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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2016
Appellant, K.D.A. (“Mother”), appeals from the permanency review
order dated February 24, 2016, and entered on March 7, 2016, changing the
permanency goal for her son, A.A. (“Child”) (born in November of 2009), to
adoption and changing his concurrent goal to subsidized permanent legal
custodian (“SPLC”), pursuant to section 6351 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 6301-6365. We affirm.
We summarize the procedural history of this case as follows. On
January 17, 2014, Children and Youth Services (“CYS” or the “Agency”) filed
an emergency petition for protective custody regarding Child. The trial court
granted the petition and placed Child in foster care. On January 21, 2014,
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60015-16
CYS filed a petition for shelter care, which the trial court also granted. On
February 19, 2014, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1). The trial court then held permanency review hearings
on March 31, 2014, June 25, 2014, and September 2, 2014. In an order on
September 11, 2014, the trial court found aggravated circumstances as to
Child’s father, M.S. (“Father”). The trial court held subsequent permanency
review hearings on November 25, 2014, February 4, 2015, March 18, 2015,
and July 27, 2015. On July 27, 2015, the trial court suspended Child’s
visitation with Mother and W.A. (“Maternal Grandfather”) until a therapist
could introduce Child to Father. Thereafter, the trial court held a
permanency review hearing on September 15, 2015. On December 10,
2015, Child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed a motion for the appointment of
legal counsel for Child, and the trial court appointed Attorney Michael
Lehutsky as counsel for Child.
The trial court held a permanency review hearing on February 23,
2016. At the hearing, CYS presented the testimony of its Assistant Director,
Amy Bass. Mother testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony
of Maternal Grandfather. Father testified on his own behalf and presented
the testimony of his mother, D.S. (“Paternal Grandmother”).
In an order dated February 24, 2016, and entered on March 7, 2016,
the trial court changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption, and his
concurrent goal to SPLC. On March 28, 2016, Mother filed a timely notice of
-2-
J-S60015-16
appeal and concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, along with
a concise statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). Initially,
the trial court failed to file an opinion with its order and/or a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion. On September 12, 2016, this Court entered a judgment
order directing the trial court to provide an analysis of the factors under
section 6351(f) and (f.1) of the Juvenile Act, within thirty days. In
compliance with this Court’s judgment order, on October 17, 2016, this
Court received a supplemental record that included the trial court’s
“Amended Statement of Reasons Opinion” filed on October 11, 2016, setting
forth its analysis of the factors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) and (f.1) as applied
to the evidence in this case.1 This matter is now ripe for our disposition.
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.
Mother argues that the trial court erred in first suspending her
visitation with Child on July 27, 2015, and then, after barring her from
contact with Child, approving CYS’s request for a goal change from
____________________________________________
1
We note the trial court opinion of October 11, 2016, contains apparent
clerical errors in several places by indicating the date of the permanency
hearing was February 24, 2016, rather than the correct date of February 23,
2016.
-3-
J-S60015-16
reunification to adoption. Mother’s Brief at 9. Mother concedes that her
record of compliance in this case may have been poor, but she contends that
the trial court’s July 27, 2015 order is unsupported. Id. at 13. Mother
posits that the trial court could have suspended Father’s visitation, and
provided more time for Mother to improve her parenting skills and show the
effect of her rehabilitation and her “re-found” ability to care for Child. Id. at
15. Accordingly, Mother contends that the trial court erred in first
suspending her visitation in July of 2015, and then, after seven months of
allowing CYS to stand between Child and Mother, changing Child’s
permanency goal to adoption. Id. at 15-17.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently set forth our standard of
review in a dependency case as follows:
“The standard of review in dependency cases requires an
appellate court to accept 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.” In re R.J.T.,
608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). We review for abuse
of discretion[.]
In Interest of: L.Z., A Minor Child, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015).
