: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., A 
MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER 

    A

J-S03018-23  

Appeal From the Order Entered October 12, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 
No(s):  CP-51-DP-0001237-2021 

 No. 2742 EDA 2022 

EFORE:  BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: 

FILED MARCH 16, 2023 

A.A. (Mother) appeals from the order entered October 12, 2022, in the 

Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  Philadelphia  County,  which:  (1)  adjudicated 

dependent her son, D.R. (born in August 2018) (Child); (2) found Child was 

the victim of “child abuse” pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6303 of the of the Child 

Protective Services Law (CPSL);1 and (3) that Mother and R.R. (Father) were 

the perpetrators.2  After careful review, we affirm. 

____________________________________________ 

1 23 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq. 

 Father did not participate in this appeal and has not filed a separate appeal. 

Kevin  E.  Cordero,  Esquire,  represented  Child  in  the  dependency 
proceeding as his Child Advocate.  On January 3, 2022, Attorney Cordero filed 
a letter with this Court, stating that he did “not take any position on Mother’s 
appeal  of  the  [juvenile]  court’s  decision  relating  to  the  adjudication  of 
(Footnote Continued Next Page) 

 

 

  B

   

  2

 

  

We  summarize  the  relevant  facts  and  procedural  history  as  follows.  

Mother testified that on November 17, 2021, she came home from work and 

placed her firearm inside her safe in the dresser drawer.  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 

104.  Shortly thereafter, she left to pick up her mother from work.  Id. at 105.  

Upon returning home, Mother “went straight over to wash some dishes” while 

Father took Child to the bedroom all three of them shared to get Child ready 

for bed.  Id. at 40, 105.  At some point, Father went back downstairs, leaving 

Child in the bedroom, when he and Mother heard a loud boom.  See id. at 

105;  DHS  Exhibit  4  (Color  photographs  of  the  house  and  arrest  report).  

Mother and Father ran upstairs, found Child had been shot, and rushed him 

to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 105-106.  

Mother was interviewed by police, and charged with reckless endangerment, 

endangering the welfare of a child, and conspiracy.  Id. at 51-53, 106-108.  

Mother was incarcerated for 21 days.3  Id. at 108. 

On  the  same  day,  the  Philadelphia  Department  of  Human  Services 

(DHS)  received  a  Child  Protective  Services  (CPS)  report  regarding  the 

incident.    N.T.,  9/30/2022,  at  64-65.    The  report  alleged  that  Child  “was 

presented to CHOP” with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the abdomen.  Id. 

dependency of” Child.  See Letter from Kevin E. Cordero to Joseph D. Seletyn, 
Esquire, 1/3/23, at 1 (unpaginated). 

  The  charges  against  Mother  were  later  dropped.    N.T.,  9/30/2022,  at  54, 
108. 

  3

____________________________________________ 

- 2 - 

J-S03018-23 

J-S03018-23 

at  58,  66;  DHS  Exhibits  13-14,  (CPS  reports).    The  report  further  alleged 

repeated, prolonged, or egregious failure to supervise.   N.T., 9/30/2022, at 

66; DHS Exhibits 13-14, (CPS reports).  Mother and Father were the named 

perpetrators, and Child was the alleged victim.  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 65.  DHS 

investigator,  Denise  Jenkins,  interviewed  Mother  after  her  release  from 

incarceration.  Id. at 68.   

As a result of the shooting, Child required surgery.  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 

58;  DHS  Exhibit  12  (CHOP  medical  records).    He  was  diagnosed  with 

bronchiolitis, a gunshot wound to the abdomen, a small bowel laceration, and 

a  sigmoid  colon  injury,  and  remained  hospitalized  until  December  3,  2021.  

N.T., 9/30/2022, at 58.  On December 5, 2021, he was re-admitted to CHOP 

after  he  began  experiencing  pain,  vomiting,  and  abdominal  distention.    Id.  

