J-S27002-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR, : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.M., A MINOR, : THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM : : : : No. 235 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No(s): CP-15-DP- 0000022-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.C., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR, : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.C., A MINOR, : THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM : : : : No. 236 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No(s): CP-15-DP- 0000027-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.C., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR, : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.C., A MINOR, : THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM : : : : No. 237 EDA 2020
J-S27002-20
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No(s): CP-15-DP- 0000025-2019 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.C., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR, : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.C., A MINOR, : THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM : : : : No. 238 EDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No(s): CP-15-DP- 0000026-2019 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.C., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR, : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.C., A MINOR, : THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM : : : : No. 239 EDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No(s): CP-15-DP- 0000023-2019 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.C., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR, : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.C., A MINOR, : THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM : : : : No. 240 EDA 2020
[*2]J-S27002-20
Appeal from the Order Entered December 11, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County at No(s): CP-15-DP- 0000024-2019 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED JULY 31, 2020 In these consolidated appeals, six minor children, through their guardian ad litem (“GAL”), Shannon K. McDonald, appeal from the orders entered on December 11, 2019, in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, terminating court supervision of their dependency matters. The subject children are T.M., a female born in November of 2002; T.C., a female born in October of 2014; T.C. and T.C., twin males born in August of 2013; T.C., a female born in July 2009; and T.C., a male born in November of 2010 (collectively, “the Children”). Upon careful review, we affirm. The subject orders resulted from the request of Chester County Department of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) and Greg Rice, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“the CASA”), during a permanency hearing on December 9, 2019, to close the Children’s dependency cases after M.C. (“Mother”) and M.C. (“Father”) absconded with the Children from Chester County by use of a recreational vehicle (“RV”). CYF and the CASA asserted ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
[*3]J-S27002-20 that they had exhausted their efforts to track and locate the family. N.T., 12/9/19, at 12, 18.
The background of this case is as follows. The juvenile court adjudicated
the Children dependent on April 18, 2019,1 after providing services in the home for approximately nine months due to concerns regarding the Children’s
lack of supervision, hygiene, school performance, behavioral issues, developmental delays, mental-health needs, and unsanitary conditions in the home. Order of Adjudication and Disposition-Amended, 9/27/19, at 2–3.
The court maintained Mother’s and Father’s physical and legal custody of the five younger children,2 Mother’s physical custody of T.M.,3 and Mother’s and J.M.’s shared legal custody of T.M. Order of Adjudication and Disposition-
Amended, 9/27/19, at 6. The court required Mother and Father to participate in the following permanency-plan objectives, in pertinent part:
[M]aintain safe, stable, and clean housing.
[M]aintain stable employment. ____________________________________________
1 The court amended the orders of adjudication and disposition on September 26, 2019, because the original orders inadvertently omitted the “Additional Findings/Orders.”
2 Father is the natural father of the five younger children. Dependency Petitions, 2/26/19. The father of seventeen-year-old T.M. is J.M., who did not file a notice of appeal and is not a party to this appeal.
3 The court found that T.M. should not reside with J.M. because he lives with his uncle, who has a criminal history of sexual assault. Order of Adjudication and Disposition-Amended, 9/27/19, at 2–3. The court permitted J.M. to have “liberal visits” with T.M. as he and Mother could agree, as long as the visits did not occur at J.M.’s home. Id. at 7.
[*4]J-S27002-20
[M]aintain contact with the [CYF] caseworker on a weekly basis. [Mother and Father] will participate in home visits [with the caseworker].
[P]articipate in a mental health evaluation and follow all recommendations and take medications as prescribed.
[P]articipate and work with Life Skills. [Mother and Father] will work to develop a set cleaning schedule including the [C]hildren’s clothing and bed linens.
[E]nsure that the [C]hildren are bathed regularly and in clean clothing.
[W]ork to develop a structured schedule that includes providing three nutritious meals a day as well as a structured bed time.
Order of Adjudication and Disposition-Amended, 9/27/19, at 6–7. The court
also required Mother and Father to ensure that the Children participate in mental-health evaluations,4 and that Mother and Father “maintain an appropriate supervision plan that has been approved by CYF where [T.M.] is not the sole caregiver or primary caregiver of the [younger] children.” Id. at
7.
