J-A08007-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: W.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: W.P., MINOR : : : : : No. 2974 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0001126-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 18, 2025 W.P. (Child), a minor,1 appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Juvenile Division, denying the Philadelphia Department of Human Services’ (DHS) petition for dependency. 2 We affirm.

____________________________________________

The Child is not Dependent pursuant to the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act and [] the petition for dependency is dismissed. Any temporary legal and physical custody by the Philadelphia County Human Services of the Child shall be discharged. . . . Mother is ready[,] willing[,] and able to care [for Child]. Child advocate and DHS to cooperate for [Child’s] safe return back to Brazil.

Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 11/4/24.

J-A08007-25

In 2021, when Child was fourteen years old, he came to the United States3 to live with his maternal uncle, W.M. (Uncle) and an unidentified aunt.

His parents remained in Brazil. Child’s parents were told that he was going to school, but, according to Child, he was working in Uncle’s auto shop for approximately two years, six days a week, and he was never enrolled in school. See N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 40-41. Child testified Uncle mistreated him. Id. at 42.

On December 13, 2023, DHS received a Child Protective Services (CPS) report alleging that Child was being labor-trafficked by Uncle. On December 20, 2023, DHS obtained an order of protective custody (OPC); Child was placed in a group home and eventually in a foster home. The court held a shelter care hearing on December 22, 2023. Following the hearing, the court placed Child in the temporary custody of DHS.

On January 4, 2024, DHS filed a dependency petition, and the court listed the matter for an adjudicatory hearing on February 1, 2024. The adjudicatory hearing, continued five times, was ultimately held on November 4, 2024. Mother, who lives in Brazil, did not attend the hearing, but was represented at the hearing by Robin Banister, Esquire.

____________________________________________

-2- J-A08007-25

On November 4, 2024, following the hearing, the court entered an order finding Child was not dependent, discharging the dependency petition, and discharging the temporary commitment to DHS. On November 11, 2024, Child filed a motion for reconsideration4 and an application for a stay of the discharge of the dependency petition and commitment to DHS. On November 27, 2024, Child filed a notice of appeal, and, on December 3, 2024, Child filed an application for stay in this Court.

On December 13, 2024, this Court entered an order remanding the case for the trial court to address the application for stay. On December 16, 2024, the trial court denied the motion to stay the order, finding Child did not meet the statutory definition of a “dependent” child pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1), because Mother was “ready, willing, and able to care for [] Child.”

Order, 12/16/24. The trial court found Child’s needs and welfare would be best served in Mother’s care and that it would be in Child’s best interest “to be reunited with his Mother forthwith.” Id. Thereafter, Child sought a stay in this Court. On January 30, 2025, this Court entered the following order: The “Application for Stay,” filed December 26, 2024, by the Child Advocate on behalf of Child to stay the Order of November 4, 2024, is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, in the best interest of the Child. The November 4, 2024 Order is STAYED except for the directive that DHS and Child Advocate continue the process of obtaining Child’s birth certificate from the Consulate in New York.

____________________________________________

-3- J-A08007-25

Per Curiam Order, 1/24/25.

On appeal, Child raises the following issues: 1. The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by not adjudicating Child dependent when the evidence presented by [DHS] and Child established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Child was a dependent child under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6302.

2. The trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by not adjudicating Child dependent in a manner that effectuated the purposes of the Juvenile Act, where DHS and Child presented clear and convincing evidence for the trial court to conclude that adjudicating Child dependent best served Child’s needs and welfare under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.]

§ 6301(b)(1.1).

Appellant’s Brief, at 3.

The standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the juvenile court if they are supported by the record; but it does not require the appellate court to accept the juvenile court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Interest of I.R.-R., 208 A.3d 514, 519 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)). As such, we review for an abuse of discretion. Id. The appellate court must ensure that the record represents a comprehensive inquiry and that the trial court has applied the appropriate legal principles to the record. See In re L.B., 229 A.3d 971, 977 (Pa. Super. 2020).