DHS certified Child’s injuries as a “near fatality,” and the CPS report indicated 

egregious failure to supervise.  Id. at 67-68, 76.   

 

On  December  3,  2021,  once  Child  was  ready  to  be  discharged  from 

CHOP, DHS obtained an order of protective custody (OPC).  The juvenile court 

held a shelter care hearing on December 6, 2021, where it lifted the OPC, and 

the  temporary  commitment  was  ordered  to  stand.    DHS  then  filed  a 

dependency petition on December 14, 2021.   

- 3 - 

On September 30, 2022, the juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing, 

at which time Child was four years old.4  Child was represented by a guardian 

ad litem.  DHS presented the testimony of Christopher Maitland, a detective 

at  the  Philadelphia  Police  Department;  Denise  Jenkins,  a  DHS  investigator; 

Christine Peters-Tynes, a Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) case manager 

supervisor; and Gaelle Beck, a CUA case manager.  Mother was represented 

by counsel and testified on her own behalf. 

Detective Maitland testified that, from the bedroom that Child, Mother, 

and  Father  shared,  he  recovered  two  firearms,  three  empty  firearm 

magazines, and one bullet projectile.   N.T., 9/30/2022, at 26, 40, 42.  One 

gun  was  recovered  from  the  floor  of  the  bedroom,  and  it  was  loaded  with 

approximately nine rounds in the magazine.  Id. at 27.  This firearm did not 

contain a serial number; accordingly, Detective Maitland could not determine 

to  whom  the  gun  belonged.5    Id.  at  31.    The  other  gun  was  in  the  second 

4 Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, if the child is in shelter care, the dependency 
hearing “shall not be later than ten days after the filing of the” dependency 
petition.  42  Pa.C.S.  §  6335(a).    The  juvenile  court  initially  scheduled  the 
adjudicatory hearing for December 28, 2021, approximately two weeks after 
DHS filed the petition.  Over the next nine months, the court continued the 
matter multiple times because, inter alia, Father’s counsel was unavailable, it 
needed  to  receive  criminal  notes  of  testimony,  and  because  the  judge  was 
unavailable.   

 Detective Maitland testified that a firearm that does not have a serial number 
is often referred to as a “ghost gun,” and  “ghost guns” are primarily in  the 
possession of individuals who “wouldn’t ordinarily legally be able to possess a 
firearm.”  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 31-32. 
 

  5

____________________________________________ 

- 4 - 

J-S03018-23 

J-S03018-23 

drawer of a dresser.  Id. at 34.  This firearm was in a gun safe, but the safe 

was unlocked.  Id. at 35-36.  Detective Maitland testified that, based on the 

serial number, this weapon belonged to Mother and contained approximately 

four live rounds.  Id. at 36.  Detective Maitland subsequently determined that 

Child was shot with the “ghost gun.”  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 40; DHS Exhibit 10, 

(Firearms Report).   

Mother testified that, initially, when the incident occurred, she believed 

her gun was used and that it was the only one in the home.6  N.T., 9/30/2022, 

at 107.  She stated she had no knowledge of the “ghost gun.”  Id.   

Following the hearing, the juvenile court held its decision in abeyance 

to review the evidence and allow CUA to evaluate Mother’s home.  Thereafter, 

by  order  dated  and  entered  on  October  12,  2022,  the  juvenile  court 

adjudicated  Child  dependent  with  supervision,  ordered  legal  and  physical 

custody  of  Child  to  Mother,  provided  Father  visitation  pursuant  to  “prison 

policy,” found that Child was the victim of “child abuse” pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. 

____________________________________________ 

6  Counsel  for  the  parties  also  made  stipulations  regarding  the  content  of 
testimony that otherwise would have been provided by Police Officer Robert 
Stock, and Robert B. Lindell, M.D. 
 

According  to  DHS’s  counsel,  Officer  Stock  would  have  testified  as  an 
expert in firearms identification, and he would have identified the “ghost gun” 
as the gun that Child used to shoot himself.  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 56-57.   
 

