bathroom alone because someone

must be with him to make sure he does not make a mess

on the walls. The Child further indicated that someone

always supervises him while showering, and sometimes he

has “mom time,” which he described as taking a bath with

[Mother]. Interestingly, the Child indicated he feels safe at

home. Although the treating physician intended to

discharge the Child, he concurred that removal of the Child

from the custody of [Parents] was reasonable under the

circumstances until further investigation could be made.

The Child was taken into emergency shelter care following

his discharge from Gettysburg Hospital.

While undergoing evaluation at Gettysburg Hospital, Agency

staff consulted with Dr. Lori Frasier, Medical Director at

UPMC Pinnacle Children’s Resource Center and Professor of

Pediatrics, Division Chief Child Abuse Pediatrics, at Penn

State Hershey Medical Center. At Dr. Frasier’s suggestion,

the Child was taken to the Hershey Medical Center the

following day for evaluation. [4] Upon presentation on March

5, 2021, the Child was admitted to the Center. At the time

of his admission, he weighed approximately 79 pounds with

the principal diagnosis being malnourishment in the setting

of neglect. Due to his condition, he remained hospitalized

through his discharge on March 8, 2021.

[4]Dr. Frasier expressed concern to the caseworker

that the Child “might not make it through the

weekend.”

During the Child’s stay at the Hershey Medical Center, Dr.

Frasier and the child abuse team were consulted. Based

upon her review of medical records and interaction with the

Child, Dr. Frasier concluded the Child was the subject of

physical, nutritional, and emotional neglect. She noted the

-5-

J-S28042-22

Child had grown normally through ten years of age but since

had stagnated. Among factors influencing Dr. Frasier’s

opinion was her experience that the average 14-year-old

was approximately 30 pounds heavier than the Child’s

current weight. She opined the Child was developmentally

delayed and immature for his age. Despite the Child

undergoing a host of medical studies while at the hospital,

there was no discovered medical condition that would

impact his normal growth and development. Dr. Frasier also

revealed that a bone scan of the Child evidenced a non-

displaced finger fracture on the left hand and an

approximately one-year-old untreated fracture of the Child’s

left arm.

During Dr. Frasier’s discussions with the Child, he confirmed

that he lived in the basement, and his only access to others

was through a “baby monitor.” The Child advised that he

wore a diaper and was required to ask for permission to go

to the bathroom. He claimed to have been punished for

“eating Cheerios” that were supposed to be fed to a rabbit

in the residence. Dr. Frasier opined that the Child was

coached not to disclose the abusive conditions in his

home.[5] She described him using the word “time-out” as a

means of punishment. When she inquired further as to what

that meant, the Child described it as “gets beat” and being

struck with a stick. Dr. Frasier observed that his statements

were corroborated by his behavior as he would seek

permission from nurses before using the bathroom.

Interestingly, the Child was taken out of diapers at the

hospital and displayed no issues with soiling himself.

Medical records further confirm the Child had no difficulty

digesting food as he was tolerating a 2,400 calorie per day

diet without complications.

[5]Dr. Frasier believed any further immediate contact

between the Child and [Parents] would be a “grave

threat to him.”

The Child was placed in foster care upon his release from

Hershey Hospital. Although initially he suffered occasional

incidents of soiling his underwear, he had not had such an

issue in over two months at the time of the hearing. There

was no concern about the Child using his waste excretions

as a means to obtain attention. It was noted that he was

-6-

J-S28042-22

eating well while in foster care and in fact had gained

approximately 12 pounds since his placement.

While under emergency shelter care of the Agency, the Child

was evaluated by a trauma art therapist, Amanda Evans-

Freet, at the Adams County Children’s Advocacy Center.

During the session, the therapist observed the Child re-

creating his removal from [Parents’] home. He played out

a reenactment in which he identified himself as a baby lion.

He placed police cars and ambulances in the play area with

two other toys that he identified as “bad parents” and used

a play gun to shoot the “bad parents.” He identified two

other toys as his foster parents whose residence he liked

due to its heat and air conditioning.