At the adjudicatory hearing, the court heard testimony from various individuals and representatives of agencies that were instrumental in protecting Child and obtaining foster care placement for him. Additionally, the

-4- J-A08007-25

court heard from Child, who is doing well in placement and in school.

However, the court determined the evidence did not support a finding of dependency where Mother was ready to care for Child: Based on the evidence that I have received, all of the allegations are as to the uncle [from] whom he’s been removed or actually escaped. There are no allegations indicating that his mother is in any way unable to care for her son. [DHS] appropriately followed up with the Brazilian government in order to obtain the necessary reports that are reflected in [Exhibits] DHS-1 and DHS-2 [International Social Services Home Study.] [5] It appears we have a Justin S.[6] case, where the mother has presented herself as ready, willing, and able. I have no idea where the father is.

However, [M]other appears to have expressed that she wants to care for [Child], and I have not heard anything to indicate otherwise. I cannot under these circumstances adjudicate [Child] ____________________________________________

[Mother] said her biggest dream in life right now is to pick up her children at the airport. [She] feels a lot of guilt and regret, which can be seen not only in her words but in her countenance when she tells the story of having authorized her children to go to the U.S in July 2022 since she was organizing to go in September of the same year. It turns out that when [Mother] tried to migrate, Mexico’s borders were closed and[,] sometime later, the person who would lend her the money to emigrate no longer had a way to help her. Since then, [Mother] has been trying to bring her children back to Brazil. She says that [Child,] since he arrived, wants to return, while [Mother] herself advised her son to seek some police service in the United States and said that he was without his mother and wanted to return to Brazil.

Exhibit DHS-1, at 4.

-5- J-A08007-25

dependent. The Child Advocate and [DHS] are to cooperate in terms of working with the Brazilian government for safe transport back to Brazil.

N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 57.

After our review, we discern no reason to doubt the trial court’s findings.

Though our review is quite broad, it is fundamentally limited by our inability to nullify the factfinding responsibilities of the lower court. See Interest of I.R.-R., supra. See also N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 11/4/24, at 10, 11 (Mother’s counsel stating Mother “wants [Child] to return to her in Brazil[,] and Mother is “ready, willing, and able.”). See also id. at 24 (Theo Ciccarellii Cornetta, Child Advocate Supervisor, testifying she talked with Mother “via the WhatsApp app,” and Mother was “ready to care for [Child.]”); id. at 26 (Kristen Abney, DHS social worker, testifying Mother was employed in Brazil and that international home study indicated her home was “approved”); id. at 28-29 (January Llaverias, Child’s case manager at Community Umbrella Agency, testifying Mother wants Child to come home to Brazil); id. at 53 (Stephanie Lubert, Child’s immigration attorney, testifying Child, an undocumented immigrant, has a “relatively strong case for a labor trafficking [-]based T visa.”).7

____________________________________________

-6- J-A08007-25

After careful consideration of the notes of testimony from the adjudication hearing, the certified record, Child’s brief, and the relevant case law, we affirm on the basis of the opinion authored by the Honorable Cateria R. McCabe. Accordingly, we lift the stay entered in this Court on January 30, 2025, and we affirm the trial court’s order denying DHS’s petition for dependency. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge McCabe’s decision in the event of further proceedings in this matter.

Order affirmed.

Date: 8/18/2025

-7- Circulated 07/31/2025 Circulated 07/31/2025 01.36 01:36 01.36 PM PM

.. _-5 3'. 23 IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS . . »' .' ‘ »' FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA FAMILY COURT DIVISION FAMILY COURT DIVISION -- DEPENDENCY DEPENDENCY BRANCH BRANCH

IN RE: IN RE: W.P., W.P. aa minor, W.P. minor, D/O/B: D/0/B: 01/04/2008 D/0/B: 01/04/2008 : CP-51-DP-0001 126-2023 CP-51-DP-0001126-2023 CP-51-DP-0001126-2023 : 51-FN-001777-2023 SL-FN.001777.2023 SL-FN.001777.2023 APPEAL OF: W.P. APPEAL OF: W.P. : Superior Court Superior Court No. No, 2974 No, 2974 EDA EDA 2024 2024 OPINION OPINION I.II INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION W.P. (“the Child”), by (the Child"), W.P. (the Child"), by and and through Guardian Ad his Guardian through his Ad Litem/Child Advocate ("Appellant"), Litem/Child Advocate (“Appellant”), ("Appellant"), appeals from the appeals from the Order entered by Order entered by this Court on this Court on November 4, 2024, November 4, 2024, finding finding that that the Child was the Child not was not Testimony for dependent. Testimony dependent. the Adjudicatory for the Adjudicatory Hearing Hearing was was heard on November heard on 4, 2024.