Regarding the definition of an abuse of discretion, our Supreme Court has
instructed the following:
As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not
result merely because the reviewing court might have
reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be
reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon
demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
-4-
J-S60015-16
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act sets forth definitions for various
words and phrases and defines a “dependent child,” in relevant part, as
follows:
[a] child who:
(1) 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. § 6302. In In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004), this
Court clarified the definition of “dependent child” as follows:
The question of whether a child is lacking proper parental care or
control so as to be a dependent child encompasses two discrete
questions: whether the child presently is without proper parental
care and control, and if so, whether such care and control are
immediately available.
Id. at 872 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, we note
that “[t]he burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner
to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets that
statutory definition of dependency.” Id.
With regard to the disposition of a dependent child, in In re D.A., 801
A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc), this Court explained the following:
[A] court is empowered by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(a) and (c) to make
a finding that a child is dependent if the child meets the
statutory definition by clear and convincing evidence. If the
court finds that the child is dependent, then the court may make
-5-
J-S60015-16
an appropriate disposition of the child to protect the child’s
physical, mental and moral welfare, including allowing the child
to remain with the parents subject to supervision, transferring
temporary legal custody to a relative or public agency, or
transferring custody to the juvenile court of another state. 42
Pa.C.S. § 6351(a).
Id. at 617.
When considering a petition for goal change for a dependent child, the
trial court considers:
the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the
placement; the extent of compliance with the service plan
developed for the child; the extent of progress made towards
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement; the appropriateness and feasibility of the current
placement goal for the child; and, a likely date by which the goal
for the child might be achieved.
In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 6351(f)).
Regarding the disposition of a dependent child, section 6351(e), (f),
(f.1), and (g) of the Juvenile Act provides the trial court with the criteria for
its permanency plan for the subject child. Pursuant to those subsections of
the Juvenile Act, the trial court is to determine the disposition that is best
suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of
the child.
Section 6351(e) of the Juvenile Act provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
(e) Permanency hearings.-
-6-
J-S60015-16
(1) [t]he court shall conduct a permanency hearing for the
purpose of determining or reviewing the permanency plan of the
child, the date by which the goal of permanency for the child
might be achieved and whether placement continues to be best
suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral
welfare of the child. In any permanency hearing held with
respect to the child, the court shall consult with the child
regarding the child’s permanency plan in a manner appropriate
to the child's age and maturity. . . .
(2) If the county agency or the child’s attorney alleges the
existence of circumstances and the court determines that
the child has been adjudicated dependent, the court shall
then determine if aggravated circumstances exist. If the
court finds from clear and convincing evidence that
aggravated circumstances exist, the court shall determine
whether or not reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate
the need for removing the child from the child’s parent,
guardian or custodian or to preserve and reunify the
family shall be made or continue to be made and schedule
a hearing as provided in paragraph (3).
42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(1), (2) (emphasis added).
Section 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act prescribes the following pertinent
inquiry for the reviewing court:
(f) Matters to be determined at permanency hearing.-
At each permanency hearing, a court shall determine all of
the following:
(1) The continuing necessity for and
appropriateness of the placement.
(2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of
compliance with the permanency plan developed for
the child.
(3) The extent of progress made toward alleviating
the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement.
-7-
J-S60015-16
(4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the
current placement goal for the child.
(5) The likely date by which the placement goal for
the child might be achieved.
(5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to
finalize the permanency plan in effect.
(6) Whether the child is safe.
(7) If the child has been placed outside the
Commonwealth, whether the placement continues to
be best suited to the safety, protection and physical,
mental and moral welfare of the child.
* * *
(9) If the child has been in placement for at least 15
of the last 22 months or the court has determined
that aggravated circumstances exist and that
reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need
to remove the child from the child’s parent, guardian
or custodian or to preserve and reunify the family
need not be made or continue to be made, whether
the county agency has filed or sought to join a
petition to terminate parental rights and to identify,
recruit, process and approve a qualified family to
adopt the child unless:
(i) the child is being cared for by a relative
best suited to the physical, mental and moral
welfare of the child;
(ii) the county agency has documented a
compelling reason for determining that filing a
petition to terminate parental rights would
not serve the needs and welfare of the child;
or
(iii) the child’s family has not been provided
with necessary services to achieve the safe
return to the child’s parent, guardian or
-8-
J-S60015-16
custodian within the time frames set forth in
the permanency plan.