During the session, the Child indicated to the therapist he

would be locked in his bedroom because he was “bad.” He

further acted out his not having food because other baby

lions “needed it more.” The therapist opined that the Child

displayed evidence of coaching because he stated in

response to questions that it was none of the therapist’s

business and that he can’t talk about “bad parents.” The

Child confirmed that when he was punished with “time-out,”

he was hit with a paddle or a paint stick. Ms. Evans-Freet

opined that the Child was very immature as, although being

14 years old, he acted like a seven-year-old.

In response to Agency evidence, [Parents] presented

evidence of their attempt to obtain services for the Child as

early as 2013. [Parents’] initial attempt was to obtain a

family-based team from York/Adams Mental Health-IDD

(“MH-IDD”). The effort was unsuccessful, however, as they

could not acquire approval. In 2014, [Parents] attempted

to obtain family driven funds from MH-IDD; however, they

did not qualify for funding as it was only available to the

“intellectually disabled.” Later in 2014, [Parents] sought an

intensive case manager from MH-IDD, but the process was

closed due to lack of follow-through by [Parents] as they

indicated they would seek services elsewhere. In 2017, an

effort to obtain residential treatment for the Child was

unsuccessful as the health insurance carrier indicated the

Child did not meet criteria for insurance coverage. The

recommendation to [Parents] for personal hospitalization

was rejected. Additionally, a recommendation to [Parents]

-7-

J-S28042-22

for treatment by a provider in York County was rejected by

them due to distance. The witness from MH-IDD indicated

she had never met the Child but relied solely on [Mother]

for information related to his alleged behaviors.

[Parents] also presented the testimony of psychologist

Cheryl Walters who conducted a psychological evaluation of

the Child in 2012. Based on her evaluation, she diagnosed

the Child with reactive attachment disorder, attention

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and mood disorder not

otherwise specified. The evaluation included observations,

personal testing of the Child, and a behavioral history

obtained solely from the adoptive mother.

Appellants also presented the testimony of the Child’s

treating psychiatrist, Dr. Earl Bernstine. Dr. Bernstine noted

that his role as psychiatrist was medication management,

and he did not provide psychotherapy to the Child. Although

he claimed to begin working with the Child as early as 2013,

Dr. Bernstine indicated he never interacted with the Child

privately but rather had brief observations of him while

[Mother] was present. Dr. Bernstine noted that he never

observed behavior concerns in the Child but rather relied

entirely on [Mother’s] report regarding the Child’s alleged

history and conduct. The doctor opined he would never

have recommended isolation for the Child.

[Parents] next called the Child’s pediatrician as a witness.

The pediatrician indicated that during annual physicals, he

did not have any concern over the Child’s height or weight;

however, he recognized the Child’s last exam was November

26, 2019 when, at age 12, the Child weighed 83 pounds.

Despite his lack of concern over the Child’s height and

weight, the pediatrician acknowledged issuing a prescription

for PediaSure “years ago.” He noted the prescription ended

when it was rejected by the insurance company based upon

a medical review that failed to indicate any medical barrier

to the Child’s ability to consume and digest solid food. The

pediatrician also acknowledged there was an ongoing

prescription for diapers for the Child based upon a history

provided by [Mother] rather than an independent medical

examination. He further indicated he never witnessed any

inappropriate behavior by the Child nor ever interacted with

the Child unless [Mother] was present. The pediatrician

-8-

J-S28042-22

acknowledged he was personally unaware of the Child’s

living conditions.

[Parents] also called Dr. Steven Garland Gray, a clinical

neuropsychologist, to discuss the illness of reactive

attachment disorder. Dr. Gray noted the Child was not his

patient, he had not evaluated either the Child or his

treatment records, and he was not making a diagnosis

regarding the Child. Dr. Gray opined as to the causes,

symptoms, and potential treatment for reactive attachment

disorder. During cross-examination, Dr. Gray confirmed

that he would not recommend the isolation of a child who

suffers from reactive attachment disorder. He further

conceded that using fear tactics as a deterrent to behavior

is not helpful in addressing the needs of a child suffering

from reactive attachment disorder. Finally, Dr. Gray

conceded that poor nutrition is not a common symptom for

one suffering from reactive attachment disorder.