November 4, 2024. The The transcript attached as is attached transcript is Court’s Exhibit as Court's Court's A. At Exhibit A. the close At the close of of the the evidentiary evidentiary hearing, evidentiary the trial hearing, the hearing, court trial court found that clear found that and convincing clear and convincing evidence evidence did did not not exist exist to adjudicate the to adjudicate Child dependent the Child dependent based dependent on based on present inability because present inability because Mother Mother was was ready, ready, willing, willing, and able to and able care for to care for the Child in the Child Brazil.

Brazil. The in Brazil. The Court discharged Court discharged the Child’s dependency Child's the Child's dependency petition petition on on November November 4, 4, 2024, 2024, and and ordered the Child ordered the Child Advocate and Advocate and the the Philadelphia Philadelphia Department of Human Department of Services (DHS) Human Services (DHS) "to “to cooperate for "to cooperate cooperate for youth’s youth's youth's safe return safe return back return to Brazil.” back to Brazil." (See Brazil." (See Trial Court Order Trial Count Count 11/4/2024). For Order 11/4/2024).

11/4/2024). For the following reasons, the following this reasons, this Court’s decision Court's Court's decision should should be be affirmed. affirmed affirmed II.

II. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY The The relevant facts and relevant facts and procedural procedural history history of of this this case are as case are as follows. DHS became follows. DHS became aware of aware of this this family December I9, on December family on 19, I9, 2023, when itit received 2023, when received aa Child Child Protected Protected Services (CPS) report Services (CPS) (CPS) report report allegations that containing allegations containing that W.P. W.P. was was being labor trafficked being labor by this by trafficked by this maternal maternal uncle. uncle. During the During the During

investigation, the Child stated that his Mother was told that he would be attending school while living with his uncle. uncle. He was never enrolled in school in Philadelphia. On December 19, 2023, DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OP€) (OPC) for the Child. Mother resided in Brazil and the Child was at risk for further abuse in the care of his uncle in Philadelphia. DHS filed a Dependency Dependency Petition on behalf of the Child on January 4, 2024.

2024 An Adjudicatory Adjudicatory Hearing was held on November 4, 2024.' 2024. 1Counsel for DHS called their first witness, DHS Investigator, Kristin Abney.

Abney. (N.T. 11/4/2024, 11/4/2024, p. 14-26 (Exhibit A)).

A)). Ms. Ms. Abney testified that the Child entered DHS care in December 2023 due to allegations that the fifteen-year-old fifteen-year-old child was living living with his uncle, was not enrolled in school, and instead worked in auto body body shop throughout day. (N.T. 1 throughout the day.(N.T 1/4/2024, p. IS 11/4/2024, 15 IS at 2-21 (Exhibit A)). When Ms. Ms. Abney spoke to the Child about the allegations, spoke allegations, the Child stated that when he immigrated to the United States, he was abandoned in New York.

York. Police stopped him and called his uncle, who then picked him up. up. The Child stated that he began began residing with his uncle in Philadelphia for approximately two years. (N.T. 1 years. (N.T 1/4/2024, p. 11/4/2024, 16 at 6-24 (Exhibit A)). p. I6 to Ms. A)). The Child also stated to Ms. Abney that he was never enrolled in school since arriving arriving in the United States. He instead worked in an autobody shop shop with his uncle. uncle. He also told Ms. Ms. Abney that his uncle would physically threaten him if he did not “complete "complete certain work tasks." tasks.” (N.T. 11/4/2024, p. 16 I16 at 25; p. 17 I7 at 1-13 A)). The I-13 (Exhibit A)).

