J-S60015-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.A., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
APPEAL OF: K.D.A., MOTHER
No. 1006 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County
Civil Division at No(s): CP-64-DP-2-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
K.D.A. (“Mother”) appeals from the permanency review order entered
March 7, 2016, changing the permanency goal for A.A. (“Child”), born in
November of 2009, to adoption and changing the concurrent goal to
subsidized permanent legal custodian (“SPLC”), pursuant to section 6351 of
the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301-6365.
On January 17, 2014, Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) filed an
emergency petition for protective custody regarding Child, and obtained an
order granting the petition and placing Child in foster care. On January 21,
2014, CYS filed a petition for shelter care, which the trial court granted that
same day. On February 19, 2014, the trial court adjudicated Child
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60015-16
dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1). The trial court held a series of
permanency review hearings, and on September 11, 2014, found
aggravated circumstances as to M.S. (“Father”). Additional permanency
review hearings were held, and on July 27, 2015, the trial court suspended
visitation with Mother and W.A. (“Maternal Grandfather”) until a therapist
introduced Child to Father. At a permanency review hearing on February 23,
2016, the trial court heard testimony from: CYS Assistant Director,
Amy Bass; Mother; Maternal Grandfather; Father; and D.S. (“Paternal
Grandmother”). On March 7, 2016, the trial court entered a three-page
order that changed Child’s permanency goal.
On March 28, 2016, Mother filed a notice of appeal along with a
concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b), from the
March 7, 2016 order. The trial court authored a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
statement consisting of three sentences.
Mother presents the following issue for our review:
Whether the trial court below erred as a matter of law and/or
abused its discretion in Ordering a Goal Change from
Reunification to Adoption after first having suspended Mother’s
visitation with (A.A.) seven (7) months earlier?
Mother’s Brief at 5.
By failing to file a comprehensive written opinion with its order entered
on March 7, 2016, and/or a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court did not
provide a thorough analysis of the factors under section 6351(f) and (f.1) of
the Juvenile Act, which a trial court must consider at a permanency review
-2-
J-S60015-16
hearing. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) (providing that “[a]t each permanency
hearing, a court shall determine all of the [enumerated factors in subsection
(f)]. . .”1 (emphasis added); id. § 6351(f.1) (listing the alternatives available
to the juvenile court for the permanent placement of a dependent child).
See also In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1186, 1187 n.10 (Pa. 2010) (setting
forth the statutory factors and observing that a trial court is obligated to
consider them at a permanency review hearing); id. at 1198 (Orie Melvin,
J., dissenting) (opining that “[n]owhere in its opinion did the trial court
either acknowledge its duty pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) . . . nor did it
explain its evaluation of the considerations enumerated therein. The
Superior Court was responsible for ensuring that the record represented a
comprehensive inquiry, and that the trial court applied appropriate legal
principles.”). Accordingly, we are constrained to remand this matter for the
trial court to set forth in detailed writing its evaluation of the evidence
concerning the factors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) and (f.1), in an opinion to be
filed with this Court within thirty days of this Order.
Case remanded with direction. Panel jurisdiction retained.
____________________________________________
1
We also did not find any discussion by the trial court of the section 6351(f)
and (f.1) factors on the record at the permanency review hearing.
-3-
J-S60015-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/12/2016
-4-