Finally, [Parents] testified as to the Child’s history with them

and their efforts to address their perceived concerns. They

denied paddling the Child but acknowledged using “push-

ups” as a punishment based upon information discovered

during their self-education on reactive attachment disorder.

Despite their belief that PediaSure was necessary to

supplement the Child’s nutrition, they acknowledged

stopping the same once insurance refused to pay for it.

[Parents] denied locking the Child in his room or forcing him

to wear diapers. [M]other claimed that the Child was

“wetting himself” at the age of three and began soiling

himself “around nine years of age.” [Parents] acknowledged

the Child resided in his bedroom in an unheated basement

and was subject to a rule that he could only leave his

bedroom with another family member. They also

acknowledged that despite the Child’s allergy to cats, they

permitted a dog, nine cats, a rabbit, and a rooster to reside

within the home.

(Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/22, 1-8) (some footnotes omitted).

On January 10, 2022, the Agency filed a motion for a finding of abuse.

The Agency filed a motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances on

-9-

J-S28042-22

January 12, 2022. The court conducted a hearing on these motions on March

8, 2022.2 On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order, docketed April 1,

2022, finding that Child had been the victim of abuse by both Parents.

Specifically, the court found that Parents recklessly caused serious physical

neglect of Child, and that their actions

endangered the Child’s health; threatened his well-being;

and impaired his health, development, and functioning

through failure to provide adequate essentials of life

including food, shelter, or medical care and by a repeated,

prolonged, and egregious failure to supervise the Child in a

manner that is appropriate considering the Child's

developmental age and abilities.

(Order, 3/31/22, at 1). On April 29, 2022, Parents filed a timely notice of

appeal together with a statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Parents present the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion or [err] as a matter

of law in determining that the Parents/Appellants are

perpetrators of child abuse against T.I.M.?

(Parents’ Brief at 4).

The applicable scope and standard of review for dependency cases is as

follows:

____________________________________________

2 The hearing on March 8, 2021 was not transcribed. Generally, the failure to

request a transcript for a hearing results in waiver of any claims that cannot

be resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript. See Commonwealth

v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super.2006) (en banc), appeal denied, 591 Pa.

663, 916 A.2d 632 (2007) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 1911(a)). Here, however, the

record is sufficient based on the evidence contained in the transcribed notes

of testimony for the other hearings to review the trial court’s finding of abuse.

Accordingly, we do not find waiver.

- 10 -

J-S28042-22

[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.

In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting In re R.J.T., 608 Pa.

9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)).

We accord great weight to this function of the hearing judge

because [the court] is in the position to observe and rule

upon the credibility of the witnesses and the parties who

appear before [the court]. Relying upon [the court’s] unique

posture, we will not overrule [its] findings if they are

supported by competent evidence.

In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 875 (Pa.Super. 2000). See also In re L.Z., 631

Pa. 343, 360, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (2015) (stating that standard of review in

dependency cases requires appellate court to accept trial court’s findings of

fact and credibility determinations if record supports them, but appellate court

is not required to accept trial court’s inferences or conclusions of law). In

addition, we have observed:

In dependency proceedings our scope of review is broad....

Although bound by the facts, we are not bound by the trial

court’s inferences, deductions, and conclusions therefrom;

we must exercise our independent judgment in reviewing

the court’s determination, as opposed to its findings of fact,

and must order whatever right and justice dictate.

In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287, 294 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted), appeal

denied, 582 Pa. 692, 871 A.2d 187 (2005).