Child also stated that when he told Mother about the physical threats, she told him to to “find find a police station,” station," which prompted prompted the Child to flee from his uncle’s uncle's home and contact the police. (N.T. police, (N.T 11/4/2024, p. p. 17 at at 22-25; p. 18 at 1-2 (Exhibit A)). When questioned by Mother’s Mother's counsel,

1The Adjudicatory Te Adjudicatory Hearings Hearings scheduled for February 1, 2024, March 20, 2024, May 15, 2024, and July 3, 2024, were continued due to further further investigation. investigation. The September 4, 2024, Adjudicatory Hearing was also continued due to further investigation. investigation. The Brazilian home study and criminal clearances were not completed and returned to DHS DHS.

Ms. Abney testified that Mother's Mother’s actions and response to the incident were appropriate. appropriate. (N.T, (N.T.

1 1/4/2024, p. 25 at 23-25; p. 26 at I-7 11/4/2024, 1-7 (Exhibit A)).

A)).

Prior to immigrating to the United States, the Child resided with Mother in Brazil. Mother Ms, Abney spoke to Mother about the allegations continues to reside in Brazil. When Ms. allegations via WhatsApp, Child’s uncle was supposed Whats.App, Mother stated that the Child's supposed to enroll him in school in Philadelphia while the Child resided with him. him. Mother also stated that she wished for the Child to return retum to her care in Brazil and that she was ready to care for him. Ms. Ms. Abney Abney also testified that the report was invalid, but she was not certain. (N.T, (N.T. 11/4/2024, p. I8 at 7-14; p. p. 19 I9 at 16-23; 16.23; p.p. 24 at 22-24; p. 25 at 10-12 (Exhibit A)). at22-24; When Ms. Abney concluded her investigation, she testified that she submitted paperwork for an international home study on Mother’s Mother's home in Brazil as well as for background back ground clearances to be completed. The results of the international home study and the background clearances for Mother’s home were entered in evidence as DHS- Mother's DHS-1 and DHS-2.

DHS-2. They They are attached as Count's Court’s Exhibit B.

B. The clearances indicated that there was no criminal history found for Mother or the two other adults residing in the home. (N.T. 11/4/2024, p. p. 20 at 1-17 (Exhibit A)). On cross-examination by Mother’s Mother's counsel, Ms. Ms. Abney testified that there was no information indicating that Mother was not ready, willing, and able to care for the Child.

Child. Ms. Abney also testified that Mother was employed in Brazil and that the international home study indicated that Mother’s Mother's home was "approved." “approved.” (N.T. 11/4/2024,p. 11/4/2024, p. 26 at 8-19 (Exhibit A)).

Counsel for DHS called their next witness, Community Umbrella Agency Agency (CUA) Case Manager, January Llaverias. (N. (N.T.

T. 11/4/2024, p. p. 27-35 (Exhibit A)). Mr. Mr. Llaverias testified that he was assigned to this case in July 2024.

2024. Mr Mr. Llaverias testified that when he spoke with Mother, she indicated that she wished for the Child to be returned to her care in Brazil and her position has never wavered. wavered. (N.T. 1 1/4/2024, p. 27 at 20-25; p. 28 at 24-25; p. 29 at 1-6 (Exhibit A)).

11/4/2024, A)). When Mr. Llaverias spoke to the Child regarding his wishes, the Child indicated that he wished wished to remain to remain in the United States because he has a more comfortable life and more opportunities opportunities in in the the United United States than in Brazil. When Mr. Llaverias spoke to the Child, he testified that the Child Child worked in worked in a mechanic shop for at least six days out of the week and that his uncle never enrolled him in enrolled him in school. The Child told Mr. Llaverias that Mother knew this but felt she could not do anything anything about about itit because she was still in Brazil.

Brazil. He testified that the Child and Mother spoke “on and off." spoke "on off.” (N.T (N.T.

1 1/4/2024, p. 29 at7-13; 11/4/2024, 7-13; p. 30 at 4-16, 24-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)) A)).