DHS  counsel  stated  that  Dr.  Lindell  would  have  testified  about  the 
procedures  performed  on  Child,  diagnoses  of  Child’s  injuries,  and  Child’s 
follow-up visits to CHOP.  Id. at 58.   
 

- 5 - 

§ 6303, and that Mother and Father were the perpetrators.  On October 27, 

2022,  Mother  filed  a  notice  of  appeal  and  a  concise  statement  of  errors 

complained  of  on  appeal  pursuant  to  Pa.R.A.P.  1925(a)(2)(i)  and  (b).    The 

juvenile court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on December 12, 2022. 

 

Mother raises the following issues for our review: 

1.  Whether  the  [juvenile]  court  erred  as  a  matter  of  law  and 
abused  its  discretion  when  it  made  a  finding  of  child  abuse 
against [Mother?] 

.  Whether  the  [juvenile]  court  erred  as  a  matter  of  law  and 
abused its discretion by admitting and relying on inadmissible 
testimony[?] 

.  Whether  the  [juvenile]  court  erred  as  a  matter  of  law  and 
abused its discretion when it determined [Child] is a dependent 
child[?] 

  2

  3

other’s Brief at 8. 

  M

Our standard of review for dependency cases is as follows. 

[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 R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted). 

In her  first claim on appeal, Mother avers DHS failed to  provide clear 

and convincing evidence that she abused Child.  Mother’s Brief at 20.   

Our  Supreme  Court  has  explained  that,  “a  petitioning  party  must 

demonstrate the existence of child abuse by the clear and convincing evidence 

standard  applicable  to  most  dependency  determinations.  .  .  .”    In  the 

- 6 - 

J-S03018-23 

J-S03018-23 

Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015).  This Court has stated that 

“clear and convincing evidence” requires:  

that the witnesses must be found to be credible; that the facts to 
which  they  testify  are  distinctly  remembered  and  the  details 
thereof  narrated  exactly  and  in  due  order;  and  that  their 
testimony is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable 
the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, 
of the truth of the precise facts in issue.  It is not necessary that 
the  evidence  be  uncontradicted  provided  it  carries  a  clear 
conviction to the mind or carries a clear conviction of its truth. 
 

In  the  Interest  of  J.M.,  166  A.3d  408,  423  (Pa.  Super.  2017)  (citation 

omitted).   

Section  6303  defines  “child  abuse”  in  relevant  part,  as  “intentionally, 

knowingly  or  recklessly[7]  causing  serious  physical  neglect  of  a  child.”    23 

____________________________________________ 

7 The CPSL refers to the definitions of intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly 
used  in  the  Pennsylvania  Crimes  code,  18  Pa.C.S.  §  302.    Section  302(b) 
defines the terms as follows:   
 

(1)  A  person  acts  intentionally  .  .  .  if  the  element  involves  the 
nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object 
to  engage  in  conduct  of  that  nature  or  to  cause  such  a  result; 
[and] if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is 
aware  of  the  existence  of  such  circumstances  or  he  believes  or 
hopes that they exist.   

 

(2) A person acts knowingly . . . if the element involves the nature 
of  his  conduct  or  the  attendant  circumstances,  he  is  aware  that 
his  conduct  is  of  that  nature  or  that  such  circumstances  exist; 
[and] if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware 
that  it  is  practically  certain  that  his  conduct  will  cause  such  a 
result. 
 

(3) A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of 
an  offense  when  he  consciously  disregards  a  substantial  and 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 

- 7 - 

Pa.C.S. § 6303(b.1)(7).  In addition, Section 6303 defines “serious physical 

[a]ny  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. 