Parents contend that the evidence introduced at the hearing does not

support a finding of abuse. They claim that the court erred in relying on the

- 11 -

J-S28042-22

testimony of Dr. Frasier, whose testimony they claim was contradictory, and

ignored the testimony of other medical experts who opined that Parents

diligently strived to meet Child’s unique needs. Specifically, parents claim that

Child’s weight and feeding issues were known by Child’s treating physicians

for years, and those professionals never alleged abuse by Parents. (Parents’

Brief at 25-26). Parents assert that they obtained a prescription for PediaSure

for Child and, after insurance denied the prescription, they asked for a referral

to a nutritionist. (Id. at 26-27). Parents further argue that nothing in the

record supports a finding that they withheld food from Child, and that the

court erroneously relied on a single forensic interview to find otherwise. (Id.

at 32-33).

Additionally, Parents claim that the trial court erred when it found that

Child was a victim of abuse based on the location of his basement bedroom

and the security arrangements for that room. Parents maintain that Child was

not isolated in the basement; rather, Parents insist that location happened to

be the location of his bedroom where he only spent time in the room while

sleeping or resting. (Id. at 35-37). They contend that the lock on the door

was to keep out cats, whereas the monitors were for Child’s protection.

Parents deny that Child was ever kept from using the bathroom.

Finally, Parents deny that they knowingly or recklessly failed to secure

mental health services for Child. They explain that Child has unique and

special needs stemming from early childhood trauma and contend that they

- 12 -

J-S28042-22

have constantly worked with Child’s pediatrician and psychiatrist regarding

these needs. (Id. at 41-42). We disagree.

Dependency proceedings are governed by the Juvenile Act,3 which

provides that a dependency petition may allege that there are “aggravated

circumstances” relating to an allegedly dependent child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §

6334(b). The Act defines “aggravated circumstances” as “[a]ny of the

following circumstances”:

(1) The child is in the custody of a county agency and either:

(i) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is

unknown and cannot be ascertained and the parent

does not claim the child within three months of the

date the child was taken into custody; or

(ii) the identity or whereabouts of the parents is

known and the parents have failed to maintain

substantial and continuing contact with the child for a

period of six months.

(2) The child or another child of the parent has been the

victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily injury,

sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the

parent.

(3) The parent of the child has been convicted of any of the

following offenses where the victim was a child: [list of

offenses omitted].

(4) The attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit any of

the offenses set forth in paragraph (3).

(5) The parental rights of the parent have been involuntarily

terminated with respect to a child of the parent.

____________________________________________

3 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6475.

- 13 -

J-S28042-22

(6) The parent of the child is required to register as a sexual

offender...or to register with a sexual offender registry in

another jurisdiction or foreign country.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. Aggravated physical neglect is defined as “[a]ny

omission in the care of a child which results in a life-threatening condition or

seriously impairs the child’s functioning.” Id.

Determinations regarding findings of child abuse are governed by the

Child Protective Services Law (CPSL).4 The CPSL defines “child abuse” to

include “any recent act or failure to act” which causes bodily injury, “any act

or failure to act” which causes or “substantially contribut[es] to serious mental

injury to a child,” “any recent act or failure to act” that creates a “reasonable

likelihood of bodily injury to a child,” “[c]ausing serious physical neglect of a

child,” and “unreasonably restraining or confining a child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§

6303(b.1)(1), (3), (5), (7), (8)(ii). The CPSL defines serious physical neglect

as follows:

“Serious physical neglect.” Any of the following when

committed by a perpetrator that endangers a child’s life or

health, threatens a child’s well-being, causes bodily injury

or impairs a child’s health, development or functioning:

(1) A repeated, prolonged or egregious failure to

supervise a child in a manner that is appropriate

considering the child’s developmental age and

abilities.

(2) The failure to provide a child with adequate

essentials of life, including food, shelter or medical

care.

____________________________________________

4 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387.

- 14 -

J-S28042-22

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303(a). A finding of child abuse must be established by clear

and convincing evidence. In re L.Z., supra at 360, 111 A.3d at 1174.