The Child also testified at the Adjudicatory Hearing. (N.T. 1 Hearing. (N.T. 1/4/2024, p. 11/4/2024, p. 36-52 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)).

A)) He testified that he came to the United States when he was fourteen years years old. old. The Child stated stated that he arrived with a family acquaintance who told him that he would bring bring his Mother afterward, afterward, however he was abandoned at the airport. (N,T. (N.T. 1 1/4/2024, p. 11/4/2024, p. 36 at 16-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)).

A)). He testified that he did not know the man and that the man told immigration immigration authorities that he was the Chi4'¢ Child’s father so they could enter the country. The man's man’s name was listed on the Child's Child’s birth certificate. (N.T . 1 (N.T. 1/4/2024, p. 37 at 1I-11, 11/4/2024, -1 1; p. p. 38 at 22-23 (Exhibit A)). The Child stated that he began residing began residing who immediately put him to work. with his uncle who work. He testified that he asked his uncle about being being enrolled in school, but his uncle stated he had to "work “work and not study.” study." The testimony testimony reflected that he worked six six days a week. The Child further testified that when he told Mother, she stated that she could not do anything about it. He also testified that he spoke spoke to Mother approximately approximately two or three times per week. The Child then testified that his uncle began began hitting hitting him shortly shortly after he arrived and deliberately cut his arm while they were working. working. (N.T. (N.T 1 1/4/2024, p. 11/4/2024, p. 40 at 3-25; 3-25; p. 4l at at 1-24 (Exhibit A)). The Child told Mother about the incident and sent her pictures pictures of the cut. Mother stated that she "couldn't “couldn’t believe he did that" that” to him. him. After Mother learned of the incident, she told the Child to leave his uncle’s uncle's house and to go to the police. The Child listened, left his uncle's uncle’s home, and did not return. (N.T. retum. (N. T 11/4/2024, p. p. 41 at 23-24; p. p. 43 at 14-17; p. p. 44 at

7-8 (Exhibit A)).

7.8 A)). The testimony reflected that the Child sometimes told Mother when his uncle hit hit him, and that she believed him. However, the testimony reflected that Mother felt that there was was nothing she could do to help the Child other than to tell him to go go to the police. police. (N.T. (N.T. 1 1/4/2024, 11/4/2024, p. 45 at 3-12 (Exhibit A)), A)) On cross-examination by Mother’s Mother's counsel, the Child testified that the original original plan plan was for him to come to the United States first and that Mother would meet him here thereafter. Howevee However, the man abandoned the Child at the airport, Mother could no longer after the longer come to the United States.

The Child further testified that when he resided in Brazil, he lived in a home with his Mother, grandmother, and his other siblings. The Child stated that some of his siblings siblings still reside with Mother and grandmother, but that his younger brother currently resides in in the United States. The

Child testified that Mother told him she felt sorry for sending sending him and his brother to the United States. 11/4/2024, p. States. (N.T. 11/4/2024, p. 47; p. 48 at 17-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)).

A)). On cross-examination by counsel for DHS, the Child testified that when he resided with Mother in Brazil, he attended school, had enough food in the home, and felt safe in Mother’s Mother's home. (NT (N.T. 1 1/4/2024, p. 11/4/2024, p. 50 at 10-22 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)).

Following argument of counsel on November 4, 2024, this Court found that W.P W.P. did not meet the definition of a dependent child pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6302(1) $6302(1) of the Juvenile Aet Act and that Mother was ready, willing, and able to care for the Child in Brazil. The Court discharged the Child’s dependency petition on November 4, 2024 and ordered the Child Advocate and DHS "to Child's “to cooperate for youth’s youth's safe return back to Brazil.”

Brazil." (See Trial Court Order 1 1/4/2024). Appellant 11/4/2024). Appellant filed the present Notice of Appeal and a Concise Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on Appeal Appeal on November 6, 2024.