  (

 

23 Pa.C.S. § 6303(a). 

The identity of the perpetrator of child abuse “need only be established 

through prima facie evidence in certain situations[.]”  In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 

1174.    Prima  facie  evidence  is  “[s]uch  evidence  as,  in  the  judgment  of  the 

law,  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  given  fact,  or  the  group  or  chain  of  facts 

constituting  the  party’s  claim  or  defense,  and  which  if  not  rebutted  or 

contradicted, will remain sufficient.”  Id. at 1185 (citation omitted).  Section 

J-S03018-23 

neglect” as  

____________________________________________ 

unjustifiable  risk  that  the  material  element  exists  or  will  result 
from his conduct.  The risk must be of such a nature and degree 
that, considering the nature and intent of the actor’s conduct and 
the  circumstances  known  to  him,  its  disregard  involves  a  gross 
deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person 
would observe in the actor’s situation. 
 

18 Pa.C.S. § 302(b)(1)-(3). 
 

- 8 - 

J-S03018-23 

6381(d) of the CPSL provides that evidence that a child has suffered abuse 

“of  such  a  nature  as  would  ordinarily  not  be  sustained  or  exist  except  by 

reason of the acts or omissions of the parent or other person responsible for 

the welfare of the child” establishes prima facie evidence of child abuse.  23 

Pa.C.S. § 6381(d).   

The L.Z. Court held: 

[E]vidence that a child suffered injury that would not ordinarily be 
sustained but for the acts or omissions of the parent or responsible 
person  is  sufficient  to  establish  that  the  parent  or  responsible 
person  perpetrated  that  abuse  unless  the  parent  or  responsible 
person rebuts the presumption.  The parent or responsible person 
may present evidence demonstrating that they did not inflict the 
abuse,  potentially  by  testifying  that  they  gave  responsibility  for 
the  child  to  another  person  about  whom  they  had  no  reason  to 
fear  or  perhaps  that  the  injuries  were  accidental  rather  than 
abusive.  The evaluation of the validity of the presumption would 
then rest with the trial court evaluating the credibility of the prima 
facie  evidence  presented  by  the  [Children  and  Youth  Services] 
agency and the rebuttal of the parent or responsible person. 

n re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1185 (footnote omitted).  

Returning  to  her  first  claim,  Mother  argues  that  DHS  did  not  provide 

clear  and  convincing  evidence  that  she  perpetrated  abuse  against  Child.  

Mother’s Brief at 20.  She contends that the evidence suggests she “had no 

knowledge of the ghost gun in the family home.”  Id.  Mother further insists 

that she cooperated fully with police and maintained her innocence through 

  I

 

the investigation.  Id. at 21.   

 

In finding that Mother was a perpetrator of “child abuse” as defined by 

Section  6303,  the  juvenile  court  stated  that  “clear  and  convincing  evidence 

- 9 - 

was presented that [Child] suffered serious physical neglect while in Mother 

and Father’s primary care.”  Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 12.  The court 

relied on the testimony of DHS Investigator Jenkins and Detective Maitland.  

Id.  In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the juvenile court stated the following: 

The  injuries  Child  sustained  while  in  Mother  and  Father’s 
primary  care  are  shocking.    The  evidence  and  testimony  reflect 
that [Child] sustained a gunshot wound to the abdomen while in 
the care of Mother and Father.  The incident was certified a near 
fatality.    The  indicated  CPS  report  named  Mother  and  Father  as 
the perpetrators of child abuse based on serious physical neglect, 
which  was  demonstrated  by  their  egregious  failure  to  supervise 
their three-year-old child in a manner that was appropriate for his 
developmental age and abilities.  Mother and Father’s egregious 
failure to supervise [Child] placed his life, safety, and welfare in 
danger.  It is this [c]ourt’s opinion that Mother and Father failed 
in their duty to protect and prevent serious injury to [Child].  Their 
reckless  conduct  resulted  in  his  near  fatal  injuries.    It  is  this 
[c]ourt’s  opinion  that  Mother  and  Father  failed  in  their  duty  to 
protect and prevent serous injury to [C]hild. . . . 