The first permanency-review hearing occurred on June 12, 2019.5 By order dated June 25, 2019, the juvenile court found, “There has been
____________________________________________ 4 The only information in the record with respect to the Children’s mental health relates to the two youngest children, who have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Order of Adjudication and Disposition-Amended, 9/27/19, at 2. 5 Unless otherwise indicated, the dependency hearings in this case occurred before Tiffany Shoemaker, a juvenile court hearing officer, who prepared recommended orders to the court.
[*5]J-S27002-20 substantial progress and compliance with [the] permanency plan” by Mother and Father. Order, 6/25/19, at 1–2. The court stated that the family would be moving out of their home by July 31, 2019, because the landlord would not renew their lease. Further, the court stated that Father “is seeking a
promotion in Florida and has an interview for a position there. Mother and the [C]hildren would be moving with Father.” Id. at 3.
The June 25, 2019 permanency order maintained Mother’s and Father’s physical and legal custody of the five younger children. The order granted
Mother and J.M. shared physical custody of T.M., and it continued their shared legal custody of her. Order, 6/25/19, at 4–5.
The second permanency hearing occurred on September 16, 2019.
Mother did not appear for the hearing, and the court found, “There has been minimal compliance with [the] permanency plan, in that CYF cannot verify housing, employment, treatment.” Permanency Review Order, 9/27/19, at 1.
With respect to Father, the court determined that he was minimally compliant with the permanency plan for the same reasons, except that he was employed.
Id. In addition, the juvenile court found that Mother and Father were only minimally compliant because they did not maintain contact with CYF after
September 4, 2019. Id. Further, the court determined that Life Skills, the agency that provided support in the home, terminated its services “due to the family reporting that they have moved.” Id. at 1.
[*6]J-S27002-20
During the hearing, Father revealed that the family was residing at an
RV campground. Permanency Review Order, 9/27/19, at 3. Father confirmed that the family still intended to move to Florida. Id. The juvenile court reported that the Children “are residing in an RV which is somewhere between
PA and Florida.” Id. at 2.
The September 27, 2019 permanency order maintained Mother’s and Father’s physical and legal custody of the Children as set forth above.
Permanency Review Order, 9/27/19, at 4. The order directed Mother and Father to appear at the CYF office within forty-eight hours and to make the RV available for CYF to determine if it provides appropriate housing. Id. at 5.
In addition, the order directed Mother and Father to “advise CYF immediately
of all addresses where they are residing and within 24 hours of any change of address.” Id. Further, the order required Mother and Father to comply, inter alia, with the following permanency objectives: sign releases providing CYF with access to school information for the Children; ensure that the Children’s medical and mental-health needs are met; and maintain weekly contact with
CYF. Id. at 4.
The court held a status-review hearing one week after the September
16, 2019 second permanency review, on September 23, 2019, which Mother, Father, J.M., and the Children attended. The court noted that CYF inspected
the RV on September 18, 2019, and determined that it was clean and adequate for the Children. Status Review Order, 9/27/19, at 2. In addition, J-S27002-20 the court stated that Mother testified the family “paid [to participate in] a campground membership program where they can move around to different campgrounds but cannot stay in one campground longer than 21 days.” Id.
[*7]The court indicated that the family was then staying at a campground in Coatesville, Chester County. Id.
With respect to the Children’s mental-health evaluations, the juvenile court concluded as follows:
Mother stated she has taken steps to arrange for [mental-health] evaluations in Pensacola, Florida. The provider is waiting on insurance information to schedule. The [C]hildren have not received any [mental-health] treatment to date. Child Guidance reported to [the] CASA that T.S.[, Mother’s and Father’s fourth child,] had a [mental-health] evaluation on 7/3/19 and was recommended to receive [mental-health] treatment and has not received any. None of the other children [has received] their [mental-health] evaluations as required under the current [o]rder. [T.S., Mother’s and Father’s fifth child,] was recommended for treatment but was unsuccessfully discharged on 8/8/19 due to lack of communication with the family.
Status Review Order, 9/27/19, at 2.
The juvenile court also found that the Children were enrolled in a cyber school, which required them to be logged on to a computer for five hours each day. Status Review Order, 9/27/19, at 2. The court noted that Mother contacted the cyber school “and asked them not to share any information with
CYF.” Id. Nevertheless, the court explained that the CASA introduced documentation indicating that the Children had poor attendance. Id.