* * *
(f.1) Additional determination.- Based upon the
determinations made under subsection (f) and all relevant
evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall determine one
of the following:
(1) If and when the child will be returned to the
child’s parent, guardian or custodian in cases where
the return of the child is best suited to the safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of
the child.
(2) If and when the child will be placed for adoption,
and the county agency will file for termination of
parental rights in cases where return to the child’s
parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited to
the safety, protection and physical, mental and
moral welfare of the child.
(3) If and when the child will be placed with a legal
custodian in cases where return to the child’s parent,
guardian or custodian or being placed for adoption is
not best suited to the safety, protection and physical,
mental and moral welfare of the child.
(4) If and when the child will be placed with a fit
and willing relative in cases where return to the
child’s parent, guardian or custodian, being placed
for adoption or being placed with a legal custodian is
not best suited to the safety, protection and physical,
mental and moral welfare of the child.
(5) If and when the child will be placed in another
living arrangement intended to be permanent in
nature which is approved by the court in cases where
the county agency has documented a compelling
reason that it would not be best suited to the safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of
the child to be returned to the child’s parent,
guardian or custodian, to be placed for adoption, to
-9-
J-S60015-16
be placed with a legal custodian or to be placed with
a fit and wiling relative.
(f.2) Evidence.- Evidence of conduct by the parent that places
the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including
evidence of the use of alcohol or a controlled substance that
places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, shall be
presented to the court by the county agency or any other party
at any disposition or permanency hearing whether or not the
conduct was the basis for the determination of dependency.
(g) Court order.- On the basis of the determination made
under subsection (f.1), the court shall order the
continuation, modification or termination of placement or
other disposition which is best suited to the safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the
child.
* * *
42 Pa.C.S. § 6351 (emphasis added).
In addition, on the issue of a placement goal change, this Court has
stated:
When a child is adjudicated dependent, the child’s proper
placement turns on what is in the child’s best interest, not on
what the parent wants or which goals the parent has achieved.
See In re Sweeney, 393 Pa. Super. 437, 574 A.2d 690, 691
(1990) (noting that “[o]nce a child is adjudicated dependent . . .
the issues of custody and continuation of foster care are
determined by the child’s best interests”). Moreover, although
preserving the unity of the family is a purpose of [the Juvenile
Act], another purpose is to “provide for the care, protection,
safety, and wholesome mental and physical development of
children coming within the provisions of this chapter.” 42
Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1.1). Indeed, “[t]he relationship of parent
and child is a status and not a property right, and one in which
the state has an interest to protect the best interest of the
child.” In re E.F.V., 315 Pa. Super. 246, 461 A.2d 1263, 1267
(1983) (citation omitted).
In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006).
- 10 -
J-S60015-16
Our painstaking review of the record reflects the following evidence,
which supports the trial court’s determination of a goal change to adoption in
this matter. At the February 23, 2016 hearing, Ms. Bass testified that Child
was presently six years old and had been in placement since he was four
years old. N.T., 2/23/16, at 6. Mother did not provide her permanent
address, which is in New Jersey, until September 2, 2014, following a
permanency review hearing. Id. Father initially provided an address in Glen
Burnie, Maryland, but, on February 9, 2016, Father provided an address in
Baltimore, Maryland. Id. at 7. Ms. Bass explained that CYS had requested
Father’s address since the December 28, 2015 denial of an Interstate
Compact for the Placement of Children (“ICPC”) application as to Father. Id.
Ms. Bass further testified that on January 17, 2014, CYS received a
telephone call from New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services
(“DYFS”) informing CYS that Child was in New Jersey at the home of
Maternal Grandfather. N.T., 2/23/16, at 7. Ms. Bass indicated that, before
CYS could investigate the report, an incident occurred involving Child’s
maternal aunt, D.A. (“Maternal Aunt”), and Child in New Jersey. Id. at 7-8.
