HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0290-2005
IN THE MATTER OF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
KP., BORN APRIL 27,2003
NO. CP-21-mVENILE 290 - 2005
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925
Guido, J., July
, 2006
Mother has appealed our order of April 24, 2006 which denied her "Motion for
Release of Dependency. " She has alleged that we erred in 1) failing to grant the motion;
and 2) failing to keep a record of the review hearing. 1 We will address each issue.
Denial of the Motion
On October 19,2005 we entered an order approving the Juvenile Master's
recommendation that 2 year old KP. be found to be dependent and placed in the care and
custody of her maternal grandparents. Dependency was based upon the physical abuse of
the child by her mother's boyfriend. The abuse was evidenced by a bite mark on her
right cheek as well as a spiral fracture of her right humerus.2 There was also a finding
that "the child's mother has coached the child to explain away some of the injuries to
deflect suspicion of abuse.,,3 There was no appeal from that order.
Mother entered into a permanency plan to work toward reunification with the
child. By stipulation of the parties mother was allowed to move into the home of her
parents in November of2005. She was also permitted to have unsupervised contact with
1 See "Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal".
2 See Recommendation of master approved by order dated October 19,2005.
3 Recommendation of master approved by order dated October 19, 2005.
CP-21-mVENILE 290 - 2005
the child as long as it was in her parent's home. We approved the stipulation by order
dated November 23,2005.
On April 20, 2006 mother's counsel filed a "Motion to Release from
Dependency". It was addressed to the Juvenile Master, but somehow found its way to
our desk. The motion alleged that the Agency was not properly performing its duties as
required by law. It further alleged various flaws in the permanency plan. We were
satisfied that even if the allegations were true, termination of dependency was not the
appropriate remedy. Therefore, on April 24, 2006 we denied the motion.4
Failure to Keep a Record
Mother alleges that we erred in failing to keep a record of the permanency review
held before the Juvenile Master. 5 We agree that no meaningful appellate review can be
effectuated without a proper record. See In re: J H 788 A.2d 1006 (Pa.Super 2001).
Therefore, for the past several years we have had in place several alternative procedures
to address that particular problem. In the first instance, a party may object to the master
hearing any matter. In that case it will automatically be scheduled before this court. In
the alternative, any party may request the presence of a court reporter at the proceeding
before the master. Upon the filing of exceptions the record is then transcribed for our
review. Finally, if the master holds a hearing without a court reporter, any party can
4 Although unknown to us at the time we denied it, the motion had also been addressed by the master in his
regularly scheduled permanency review hearing on April 21, 2006. On May 11,2006 we entered a
subsequent order approving the findings, recommendation and report of the master in connection with that
hearing. In addition, we reiterated our denial of mother's motion to terminate dependency.
5 Mother's Notice of Appeal indicates an appeal from our order of April 24, 2006. As noted above, we
entered that order without a hearing. However, her Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal
indicates that we erred in not making a record of the permanency review hearing.
2
CP-21-mVENILE 290 - 2005
request a hearing de novo before this court. In the instant case, mother did not avail
herself of any of those alternatives.
JULY 13. 2006
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire
Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire
Jacqueline M. Verney, Esquire
Juvenile Probation
CCC& YS
CASA
:sld
3