d.  at  13.    The  juvenile  court  also  determined  that  “[t]he  ghost  gun  and 

  I

Mother’s firearm were accessible to [Child] and created a grave risk of harm 

if not properly secured or if [Child] was not properly supervised.  Mother and 

Father  were  home  [during]  the  incident  and  left  [Child]  unsupervised  in  a 

bedroom where he had access to multiple loaded firearms.”  Id. at 14.  The 

juvenile  court  further  found  Detective  Maitland’s  testimony  credible  and 

Mother’s statements — that she was not aware of another gun in the home — 

to not be credible.  See id. at 14-15.   

We discern no abuse of discretion.  It is undisputed that Child, who was 

three  years old  at  the  time  of  the  incident,  suffered  a  self-inflicted  gunshot 

J-S03018-23 

- 10 - 

J-S03018-23 

wound  to  the  abdomen.    N.T.,  9/30/2022,  at  66;  DHS  Exhibits  13-14  (CPS 

reports).  On direct examination, Mother confirmed that Child was in her and 

Father’s care at the time of the incident.  See N.T., 9/30/2022, at 105-106.  

Detective  Maitland  testified  that  during  his  investigation,  he  discovered  two 

unsecured, loaded firearms in the bedroom where Child shot himself.  Id. at 

26-29, 34-38.  Child was left in the bedroom he, Mother, and Father all shared 

with Mother’s unsecured, loaded firearm.  See id. at 105-106.   

Moreover, even though Mother alleges that she was unaware that there 

was another gun in the home, the juvenile court determined that  it  did  not 

find this credible, stating that while it believed Detective Maitland’s testimony, 

it  “formed  its  own  opinion  about  Mother’s  credibility.”    N.T.,  9/30/2022,  at 

107; Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 14-15.  The court heard testimony that 

Mother, Father, and Child shared a “small bedroom,” that contained male and 

female items of clothing.  N.T., 9/30/2022, at 40, 42.  As related supra, this 

Court is required to “accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations 

of the trial court if they are supported by the record[.]”  In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 

at 1190.  Accordingly, the juvenile court was well within its discretion to find 

Mother not credible regarding her knowledge of the “ghost gun.”  Regardless 

of  her  knowledge,  though,  Mother  recklessly  endangered  Child’s  welfare  by 

egregiously  failing  to  supervise  him  in  a  room  that  contained  her  own 

unsecured, loaded firearm.   

- 11 - 

J-S03018-23 

Moreover,  DHS  satisfied  its  burden  that  Mother  was  a  perpetrator  of 

abuse  pursuant  to  Section  6381(d).    The  juvenile  court  stated  that  “[Child] 

sustained injuries of such a nature that would not ordinarily be sustained but 

for the acts or omissions of the person responsible for the welfare of the child.”  

Juvenile Ct. Op., 12/12/2022, at 15.  Indeed, Child suffered a gunshot wound 

to the abdomen, “an injury that would not ordinarily be sustained but for the 

acts or omissions of the parent[.]”  In re L.Z., 111 A.3d at 1185.  Additionally, 

Mother  claimed  she  did  not  have  knowledge  of  the  second  firearm.    N.T., 

9/30/2022,  at  107.    Mother  failed  to  rebut  the  presumption  afforded  by 

Section 6381(d) as no evidence was presented that she, and Father, did not 

maintain primary care of Child when the incident occurred.  See In re L.Z., 

111 A.3d at 1185.   

We  also  note  that  Mother  baldly  relies  on  several  cases  for  the 

proposition that “the facts in the present matter have nothing in common with 

the aforementioned abuse law.”  Mother’s Brief at 19-23.  With these cases, 

Mother attempts to rebut the Section 6381(d) presumption.  See id. at 20.  

Mother cites to In the Matter of Read, 693 A.2d 607, 611-12 (Pa. Super. 