HL II. STATEMENT OF OE MATTERS COMPLAINED ON APPEAL In the Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Pa. R.A.P. regarding the Appeal, regarding April 17, 2024, Order, Order, the Appellant identifies the following following issue(s): issue(s): •. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion byby not adjudicating Appellant dependent when the evidence presented presented byby the Department of Human Services ("DHS") (“DHS”) and Appellant established, by by clear and convincing evidence, that Appellant was a dependent child under the Act, 42 Pa. C.S.

Juvenile Aet, C.S. §6302. $6302 2. The The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by by determining that Mother was a ready, willing, and able parent, where DHS and Appellant proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother sent Appellant Appellant to the United States with an acquaintance, was aware of Appellant'sAppellant’s mistreatment at the hands of his caretaker, and nonetheless did nothing nothing to protect Appellant.

Appellant Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by 3. The Trial Count by determining that Mother was a ready, willing, and able parent, where Mother was not immediately available to care for Appellant.

4. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion by by not adjudicating Appellant dependent in a manner that effectuated the purposes purposes of the Juvenile Act, where DHS and Appellant presented clear and convincing evidence for the Trial Court to conclude that adjudicating adjudicating Appellant dependent best served Appellant’s Appellant's needs and welfare under 42 Pa. C.S. $6301(b)(1.1).

§6301(b)(l . 1 ).

5. Child Advocate reserved the right to amend this Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal upon receipt and review of the final transcript in this matter.

IV. OF REVIEW STANDARD OE The proper standard of review in dependency cases is abuse of discretion. discretion. "An “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused.” Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107, abused." 107. 111 Super. 2007) 1H1 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Our standard of review of dispositional orders in juvenile proceedings proceedings is settled. The Juvenile Juvenile Act grants broad discretion to juvenile courts in determining appropriate dispositions, In appropriate dispositions. Irere CA.

C.A.G., G 89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2014). Indeed, the Superior Court will not disturb the lower court's court's disposition absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In the Interest of ofJ.D., 4.D, 798 A.2d 210, 210, 213 (Pa (Pa. Super. 2002). The standard of review requires an appellate review in dependency cases requires accept the appellate court to accept findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported supported by by the record but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court's inferences or conclusions of law. law. In Irere R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1 RAT,9A.3d 179, 1190 (Pa. 1179,1190 (Pa. 2010). Appellate review of a weight weight of the evidence claim is limited to a review of the judge's exercise of discretion. See Commonwealth v. 689 • Widmer,689 A.2d 21 1 (Pa. 1997), and Commonwealth v.v. Brown, 648 A.24 211(Pa. A.2d 1177,1189.1192 1177, 1189-1192 (Pa. (Pa. 1994) 1994).

v. V. DISCUSSION A. The Trial Trial Court did not Abuse its Discretion when it Found that that Chit Child Was Not Dependent Dependent Pursuant to42Pa.CS.A.

Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A, 86302(1 §6302(1 ) of the Juvenile Act Aet Appellant alleges in their Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Appeal, that this Court erred when it found that clear and convincing evidence was not present to adjudicate the Child dependent because Mother was a ready, willing, and able parent. This Court disagrees disagrees.

The burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets the statutory definition of dependency. dependency. In Irere GT, G.T.,845 845 A.2d 870,872 870, 872 (Pa. Super. 2004). Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as testimony testimony by credible witnesses who clearly relate facts that are so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction without hesitance of the truth of precise facts of J.M., in issue. In Interest of JM, 166 A.3d 408, 427 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing (citing In I re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89, 107 (Pa. 2010)).

The Juvenile Act Aet defines a dependent child, in relevant part, who “is part, as a child who without proper is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required required by law, or other by law, other care care or or control control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A determination that there is that there is aa lack of proper parental care or control may be based upon upon evidence of conduct conduct by by the the parent, parent, guardian, or other custodian that places the health, safety, safety, or welfare of the child at risk, including risk, including controlled substance evidence of the parent's, guardian's or other custodian's use of alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.” 42 Pa. C.S.A. $§ 6302(1). risk." 42PA. 6302(1). The The purpose purpose of the Juvenile Act Aet is to preserve the unity of the family possible. 42 Pa. family whenever possible. C.S.A.