Mother alleged that Maternal Aunt had kidnapped Child. Id. at 8. The police
became involved, and New Jersey’s DYFS reported that Child was safe that
night. Id. at 8. CYS obtained the order for protective custody and went to
Maternal Aunt’s home to retrieve Child. Id. Maternal Aunt was under the
influence of several substances, and Child was in a car with three other
- 11 -
J-S60015-16
women who were about to leave the premises when the police apprehended
them. At the time of this incident, CYS knew Father’s identity, but paternity
had not yet been established. Id. In 2014, CYS had asked Father to take a
paternity test, to which he submitted in December of 2014 or January of
2015. Id. at 8-9.
Child is currently placed at the home of B.H. and R.M. (“Foster
Parents”) in Waymart, Pennsylvania. N.T., 2/23/16, at 9. Child is doing
very well and participates in all family activities. Id. Child has a consistent
routine and sleeps and eats well. Id. However, within the six to eight
months prior to the February 2016 hearing, Child began having emotional
outbursts, had behavioral problems, was crying, and had regressed. Id. at
9-10. Child’s regression was a concern to CYS. Id. at 10. Ms. Bass
testified that Child is in the least restrictive placement that meets his needs
at this time. Id. CYS believes that there is a continuing necessity for Child’s
placement, the placement is appropriate, and Child is safe in his placement
setting. Id.
Ms. Bass testified that, in regards to the “reasonable and prudent
parents’ standard,” Child is in an out-of-home placement that allows [him]
to benefit. N.T., 2/23/16, at 10. CYS believes that Foster Parents are
following the “reasonable and prudent parents” standard, because they have
both been trained in that standard. Id. at 10-11. Child told Ms. Bass that
he participates in regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in appropriate
- 12 -
J-S60015-16
activities, including fishing, bicycling, sledding, going to Foster Parents’ barn,
and learning to maneuver a new family-owned drone. Id. at 11. Child does
not face any barriers in participating in those activities. Id.
The visitation for both Mother and Father had previously been
suspended by court order at the time of the February 23, 2016 hearing.
N.T., 2/23/16, at 11. At the initial time of Child’s placement, Mother was
offered bi-weekly visitation, but she did not want that type of visitation. Id.
After CYS scheduled bi-weekly visitation more regularly, Mother had
inconsistent attendance with the visitation. Id. Father denied paternity for
one year. Id.
In March of 2015, CYS sought a goal change at a permanency review
hearing, and the trial court denied the request. N.T., 2/23/16, at 12.
Mother’s bi-weekly, supervised visits continued at the Agency office, and
Father was to begin a reunification plan that would include visitation. Id.
Prior to the suspension of the parents’ visitation, neither parent had ever
progressed to unsupervised visitation. Id. Initially, Father had three visits
in a therapeutic setting and later progressed to supervised visitation at the
Agency office. Id.
Child had not seen Mother since July of 2015. N.T., 2/23/16, at 12.
Child last saw Father in December of 2015. Id. at 12-13. Ms. Bass testified
that CYS was seeking a change to the visitation and that CYS wanted to
have the goal changed to adoption. Id. CYS sought to consult with a
- 13 -
J-S60015-16
therapist as to closure visitation, and for the visitation schedule to be vested
in the entire treatment team, if the goal change to adoption was granted.
Id. at 13.
Ms. Bass testified that, at the time of initial placement, Child was in
pre-school. N.T., 2/23/16, at 13. He was likewise in school at the time of
the hearing. Id. At the time of initial placement, Child was behind his age
group in typical behaviors for a four-year-old. Id. He could not identify
colors, did not know his numbers or the alphabet, had speech delays, and
could not count past three. Id. Child then became involved in an “early
intervention” program, and he exhibited success and was ready to begin
kindergarten in a regular classroom on time. Id. at 14. He progressed very
well in school and enjoyed it. Id. Child was eager to learn, and he was a
model student. Id. He was not involved in special education. Id. Child’s
report card reflected at least satisfactory proficiency, and one “N” for “needs
improvement” in holding his pencil. Id. at 14. As of the hearing on
February 23, 2016, Child had exceeded the expectations for fluency and
reading for an end-of-year kindergarten student. Id. at 15.