1997)  (finding  that  the  testimony  failed  to  support  a  conclusion  that  the 

injuries were not accidental), and In the Interest of A.C., 237 A.3d 553, 562 

(Pa. Super. 2020) (concluding that the trial court did not consider “innuendo 

and  suspicion[,]”  but  instead  “relied  heavily  on  the  overwhelming  medical 

testimony”  and  the  mother’s  non-credible  explanations  in  reaching  its 

- 12 - 

J-S03018-23 

decisions).    However,  as  aptly  stated  in  DHS’s  brief,  these  cases  are 

distinguishable.  See DHS’s Brief at 23 n.11.  In the case at bar, Child suffered 

an injury that would not ordinarily be sustained but for the acts or omissions 

of Mother and Father as Child suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the 

abdomen  after  he  was  left  alone  in  a  bedroom  with  two  unsecured,  loaded 

firearms.  Therefore, we discern no abuse of discretion, and no relief is due.   

In her  second  issue, Mother argues that  the juvenile  court incorrectly 

allowed Detective Maitland to offer his opinion on Mother’s credibility where 

Pennsylvania  “[bars]  expert  witnesses  and  lay  witnesses  from”  making  this 

determination.    Mother’s  Brief  at  23;  citing  Commonwealth  v.  Hairston, 

249 A.3d 1046, 1069 (Pa. 2021) and Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d 

970,  977  (Pa.  Super.  2016).    She  avers  that  Detective  Maitland  improperly 

testified that it was “unlikely” that Mother was not aware of the second firearm 

and that he did not find her “credible.”  Id. at 23-24; see N.T., 9/30/22, at 

42.   

With respect to evidentiary issues, this Court has previously stated:  

When we review a trial court ruling on admission of evidence, we 
must  acknowledge  that  decisions  on  admissibility  are  within  the 
sound  discretion  of  the  trial  court  and  will  not  be  overturned 
absent an abuse of discretion or misapplication of law.  In addition, 
for a ruling on evidence to constitute reversible error, it must have 
been harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.   

An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, 
but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, 
or  the  judgment  exercised  is  manifestly  unreasonable,  or  the 
result  of  partiality,  prejudice,  bias  or  ill-will,  as  shown  by  the 
evidence or the record, discretion is abused. 

- 13 - 

J-S03018-23 

Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906, 920 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).   

 

First, we note that DHS contends that Mother’s argument is waived for 

failure to assert this error in her concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal.  DHS Brief at 26.  Indeed, a review of the concise statement reveals 

she  did  not  raise  this  issue.    See  Mother’s  Statement  of  Errors  to  be 

Complained of On Appeal, 10/27/22, at 1-2 (unpaginated).  Moreover, in its 

Rule 1925(a) opinion, the juvenile court did not address Mother’s argument 

because  she  did  not  include  it  in  her  concise  statement.    Mother  offers  no 

argument  against  waiver.    As  such,  we  agree  that  Mother  has  waived  this 

claim.  See In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[I]t is 

well-settled that issues not included in an appellant’s statement of questions 

involved  and  concise  statement  of  errors  complained  of  on  appeal  are 

waived.”) (citation omitted).   

Additionally,  the  juvenile  court  stated  that  it  “formed  its  own  opinion 

about  Mother’s  credibility.”    Juvenile  Ct.  Op.,  12/12/2022,  at  14-15.  

Accordingly, Detective Maitland’s testimony regarding Mother’s credibility was 

not  harmful  or  prejudicial  because  the  court  made  its  own  conclusions 

independent of this evidence.   

In  Mother’s  third  claim,  she  argues  that  the  juvenile  court  erred  in 

adjudicating Child dependent.  Mother’s Brief at 25.  She simply reiterates that 

there  is  no  evidence  that  she  knew  the  “ghost  gun”  responsible  for  Child’s 

injury was in the home.  Id.   