Instantly, in addressing Parents’ claim, the trial court reasoned:

This [c]ourt’s findings, as addressed above and supported

by the evidence, clearly establish [Parents] engaged in

conduct that intentionally, or at least recklessly, threatened

the Child’s well-being and impaired his health, development,

and functioning through a repeated failure to provide

adequate essentials of life including food, shelter, or medical

care in a manner appropriate for his developmental age and

abilities.

Dr. Frasier credibly opined that the Child suffered nutritional

and emotional abuse at the hands of [Parents]. Despite

[Parents’] complaints of some discrepancy in the medical

testimony of witnesses, Dr. Frasier was unwavering in

expressing her opinion. Dr. Frasier’s opinion is corroborated

by undisputed evidence that the Child: (1) lived in semi-

isolation from other family members in an unheated

basement bedroom; (2) was significantly underweight for a

child of equivalent age; (3) was required to wear diapers

when there was no verifiable medical or psychological

reason for the same; (4) was specifically advised against,

and physically and emotionally deterred from,

independently leaving the confines of his bedroom; and (5)

suffers significant mental health issues which, as recognized

by [Parents’] own expert, were likely compounded by his

isolation.

Dr. Frasier’s opinion is supported by the credible testimony

of trauma art therapist Amanda Evans-Freet, who opined

that the Child’s observed behavior suggested [Parents]

neglected the Child in favor of their natural children.

Specifically, Ms. Evans-Freet credibly described the Child’s

depiction of going hungry so other family members could be

fed. She also expressed concern over the Child’s physical

treatment in [Parents’] home.

The foregoing opinions are corroborated by the Child’s

consistent statements to various people. Those statements

include allegations of being hit with a stick, being “locked”

- 15 -

J-S28042-22

in a bedroom, being forced to wear diapers, being punished

for eating Cheerios intended for the animals, being isolated,

and being required to ask permission before using the

bathroom.

Although the Child has extraordinary needs, the record is

replete with instances of [Parents’] repeated, prolonged,

and egregious mistreatment of the Child in light of his

developmental age and abilities. [Parents] responded to the

Child’s special needs by isolating the Child in an unheated

basement room containing little, if any, age-appropriate

decor or access to activities; placing him in diapers in lieu

of access to bathroom facilities; subjecting him to discipline;

and depriving him of sufficient nutritional intake.

[Parents’] claim throughout this litigation that they were

repeatedly denied access to requested services is incredible

and irrelevant to the finding of abuse. While there is no

doubt as to the Child’s extraordinary needs, the more

pertinent focus is on [Parents’] response to those needs. It

is true that [Parents] occasionally sought treatment

alternatives during the years that the Child was under their

care. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the record as

to what treatment actually was provided and the success, if

any, that resulted. Rather, the record paints a picture of

recommendations never brought to conclusion as [Parents]

faulted the alleged unavailability of services or the lack of

insurance coverage for the same. For instance, throughout

the litigation, [Parents] highlighted the insurance denial of

payment for the nutritional supplement PediaSure.

However, [Parents] were unable to explain why the $ 1,200

monthly adoption subsidy that they received for the

adoption of the Child was insufficient to cover the cost of the

supplement. Rather, they simply discontinued providing a

health item they previously considered to be critical to the

Child’s well-being. [Parents’] attempt to deflect

responsibility simply ignores the reality that [Parents]

subjected the Child to terrible mistreatment.

(Trial Court Opinion at 9-11) (footnote omitted).

We agree with the trial court’s analysis. Here, the Agency presented

clear and convincing evidence that Parents intentionally or at least recklessly

- 16 -

J-S28042-22

engaged in conduct that threatened Child’s well being and impaired his health

through repeated failures to provide the adequate essentials of life. See In

re L.Z., supra. Therefore, we conclude there was no abuse of discretion in

the trial court’s finding of child abuse by Parents’ serious physical neglect of

Child. See id.; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6303. Parents’ claim merits no relief.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/2/2022

- 17 -