Child was participating in counseling. N.T., 2/23/16, at 15. At the
time of his initial placement, he did not have a counseling requirement, but,
with the need to introduce Father, counseling became necessary because
Child had not known Father. Id. Although Child had seen Father while he
was a baby, he was unaware of him. Id. As a result of the requirement for
- 14 -
J-S60015-16
reunification, CYS initiated therapy. Id. Child’s therapy was through
Friendship House, and began with Child’s individual sessions with Kim
Osbourne. Id. Ms. Osbourne also had a few individual sessions with Father,
and then she had three joint sessions with Child and Father. Id. After the
joint sessions, Child continued individual therapy with Ms. Osbourne. Id.
When Ms. Osbourne left Friendship House, CYS requested a subsequent
therapist, Gloria Bluett, through the Aaron Center in Dickson City. Id. at 16.
Child’s counseling with Ms. Bluett began in January of 2016, and was going
well, but he was still building a rapport with her. Id. Ms. Bluett was waiting
for the outcome of the hearing to know what direction/goals to set. Id.
With regard to the progress of counseling, CYS had seen a marked change in
Child, who looked forward to going to this counseling and eagerly would get
in the car and attend without incident. Id.
Child was healthy but on multiple medications for allergies and
asthma. N.T., 2/23/16, at 16-17. When Child came into placement, he did
not have any medications for either asthma or allergies, and he had not seen
a dentist. Id. at 17. CYS arranged for Child to see an allergist. Id. He had
the allergen prick tests and, by process of elimination and ruling in, medical
professionals have been able to identify Child’s allergies. Id. Child sees
Highland Physicians as his primary care provider. Id. at 17. A dentist filled
eight cavities in Child’s teeth. Id. at 18.
- 15 -
J-S60015-16
CYS identified Child’s extended family and attempted to contact
multiple family members by letter. N.T., 2/23/16, at 18. CYS has
determined that additional family finding efforts no longer serve Child’s best
interest. Id. CYS developed a permanency plan for Child, dated February 1,
2014, which is appropriate and feasible. Id. at 19. Ms. Bass testified that
Child was in substantial compliance with his objectives of the plan: obtaining
and maintain good health and consistency of care; attending medical
appointments; having his needs met; and attending age appropriate services
and programs to prepare him for success in kindergarten. Id. at 19-20.
Ms. Bass testified that Child had made full progress in alleviating the
circumstances of his original placement. Id.
Mother’s objectives were to provide CYS with her address; become and
remain a law-abiding citizen; remain clean and sober; attend a drug and
alcohol evaluation, and follow all recommendations; attend counseling and
Narcotics Anonymous; and submit to and test negative on random urine
screens. N.T., 2/23/16, at 20. Mother was also to attend a parent fitness
evaluation and follow all recommendations; maintain a safe and stable living
environment; obtain and maintain steady employment; comply with court
orders and recommendations; and establish her state residency. Id. at 20-
21. Additionally, Mother was to ensure that Child received and attended
programs to be successful in school; attend his medical appointments and
follow through with providers; not allow individuals under the influence of
- 16 -
J-S60015-16
illegal substances or alcohol or who are inappropriate to care for Child; and
to ensure that Child’s needs are met, i.e., hygiene, sleeping, and clothing.
Id. On June 11, 2015, additional objectives for Mother were added:
complying with rules and recommendations of the inpatient rehabilitation
Mother was attending, and to cooperate with probation. Id. at 21.
At each of the permanency review hearings, the trial court found that
Mother had failed to comply with CYS recommendations. At the hearing on
July 27, 2015, on a motion to amend visits, the trial court did not address
Mother’s compliance, and her visits were suspended at the hearing. At the
permanency hearing on September 15, 2015, the trial court found Mother’s
compliance was minimal. N.T., 2/23/16, at 21. Ms. Bass testified that
Mother’s compliance was minimal as of February 23, 2016. Id. at 22.
