Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDP-19-2009 IN THE MATTER OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BORN 12/1/08 : : CP-21-DP-19-2009 ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW , this 6 day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the factual record and the parties’ briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Dependency Petition regarding GRANTED is . By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Lindsay D. Baird, Esq., Solicitor for CCC&YS Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esq., GAL for Mother Jacqueline Verney, Esq., Attorney for Father Cindy Hribal, Esq., GAL for Child CASA J. Probation CCC&YS IN THE MATTER OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BORN 12/1/08 : : CP-21-DP-19-2009 IN THE MATTER OF AALYIAH LLANTIN, BORN 12/1/08 OPINION and ORDER OF COURT EBERT, J., July 6, 2009 - STATEMENT OF FACT 1. Beginning in February of 2008, Ciera Mask’s (“Mother”) family was accepted for in- home services due to her truancy issues and child behavior issues. Problems between Ciera her Mother, Beverly Mask, persisted throughout 2008. Dependency Petition at P. 7. 2. On December 1, 2008, Ciera Mask (“Mother”) gave birth to Aalyiah L.”). Dependency Petition, at p. 7. 3. On February 2, 2009, Mother, a minor, was adjudicated dependent. Id. 4. As a result of Mother’s dependency adjudication, Ciera’s mother requested her placement in a foster home. Notes of Transcript (“N.T.”) 4. 5. Because Matthew Llantin (“Father”) does not have housing, resists drug testing, is testing positive for marijuana, has curfew problems and is truant, Father’s parents have requested that he be placed outside of his home. N.T. 5. 6. On February 2, 2009, by emergency verbal order from Judge M.L. Ebert, Jr., A.L. was placed in the care and custody of Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (“CCC&YS”) and placed in the same foster home with Mother. Dependency Petition, at p.7. 7. On February 3, 2009, CCC&YS filed a dependency petition alleging that A.L. is 2 without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for her physical, mental or emotional health. Id. 8. On February 5, 2009, an emergency hearing was held for the dependency of A.L. before Master James D. Flower, Jr. N.T. 1. 9. A.L. is without proper parental care or control, subsistence or other care necessary for her physical or emotional health or morals: in that, Mother is not able to have housing on her own, has truancy issues, and does not follow the rules in her mother’s home. N.T. 3-4. 10. Mother is not able to care for the baby on her own and she cannot provide for A.L.’s basic needs financially. N.T. 7-8. 11. Neither Mother nor Father have housing, medical coverage or insurance for A.L. N.T. 10. 12. Mother’s foster parents are providing Mother with child care for A.L. N.T. 6. 13. Mother does not pay her foster parents to keep A.L. N.T. 10. 14. On February 5, 2009, Master James D. Flower, Jr. ratified the emergency order of Judge M.L. Ebert, Jr., placing A.L. on an emergency basis in the custody of the CCC&YS and in foster care with her mother. Master’s Recommendation, at p. 1. 15. On February 6, 2009, Judge M.L. Ebert confirmed the Master’s Recommended Order. Master’s Recommendation, at p. 2. DISCUSSION The Pennsylvania Juvenile Act defines a dependent child as a child who is without “proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals.” 42 Pa.C.S. 6302(1). To determine if a child is without proper parental care, the court may consider “evidence of 3 conduct by the parent…that places the health, safety, or welfare of the child at risk.” Id. To prove that a child is dependent, the evidence must be clear and convincing. 42 Pa.C.S. 6341(c). In considering the facts of any case, the Court should ask two questions: 1) whether the facts prove that the child is presently without proper parental care and control, subsistence or other care necessary for the child’s physical or emotional health and 2) whether the facts prove that immediate, proper parental care and control is unavailable to the child without state intervention. In the Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 842 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1997). In support of its position that A.L. is not dependent, the Children’s Advocacy Clinic, in its role as Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) for 16-year-old Mother, has presented the case, In re: Hall, 703 A.2d 717 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1997). However, Hall can be distinguished from the case at bar. In Hall, it was the adult father who appealed and who maintained that he was ready, willing and able to provide proper parental care for the child. In addition to finding that the proper parental care was immediately available from non-custodial parent in Hall, the Court in dictum discussed the lack of evidence that the minor child was not receiving proper care. The court briefly discussed this second point, based on testimony of the caseworker in regards to the adequacy of mother’s parental care. In fact, the only evidence referred to in the Hall opinion is a quote by the caseworker for the child, “to the best of my knowledge (she’s) doing very well with the child.” Again, the holding in Hall is based on the Court’s finding that the non-custodial adult Father’s living arrangements for the child demonstrated that he could immediately provide proper parental care for the minor child. In the instant case, there exists sufficient evidence to find that proper parental care is not immediately available from either parent without state intervention. Neither of the minor parents of A.L. is a ready, willing and able