Pa. CS.A §63 01 (b)(1). A dependency trial is a two-part process. The first part 56301(b)(D). pant requires requires the trial count court to hear hear evidence and to determine, by clear and convincing convincing evidence, that the child is without proper proper parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for the child's child’s physical, mental, moral, physical, mental, emotional moral, or emotional health. In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa Super. health. I the child dependent, Super. 2013). If the trial court finds the dependent, the trial court may then move to the second part, in which it must make an appropriate appropriate disposition disposition based upon an inquiry into the best interests of the child. child. In re LC., LC, II, IH, 900 A.2d 378, (Pa. 378, 381 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2006). See In re A.E., A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. Super. A.E, 722 A.24 Super. 1998)).

1998)) In finding that the Child did not meet mcet the statutory statutory definition of a "dependent “dependent child" child” pursuant pursuant Pa. CS.A. to 42Pa. C.S.A. §$6302(1), 6302(1), this Count Court determined that clear and convincing convincing evidence was not presented to demonstrate that the Child was without proper proper parental parental care and control. control. The trial court also based its determination on the Pennsylvania Superior Court's Court’s holding holding in In the Interest S, a court cannot adjudge ofJustin S., wherein this Court held that “a adjudge a child to be dependent dependent when his non-custodial parent is ready, willing, and able to provide the child with proper proper parental parental care and control." In control.” l the Interest of Justin S., 543 A.2d 1192, 1199 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1988).

1988). At the November 4, 2024, Adjudicatory Hearing, Mother presented herself as ready, ready, willing, willing, and able to care for the Child. There were no dependency concems concerns or allegations allegations asserted regarding regarding Mother

in the dependency petition filed on January 4, 2024.

2024. It simply simply stated that she resided in Brazil Brazil.

After being informed of the allegations in the dependency dependency petition, petition, Mother consistently consistently maintained maintained the position that she wished for her son to be returned to her care in Brazil. The circumstances that brought the Child into care were due to the actions of his uncle. They occurred outside of Mother’s uncle. They Mother's knowledge and control. control. It is clear to to this Court that when sending sending the Child to live with his uncle in the United States, Mother believed that uncle would care for and enroll the Child in school, school. It is clear to this Court that Mother did not intend for the Child's Child’s uncle to force him to work rather than attend school. When Mother sent the Child to the United States, she planned planned to arrive here herself shortly thereafter. However, when the acquaintance who transported transported the Child to the United States abandoned him at the airport, his whereabouts become unknown. unknown. He did not help help Mother come to the United States. The testimony and evidence reflected that Mother expressed expressed remorse and regret for sending sending the the Child to the United States.

The evidence and testimony also reflected that an international home study study was was conducted on Mother’s Mother's home and the home was deemed to be appropriate. The home study study indicated that Mother was employed and cared for two of the Child's Child’s siblings in Brazil. The Child’s stepfather and Child's stepfather maternal grandmother also reside in the home with Mother. The international home study study also described Mother's Mother’s willingness and motivation to care for the Child in great detail. Specifically, Specifically, it “her biggest dream in life right now is to pick up her children at the airport." stated that "her airport.” The home study also outlined Mother’s Child’s basic needs including Mother's plan for providing for the Child's salary including her salary and access to medical and dental services in Brazil.

Brazil. (See DHS-1). Additionally, Additionally, criminal clearances were done on Mother and the residents of her home. home. The The results indicated that there was no criminal history found for Mother or the other two adults residing residing in the home. (See (See DHS-2) DHS-2).

There was no testimony presented that Mother failed to provide provide appropriate appropriate care for the Child when he resided with her in Brazil. The Child’s uncontradicted testimony The Child's testimony reflected that he was

enrolled in school when he resided with Mother in Brazil. was well fed and felt safe in Mother's Brazil. He was Mother’s care. There was no testimony presented that Mother labor-trafficked the Child. In fact, the the school, and that testimony reflected that Mother sent the Child to live in the United States to attend school, tat Mother was surprised to learn leam that the Child was not enrolled. enrolled. When Mother later became aware that the Child was not attending school in his uncle's uncle’s care, there was little she could do to rectify rectify the situation from Brazil.