Mother completed an inpatient rehabilitation program prior to
September 15, 2015, and had begun intensive outpatient rehabilitation, but
dropped out. N.T., 2/23/16, at 22. Mother attended forty-nine meetings in
the 162 days since the previous hearing, for a 22% attendance rate, with
two and three meetings sometimes held on the same day. Id. Mother
submitted reports on urine screens, which were negative. Id. However, the
screens were non-random (Mother could decide when to voluntarily provide
the screen). Id. Mother’s urine tested positive for morphine on
February 23, 2016, the day of the hearing in this case. Id.
- 17 -
J-S60015-16
On November 13, 2014, Mother refused to provide a urine screen at
Maternal Grandfather’s home when CYS performed an unannounced visit.
N.T., 2/23/16, at 23. Ms. Bass explained that, nearly two years later,
Mother was still refusing to do a urine screen and had a compliance issue.
Id. at 22-23. Mother attended a combination of both Alcoholics Anonymous
and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Id. at 23. Ms. Bass testified that
Mother had made no progress toward alleviating the circumstance of Child’s
original placement over the course of the case. Id. Mother’s compliance
history was: June 2014, none; September 2014, none; November 2014,
minimal; February 2015, minimal; March 2015, none; July 2015, visits
suspended; September 2015, not addressed because the focus was shifted
to reunification with Father. Id.
Father’s permanency plan objectives were: cooperate with paternity
testing; schedule, facilitate, and attend a parent fitness evaluation; engage
in having a relationship with Child; accept financial responsibility for Child;
and become actively involved in case planning and developing a “family
tree” for possible resources for Child. N.T., 2/23/16, at 23-24. CYS added
additional objectives to Father’s permanency plan in 2015, as follows:
ensure Child receives and attends programs to be successful in school;
schedule and attend medical appointments and follow through with
providers; not allow individuals under the influence of illegal substances or
alcohol or who are inappropriate to care for Child; and ensure Child’s needs
- 18 -
J-S60015-16
are met. Id. at 24. Father’s objectives also included: be honest with the
Friendship House therapist; follow all Friendship House recommendations;
and be available for any and all visits and contacts requested by Friendship
House and CYS regarding timeline and visitations. Id. Further, Father was
required to: provide any and all documentation requested by the state; be
open and honest with Maryland during the ICPC process; submit any and all
clearances requested; and complete any and all paperwork and
documentation in a timely manner. Id.
Ms. Bass characterized Father’s present compliance with the
permanency plan as minimal. N.T., 2/23/16, at 25. Father had four visits
with Child between the permanency review hearing in September of 2015
and the hearing on February 23, 2016. Id. He brought Paternal
Grandmother to one of the visits despite clear instruction not to bring
anyone to the visits. Id. Father’s communication with CYS was conflicting,
and he would provide inconsistent information to team members, as well.
Id. Father was not open and forthcoming about his extensive criminal
history. Id. He missed all planned visits since November of 2015 except for
the Christmas visit in December of 2015. Id. Father contacted CYS and
requested that all visits stop because he would be busy with doctors’
appointments, and was anticipating transportation problems. Id. The state
of Maryland, Ann Arundel County Department of Social Services, denied
Father’s ICPC application on December 28, 2015, citing Father’s multiple
- 19 -
J-S60015-16
arrests and convictions, including a history of misdemeanors, and several
charges including assault. Id. at 25-26. Father also had three criminal
charges resulting from two incidents, the dispositions of which were pending
at the time of the hearing. Id. After an ICPC home study, the state of
Maryland denied the ICPC because of Father’s criminal history. Id. at 28.
Ms. Bass described Father’s compliance with his permanency plan
objectives as follows: June 2014, none; September 2014, none, aggravated
circumstances, no reunification necessary; November 2014, none;
February 2015, none; March 2015, moderate (because he was asked only to
take a paternity test); July 2015, Father to increase his visitation (and
Mother’s visits suspended to allow Father untainted visitation time);
September 2015, moderate; February 23, 2016, none. N.T., 2/23/16, at
28-29.