- 14 - 

To adjudicate a child dependent based upon lack of parental care 
or control, a juvenile court must determine that the child: 
 

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.    A  determination  that  there  is  a  lack  of  proper 
parental  care  or  control  may  be  based  upon  evidence  of 
conduct  by  the  parent,  guardian  or  other  custodian  that 
places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.  [42 
Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1).] 

n accordance with the overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act “to 
preserve  family  unity  wherever  possible,”  see  42  Pa.C.S.[  ]  § 
6301(b),  a  child  will  be  declared  dependent  only  when  he  is 
presently without proper parental care or control, and when such 
care and control are not immediately available.  In the Interest 
of  R.T.,  [592  A.2d  55,  57]  (Pa.  Super.  1991).    This  Court  has 
defined “proper parental care” as “that care which (1) is geared 
to the particularized needs of the child and (2) at a minimum, is 
likely to prevent serious injury to the child.”  [In the matter of 
C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840, 845 (Pa. Super. 1997).]   

  I

Regarding adjudication of a child, this Court has stated: 

n re M.B., 101 A.3d 124, 127-128 (Pa. Super. 2014).  Additionally, this Court 

  I

has stated “‘[a] finding of abuse may support an adjudication of dependency.’”  

In re I.R.-R., 208 A.3d 514, 520 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).   

The  juvenile  court  aptly  determined,  “[i]n  adjudicating  [Child] 

dependent,  this  [c]ourt  determined  that  its  finding  of  child  abuse  against 

Mother was supported by clear and convincing evidence.”  Juvenile Ct. Op., 

12/12/2022, at 12.  As a consequence of the abuse finding, the court further 

determined  that  “DHS  met  its  burden  of  demonstrating  [Child]  was  a 

dependent child and was without proper parental care and control.”  Id.  As 

noted above, the court concluded: (1) the evidence reflected Child’s injuries 

- 15 - 

J-S03018-23 

J-S03018-23 

were  certified  as  near  fatality;  (2)  Mother  and  Father’s  reckless  conduct 

resulted in Child’s near fatal injuries; (3) Mother and Father’s egregious failure 

to supervise Child placed his life, safety, and welfare in danger; (4) Mother 

and Father failed in their duty to protect and prevent serious injury to Child; 

and (5) Proper parental care was not immediately available to Child.  Id. at 

13-14.  We agree.   

We reiterate that the juvenile court’s finding of abuse was supported by 

the record, and we do not disturb it on appeal.  This alone supports the court 

adjudicating Child dependent.  See In re I.R.-R., 208 A.3d at 520 (citation 

omitted).    Moreover,  we  note  the  juvenile  court’s  finding  that  Child  was 

without  proper  parental  care  or  control  is  also  supported  by  the  record.  

Mother and Father’s conduct — leaving Child alone in a room with numerous 

unsecured  loaded  firearms  —  placed  his  health,  safety,  and  welfare  at  risk.  

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1); In re M.B., 101 A.3d at 127-128.  This conduct 

was  not  “geared  to  the  particularized  needs  of”  Child,  nor  was  it  “at  a 

minimum, . . . likely to prevent serious injury[,]” and as such, it demonstrated 

a lack of parental care and control.  See In re M.B., 101 A.3d at 127-128.  

Thus,  the  juvenile  court  properly  determined  that  Mother  and  Father  were 

perpetrators of abuse against Child as defined by Section 6303.  The foregoing 

evidence also supports the court’s finding that Child was without proper care 

and control.  Accordingly, Mother is not entitled to relief.   

- 16 - 

Consequently, 

the  record  supports 

the 

juvenile  court’s  order 

adjudicating  Child  dependent  and  finding  that  Mother  was  a  perpetrator  of 

“child  abuse”  as  defined  by  23  Pa.C.S.  §  6303.    As  such,  the  court  did  not 

abuse its discretion.   

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate: 3/16/2023 

 

 

    J

  D

J-S03018-23 

- 17 -