parent. Neither Mother nor Father can financially provide for 4 the child. Both Mother and Father have a history of truancy issues and a failure to obey the lawful commands of their parents. Father has problems regarding drug usage and testing and is a dependent juvenile, and therefore he is not a placement resource. Mother and Father are both totally dependent upon the Commonwealth for their own needs to be met. Unlike in Hall, where the lower court had found dependency based solely on the mother’s youth and dependency, the facts in the instant case establish independent grounds for finding that the minor parents are not providing proper parental care. Like the parents in Hall, A.L.’s parents are not self-sufficient or capable of providing proper shelter and care for their child without the Commonwealth’s assistance, others’ assistance, or both. However, unlike the parents in Hall, there is evidence here that Mother has been having in home services provided to her due to her own truancy and child behavior issues. Mother’s own mother reported that her truancy problems were continuing and that she was frustrated that Mother simply would not listen to her. After A.L. was born on December 1, 2008, Mother and baby lived with her mother Beverly Mask. On January 7, 2009, Mother simply left her mother’s home and moved in with her boyfriend. Shortly thereafter, on January 26, 2009, Mother’s boyfriend’s family ordered her to leave their home with the baby. Beverly Mask was hoping that her daughter would seek counseling; however, Ciera was not willing to attend counseling. This erratic, totally immature approach to her living situation speaks volumes in regard to Mother’s ability to provide “proper parental care.” The fact that Mother cannot properly control her own living behaviors is clear circumstantial evidence that she will not be able to provide proper parental care to her child. While Mother, has now turned 17, at the time of the first hearing she was only 16. This is not simply a question of “children having children.” It takes very little insight into this case to 5 see that the Mother, a child herself, has mental and/or emotional problems. Given this Court’s experience, this case tends to show that Mother suffers from oppositional defiant disorder at a minimum. The Guardian Ad Litem for A. L. stated at the February 5, 2009, hearing “I don’t think there is enough assurance that she may not try to run away or … a number of things could happen. She was just put into foster care and I think in order to provide, to make sure A.L. is provided for she needs to be found dependent.” (N.T. 11.) Mother’s Guardian Ad Litem is quick to point out that the Mother had begun behaving better by the time of the February 5, 2009, hearing on A.L.’s dependency petition. But realistically, Mother was only in foster care 2 days at that time. It is interesting to note that within 3 days of the Mother’s Guardian Ad Litem amending the record to include Mother’s school and career counseling records, on April 9, 2009, the Mother had a psychiatric emergency and was placed in an in-patient psychiatric facility. (Order of Court dated April 15, 2009, In Re: A. L.) There is no question for example that if this Mother was 19 and not in foster care, she simply would not be able to provide fully for A. L. and the child would clearly be found dependent. While CCC&YS has indicated no concerns regarding her holding or feeding the baby, CCC&YS does express concern in regards to Mother’s ability to fully meet all of A.L.’s basic needs without state intervention. Proper parental care is more than simply “holding and feeding.” What we are talking about here is a child, not a puppy. Proper parental care or control necessarily involves providing for not only the physical needs of the child but the mental, emotional, and moral training needed by a child to develop satisfactorily. This Mother has proven that she cannot control herself. Neither Mother nor Father provides housing or proper medical coverage for A.L., and Mother cannot pay her foster family to keep A.L. Therefore, the 6 Court finds that both Mother and Father are unable to immediately provide proper parental care for A.L. The proper test in dependency adjudication is whether the child is dependent as defined in the Juvenile Act, not what are the child’s best interests, which is the standard in a custody hearing. Mother’s GAL expressed concern that adjudicating A.L. dependent would provide CCC&S with the ability to remove A.L. from placement with her Mother. However, the record reflects that Children and Youth has done everything in its power to keep the child with the Mother. In short, a finding of dependency does not dictate that CCC&YS would arbitrarily remove A. L. from placement with her Mother. Such a placement is a custody issue which would turn on the child’s best interest, but that is not the issue before the Court at this time. Based on the facts presented to this Court and the case law offered by CCC&YS and the Children’s Advocacy Clinic, this Court concludes that CCC&YS has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that A.L. is dependent. Accordingly, the following order shall be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW , this 6th day of July, 2009, upon consideration of the factual record and the parties’ briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Dependency Petition regarding GRANTED Aalyiah Llantin is . By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. 7 Lindsay D. Baird, Esq., Solicitor for CCC&YS Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esq., GAL for Mother Jacqueline Verney, Esq., Attorney for Father Cindy Hribal, Esq., GAL for Child CASA J. Probation CCC&YS 8