Ms. Bass characterized Father’s present compliance as none, because
the basis of any reunification is honesty, and Father had been dishonest;
Father’s ICPC application had been denied, so there could not be any
placement in Maryland; Father’s attendance at visits had been sporadic since
October of 2015; and Father had requested that the visits stop. N.T.,
2/23/16, at 29. Mother’s ICPC application was also denied by the state of
New Jersey in September of 2015. Id. Thus, at the time of the hearing,
CYS was unable to place Child in the home of either parent. Id.
- 20 -
J-S60015-16
CYS made efforts toward finalizing Child’s permanency plan including:
providing emergency protective custody, shelter care, and ongoing foster
care. N.T., 2/23/16, at 30. CYS also conducted DNA testing for Child on
February 3, 2014; successfully maintained Child in one consistent, stable
home throughout his placement; provided early intervention services and
successful medical intervention to stabilize Child’s health. Id. CYS also
sought, and was granted, a finding of aggravated circumstances against
Father in September of 2014, and DNA testing for Father on December 30,
2014. Id. In March of 2015, CYS sought a goal change for Child, which the
trial court denied. Id. CYS then began reunification efforts with Father in
April of 2015. Id. CYS began therapy with Child, and then Father, and
continued their therapy jointly. Id. CYS completed the two ICPC
applications, both of which were denied. Id. CYS provided supervised
visitation with Mother, then suspended that visitation to allow Father’s
reunification to proceed. Id. CYS provided supervised visitation and
therapy for Child and Father. Id. CYS completed Child’s profile in
November of 2014. Id. CYS had discussions with Foster Parents regarding
their intention to adopt Child and their willingness to include the biological
family members in Child’s life. Id. CYS identified additional kin and sent
letters inquiring about their interests in Child, and had discussions with some
of those family members. Id. CYS also completed a home study regarding
Maternal Grandfather. Id.
- 21 -
J-S60015-16
Maternal Grandfather expressed an interest in being a resource for
Child, and Maternal Grandfather cooperated with a home study. N.T.,
2/23/16, at 31-32. As a result of the home study, Maternal Grandfather was
approved as a resource. Id. at 32-33. However, the ongoing caseworker
and supervisor for Child making the placement decision did not recommend
Maternal Grandfather for kinship placement. Id. at 33. Their main concerns
regarding Maternal Grandfather were that he continued to be not only
supportive of, but also aligned with, Mother, often not in Child’s best
interest. Id. Maternal Grandfather has a long history of minimizing,
denying, and making excuses for Mother and her sister, Maternal Aunt, who
continues to live close to Maternal Grandfather’s home. Id. Maternal
Grandfather responded to questioning with answers, such as “I don’t ask
questions, I just roll with it.” Id. His responses suggested an inability to
demonstrate protective capacities, which concerned CYS. Id. at 33-34.
Additionally, during the six months preceding the hearing, CYS made
consistent, unannounced visits to Maternal Grandfather’s home for drug
testing, and, on five occasions, Maternal Grandfather stated that he was
unable to give a sample. Id. at 34. In the week preceding the hearing,
Maternal Grandfather submitted to CYS drug testing, but had refused to
submit to the drug testing at the unannounced home visits. Id. Maternal
Grandfather submitted to drug testing at CYS’s office on occasions that were
not random. Id. On those occasions, when Maternal Grandfather was at
- 22 -
J-S60015-16
CYS’s office to drop items off by himself or was with Mother, CYS would ask
to drug test him. Id. In August of 2015, CYS advised Maternal Grandfather
that he would not be considered as a placement for Child. Id. at 35.
At the time of the hearing, Child’s permanency goal was to return
home, but CYS did not believe that goal was feasible, and the date when
returning home could be accomplished was undetermined. N.T., 2/23/16, at
35. CYS sought a goal change to adoption. Id. Ms. Bass testified that, with
a goal change to adoption, the goal could be achieved within six months.