[*8]J-S27002-20
In its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the juvenile court aptly summarized its findings set forth in the September 27, 2019 status-review order, as follows: Mother had represented that the RV had recently been purchased for $220,000 as the family’s residence. The family’s plan was to use RV campgrounds, pursuant to a campground membership, and move to Florida. During the hearing, the [C]hildren’s sporadic school attendance and uncompleted mental health evaluations or treatment continued to be unresolved issues. The September 27, 2019 status review order required Mother and Father not to remove the [C]hildren from Chester County until further order of the court[,] and [it] required them to submit a plan for relocation to Florida. Juvenile Court Opinion, 2/3/20, at 3 (emphasis added). On October 2, 2019, the GAL filed a petition for an emergency hearing, wherein she alleged that in violation of the status-review order, Mother and Father departed Chester County with the Children, and they could not be located. Petition, 10/2/19, at unnumbered 2. Further, the GAL asserted that the Children were not being educated, and they had not received mental- health evaluations. Id. The GAL requested an emergency hearing to determine whether the Children were safe and their needs were being met. Id. at unnumbered 3. In addition, the GAL requested that the hearing occur before the juvenile court rather than the hearing officer because, if Mother and Father failed to appear, “then relief can be given under the Juvenile Court
[*9]J-S27002-20
Rules, specifically[,] a bench warrant be issued for their arrests.” Petition, 10/2/19, at unnumbered 3; see also Pa.R.J.C.P. 1140 (“Bench Warrants for Failure to Appear”). The emergency hearing occurred on October 3, 2019, and Mother and Father did not appear. The following witnesses testified with respect to serving Mother and Father with notice of the emergency hearing via telephone, text message, and/or e-mail: the GAL, the CASA, and Eve Large, CYF legal liaison. In addition, both Father’s counsel and Mother’s counsel stated on the record in open court that they notified their respective clients of the emergency hearing via e-mail, but the parents did not respond, and neither counsel knew where Mother and Father currently were located. See N.T., 10/3/19, at 21–23. Further, J.M. testified that he last had contact with T.M. via text message on the Sunday evening prior to the hearing, but he did not know where T.M. and Mother were located. Id. at 26. At the conclusion of the testimony, the juvenile court determined that Mother and Father absconded from Chester County with the Children. N.T., - 10 - J-S27002-20 10/3/19, at 37. Upon the GAL’s request, joined by CYF, the juvenile court issued bench warrants pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 1140.6, 7 Id. at 27, 29. The third and final permanency hearing occurred on December 9, 2019, at which time CYF still had not located Mother and Father. Hannah Hunsinger, the CYF caseworker, testified on direct examination with respect to CYF’s efforts to locate the family, as follows: Q. What efforts did [CYF] make to try to track the family and find out where they were? A. So in addition to the phone calls, text messages, e-mails that went unanswered by [Father and Mother], with the help of [the] CASA, we were able to locate the family through a membership that they had for their RV. And we tracked them to Texas where ____________________________________________ 6 On a date unspecified in the record, the juvenile court quashed the bench warrant with respect to Father. The court explained that it subsequently accepted “the GAL’s argument during the October 3, 2019 hearing that Father should be available, if Mother were arrested, to prevent the [C]hildren from entering foster care, and to drive the [C]hildren and himself back to join Mother in Chester County.” Juvenile Court Opinion, 2/3/20, at 4, ¶ 2; see also N.T., 10/3/19, at 33 (where the GAL stated on the record, “Your Honor, a few specifics that [CYF has] brought up to me. It may be wise to prevent the youth from going to foster care in another state and creating issues, to just have detained [Mother] and not detain [Father]. Is that possible in your order?”). 7 The juvenile court explained: Despite the GAL’s efforts, [the] non-criminal bench warrant [against Mother] had never been successfully lodged against her in the National Crime Information Center (“NCIC”) database. The GAL had informed the court and CYF that the non-criminal nature of Mother’s bench warrant led the Chester County authorities responsible for inputting NCIC data to refuse the bench warrant’s inclusion. Juvenile Court Opinion, 2/3/20, at 5, ¶ 7. - 11 - J-S27002-20 we attempted to make a referral, but by the time the referral was made, the family had left Texas. And so then we were able to locate them in Las Vegas, Nevada[,] through their Netflix account with the help of [J.M.]