Brazil. Appellant asserts that this Court erred in determining determining that Mother was ready, willing, and able to care for the Child because Mother was aware of the Child'g Child’s maltreatment in his uncle's uncle’s care and "did “did nothing to protect” protect" him. However, the testimony testimony reflected that when Mother learned of the abuse by his uncle, she instructed the Child to leave the house and to go to the police. The Child heeded Mother's Mother’s advice and has not resided with his uncle since then. Mother did all that she felt she could do do to help her son while residing residing in another country. The DHS investigator also testified that Mother’s appropriate given Mother's actions were appropriate given the circumstances. There was also no testimony presented regarding Mother’s circumstances. Mother's inability to protect protect the Child from further abuse if he were returned to her care in Brazil.

Brazil. Additionally, Additionally, there is no reason to believe that Mother would not reenroll the Child in school and provide for his needs in Brazil if he were returned to her care.

The fundamental purpose of proceedings under the Juvenile Act is to preserve the unity unity of the family whenever possible. During the DHS investigation, the Child initially stated that he wished to return to Mother's Mother’s care in Brazil. (See Dependency Petition Paragraph C).

C). While the Child may may now prefer to remain in the United States, his reasons are not supported by by the Juvenile Act.

Aet. The opportunities that are available in the United States rather than in Brazil do not make this Child dependent. Additionally, the Child's Child’s preferences must be weighed against against Mother's Mother’s right to parent child. The Child felt safe and well cared for in Mother’s her child. attending school there.

Mother's home and was attending there Two of his siblings reside in the home as well as his maternal grandmother grandmother and stepfather. stepfather. The The

Child has many familial supports in Brazil who are willing willing to assist him him and and Mother.

Mother. To allow this To allow this Child to in foster care and separated from to remain in family when Mother is from his family is a ready, willing, and ready. willing. and contrary to the purpose of the Juvenile Act. able parent would be contrary Act. Applying Applying the holding holding in Justin in Justin S,- this Court properly S properly found that W.P. W.P. did not meet the definition of a dependent dependent child pursuant pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A.$§6302(1). to42Pa.C.SA. 6302( 1). Thus, this Court properly determined that the Child's needs and welfare needs and welfare would be best served in his Mother’s care.

Mother's care

I.

VI. CONCLUSION (O\CL!SI0y For these reasons, reasons. this Court respectfully requests that the Order dated November 4, 2024.

2024. be AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED

COURT: BY THE COURT

^^y " ut4 'abe. Judge

II CERTIFICATE OE (ERTIEI(ATE OF SERVICE SERVILE

1l hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing opinion has been filed and foregoing opinion served upon the following parties, as as set forth forth below below:

PACFILE AKFILF

Guardian Ad Litem: Counsel for Appellant, W.P.: Theo Theo Ciccarelli Coretta.

Cometta. Esquire Lsquire F. Ehrlich. Esquire Ilana F. lana Defender Association of Philadelphia Defender Association of Philadelphia Philadelphia 1441 Sansom Street_ Street, 9lh 1or Floor 1441 Sansom Sansom Street. 9lh Floor Street_9 p]or Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia. Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for Mother: Robin Winthrop Banister, Banister. Esquire 0 S. Rittenhouse Square. #806 1810S.

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Trial Counsel for DHS: I rial (ounsel DHs: Anne Cunningham. Esquire Law Law Department, Child Welfare Unit 1515 I515 Arch Street. I6th Arch Street. 16th Floor Philadelphia. Pa 19102 Appellate DHS: ppellate Counsel for D4Is: Appellate Appellate Counsel for DHS:HS: Kathleen Bola Kim, Esquire Robert D. Aversa. Esquire Law L.aw Department. Child Welfare welfare Unit Law Department, Child Welfare Unit La 1515 Arch Street. 16th I6th Floor 1515 Arch Street, I6th Arch Steet, 16th Floor Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Date Cateria R. McCabe. Judge