Id. The concurrent permanency plan goal was adoption, and CYS wished for
the goal to be changed to SPLC. Id. CYS was not seeking a determination
of aggravated circumstances at the February 23, 2016 hearing. Id. at 36.
Aggravated circumstances were previously determined to exist as to Father,
but at the goal change hearing on March 24, 2015, CYS was required to
make efforts with Father and to place Child in a timely manner. Id.
CYS had not made the necessary steps to finalize permanent
placement for Child as of the February 23, 2015 hearing. N.T., 2/23/16, at
37. CYS needed to have the permanency goal changed to adoption with
termination of parental rights, update the family profile, and finalize the
process for adoption. Id. Ms. Bass testified that, if the goal were changed
to adoption, CYS would file petitions for the termination of the parental
rights of Mother and Father. Id. She stated that Foster Parents were willing
- 23 -
J-S60015-16
to adopt Child. Id. At the time of the hearing, Child had been in placement
for twenty-six months. Id.
Ms. Bass testified that CYS recommended that Child remain in the
temporary legal custody of CYS and in the physical custody of CYS for
placement in his pre-adoptive foster home. N.T., 2/23/16, at 38-39. She
stated that CYS had taken sufficient steps to ensure that Foster Parents are
exercising the “reasonable and prudent parents” standard. Id. at 39. CYS
has ensured that Child has been provided: regular, ongoing opportunities to
engage in age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate activities,
including consulting with Child about opportunities to participate, and
identifying and addressing any barriers to participation. Id. CYS also
ensured that: Child’s GAL, Attorney Leatrice Anderson, continued as a
special education decision-maker for Child; Child’s educational, healthcare,
and disability needs have been met; Child continues with his “504 plan” in
school; and Child receives timely “well child” and “sick child” medical
checkups and follow-up care, and continues in therapy. Id. Moreover, CYS
ensures that all school records pertaining to Child, including enrollment
documentation and special education documents, be released to CYS upon
request. Id. CYS also ensures that visitation between Child and Mother
occurs at the direction of Child’s treatment team in order to facilitate closure
visitation. Id. at 40. Additionally, CYS ensures that visitation between Child
- 24 -
J-S60015-16
and Father occurs at the discretion of Child’s treatment team in order to
facilitate closure visitation. Id.
Further, CYS sought for the trial court to determine that CYS satisfied
the requirements regarding family finding, and that family finding no longer
serves Child’s best interests and should be discontinued. N.T., 2/23/16, at
40. CYS requested that Child’s permanency goal be changed to adoption,
his concurrent goal be changed to SPLC, and that CYS be authorized to
proceed with any and all steps necessary to effectuate this goal in a timely
manner, with a six-month review. Id. Ms. Bass testified that CYS believed
that the recommendation was in Child’s best interest, and Mother and Father
were not in agreement with the recommendation of CYS. Id. She stated
that Child indicated that he wished to remain with Foster Parents, who he
called “Mom and Dad.” Id. at 41. She testified that he printed their names,
M-o-m and D-a-D for her, and his own name, and had a big smile on his
face. Id.
Upon our careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial
court’s determinations are supported by the record. The trial court
considered, inter alia, the continuing necessity for placement, compliance
with the service plan, and the extent of progress in alleviating the
circumstances that necessitated placement. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f); In re
A.K., 936 A.2d at 533. The trial court concluded that changing the
placement goal from return home to adoption was in Child’s best interests.
- 25 -
J-S60015-16
42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1); In re K.C., 903 A.2d at 14-15. Mother’s failure to
comply with CYS recommendations or to make any demonstrable progress
toward resolving issues which gave rise to placement constituted sufficient
evidence to support Child’s goal change to adoption. Therefore, we discern
no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. In Interest of: L.Z., A Minor
Child, 111 A.3d at 1174. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order
changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/1/2016
- 26 -
In the Interest of: A.A., a Minor
Combined Opinion