. Q. When was it that we attempted to track them or we were able to locate where they were in Texas? A. So their reservation in Texas was up until October 20th, 2019. So on October 15th, we made the referral down there. Q. That was to Montgomery County CYF in Texas? A. Yes. Q. And they were not able to make contact with the family? A. Correct. Q. Then we learned that they moved on to Las Vegas, Nevada? A. Yes. Q. When were we able to locate them in Las Vegas? A. We were able to locate them on October 21, 2019. Q. What efforts were made while the family was in Las Vegas? A. So we made a referral to Las Vegas, the Department of Children and Families in Nevada[,] on October 21st of October. And they attempted to engage the family. They went out at least four times, knocked on the RV door. However, the family never answered. The caseworker did report that [Mother’s] vehicle was parked there during one of the visits.[8] And during another one, [T.M.] was home, and she was there caring for the kids and said that her parents had gone out to get food. ____________________________________________ 8The record reveals that Mother drove a “unique Mustang.” Permanency Review Order, 9/27/19, at 2. - 12 - J-S27002-20 So the caseworker left her business card and asked for [Father and Mother] to call, but [CYF] never heard from them. Q. Do we know roughly when they left the Las Vegas area? A. They left I believe it was November 13th. The caseworker said that she attempted to do a late night visit. When [CYF] went out, the family was gone. Q. Do we know where the family went from there? A. So through conversations with [J.M.], he was kind of monitoring their Netflix account. They were last logged on outside of Los Angeles, California. We just don’t know their exact location. Q. It is not exact enough for us to figure out what agency in California to contact? A. Correct. Q. When was that last log-in on Netflix? A. On November 26th. Q. There’s been no contact since then? A. Correct. Q. You mentioned that you were in contact with [J.M.] and he was somewhat helpful through this process? A. Yes. Q. So it is his Netflix account that they were using that he was able to see where they were? A. Yes. N.T., 12/9/19, at 4–7. Ms. Hunsinger further testified that Mother and Father have made “[n]o progress, no compliance” in satisfying their permanency-plan objectives due - 13 - J-S27002-20 to absconding with the Children. N.T., 12/9/19, at 10. Specifically, she testified that the Children “were unenrolled” from their cyber charter school on October 1, 2019. Id. at 9. Ms. Hunsinger testified as follows: Q. [W]hat has [CYF] done to try to determine whether the [C]hildren are in school? A. Outside of speaking with the cyber school that they were previously enrolled in, we haven’t had any way of figuring out if they are in school. [J.M.] doesn’t know if [T.M.] is in school. [T.M.] made a statement [to J.M.] about studying the one day on the phone, but he couldn’t say that was because she was in school or . . . exactly what it was for. Id. Moreover, Ms. Hunsinger further testified: Q. As far as you know, [the Children’s former cyber charter school] has not been contacted by any other school in any other state regarding [school] records for the Children? A. Correct. Id. at 10. On cross-examination by the GAL, Ms. Hunsinger confirmed that she is unaware of any record request made to the cyber school, where the Children were last enrolled, or to their previous public school.9 Id. at 14. During the third permanency-review hearing, Ms. Hunsinger requested that the juvenile court terminate its supervision of this family and close the dependency cases because “we have exhausted our efforts to locate and ____________________________________________ 9 The record reveals that the Children previously were enrolled in a public school district in Chester County, where they had resided at the commencement of the dependency cases. Permanency Review Order, 9/27/19, at 3. - 14 - J-S27002-20 engage the family.” N.T., 12/9/19, at 12. The CASA joined CYF’s request because “we exhausted our efforts to locate and track them[,] and . . . continuing to pursue them is causing [Mother and Father] to create more and more instability for the [C]hildren.” Id. at 19. In contrast, the GAL requested that the court “take custody of” the Children because of “[t]he concerns reported by the caseworker regarding [the Children’s] lack of education[.]” Id. at 22, 27. By orders entered on December 11, 2019, the juvenile court terminated its supervision of the Children. The court reasoned: [M.C.], [F]ather of all [the] [C]hildren except [T.M.], and [M.C.], Mother, have absconded with [T.M.], [T.C.], [T.C.], [T.C.], [T.C.], and [T.C.] and left the jurisdiction of this court for residence in another state. CYF and [the] CASA have made repeated and exhaustive efforts to ascertain the current whereabouts of the [C]hildren, tracking them to Texas and Nevada, and attempting to involve law enforcement and the local child protective agencies in those locations. The family has no apparent intention to return to Chester County or Pennsylvania. Order, 12/11/19. On January 3, 2020, the Children, by the GAL, timely filed notices of appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal, which this Court consolidated sua sponte. The GAL raises the following issues on appeal: