J-A03015-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.A., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: B. T., MOTHER : No. 3097 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered September 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-46-DP-0000112-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PLATT*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 16, 2018
Appellant, B.T. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Court Division, which
granted the petition of the Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth
(“Agency”) to place S.A. (“Child”) in the permanent legal custody of her
foster mother and terminate supervision of Agency and the juvenile court.
We affirm.
In its opinion, the juvenile court fully and correctly sets forth the
relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no
reason to restate them.
Mother raises the following issue for our review:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE
AGENCY’S MOTION TO TERMINATE COURT JURISIDICTION
IN THIS MATTER, AND ORDER[ING] THAT LEGAL AND
PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE PERMANENT LEGAL CUSTODIAN?
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A03015-18
(Mother’s Brief at 4).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Wendy
Demchick-Alloy, we conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief. The juvenile
court’s opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
question presented. (See Juvenile Court Opinion, filed October 16, 2017, at
1-7) (finding: evidence of record supports order that granting permanent
legal custody to foster mother is in best interest of Child; during discussion
with Child prior to September 12, 2017, hearing, Child expressed stress she
felt when visiting with her biological parents; Child has been in foster care
for six years; during her time in foster care, Child has earnestly participated
in psychological counseling; while in foster care, Child has gained familial
bond with foster mother, friendships with peers, and excelled in school).
Accordingly, we affirm, on the basis of the juvenile court’s opinion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/16/18
-2-
Circulated 02/08/2018 04:50 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JUVENILE COURT
In the interest of S.A. No. CP-46-DP-0000112-2012
OPINION
DEMCHICK-ALLOY, J. OCTOBER 131 2017
tS .. "'1: ., the biological mother of S.A., appeals from the order filed
September 12, 2017, placing S.A. in the permanent legal custody of her foster
mother and terminating the supervision of the Montgomery County Office of
Children and Youth and the juvenile court. In this children's fast-track appeal,
N\o{hu raises a single issue: whether the undersigned erred in terminating
court supervision and ordering permanent legal custody to S.A.'s foster mother.
Facts
On April 19, 20121 the Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth
(OCY) took S.A. into custody.1 S.A. had reported that her father sexually
abused her, but then reported that those accusations were false and prompted
by her mother ( �;;.:, ).2 S.A. then stated that her mother did not prompt her
to make false accusations against her father.s On May 8, 2012, S.A.'s parents
agreed to an order adjudicating her dependent." After OCY found no relatives
who could care for S.A., the undersigned removed her from the home she
1 See N.T. July 7, 2012, p. 6.
2 See N.T. May 8, 2012, pp. 3-4.
3 Id.
4 Id.
..
(.J
shared with Mo�W and directed OCY to place her in foster care.5 Father
cooperated with OCY, but was unable to name any family members with who
could care for S.A.; mot{,\-e.V\ on the other hand, refused to cooperate.6
Before S.A. had been adjudicated dependent, her parents were engaged
in a child-custody proceeding in family court. As a result, both parents had
been ordered on April 4, 2011 to submit to psychological and psychiatric
examinations and complete parenting classes." In the dependency proceeding
in juvenile court on May 8, 2012, the undersigned ordered both parents to
undergo psychological evaluations.f Months later, after N\l!)ti.VV, failed to
comply, she argued in court that her psychological fitness as a parent was not
at issue, given that her daughter had been removed from her home because of
allegations against her husband, not her.? Meanwhile, father had already
completed his psychological evaluation and cooperated in every way possible
with OCY.10 Not until April of 2017 did Nio+h--eNC complete the parenting class,
and not until July of 2017 did she complete the court-ordered psychological
evaluation.!' She still has not completed a court-ordered psychiatric
evaluation.
During the hearing of September 12, 2017, OCY produced case-worker
s Id. at 4.
6 Id. at 3-4.
1 N.T. September 12, 2017, p. 11.
a N.T. May 8, 2012, p. 5.
9 See N.T. July 24, 2012, pp. 10-12.
10 Id. at 14.
11 N.T. September 12, 2017, pp. 7-8.
2
Jerrold Summers as a witness. Mr. Summers testified that when OCY took
custody of S.A. in 2012 she had been fighting and running away from school.12
Over the ensuing years S.A. worked diligently with counselors and her foster
mother, and now earns "straight A's" as a middle-school student in a
competitive school district, 13 She no longer has any behavioral problems.I+
Mr. Summers testified that S.A. wants to remain in her foster home with her
foster mother and her dog, Rocky. IS
At the request of the juvenile and her guardian at litem, the undersigned
and the lawyers in this dependency proceeding also met with S.A. in the
anteroom of the courtroom. The discussion between the undersigned and S.A.
was not stenographically recorded.w During the meeting, S.A. corroborated
Mr. Summera's testimony by stating that she wished to remain with her foster
mother.!? She expressed, without animosity, the anxiety she felt when visiting
with her father and biological mother.18 She did not want to give up visits with
her parents, but she wanted reassurance that she would remain in the custody
of her foster mother.I?
Mr. Summers was the only witness who testified regarding IV'toth �(.. He
testified that in the four to five months preceding the hearing of September 12,
12 Id. at 10.
13 Id. at 11-12, 18-19.
14 Id. at 12.
is Id. at 12, 18-19.
16 See id. at 24-25.
11 Id. at 26.
is Id.
19 See id. at 29-30 (summary of S.A.'s statement by guardian ad-litem for S.A.).
3
2017, she began to comply with the family plan.20 fv�ol,h_e){. began to visit S.A.
more consistently,21 and she contacted Mr. Summer by telephone on two or
three occasions.ss She asked Mr. Summer for more visitationtime with S.A.,
and OCY granted her request.s- On cross-examination by (Ao'rn.l:v;'s lawyer,
Mr. Summers reluctantly agreed that she "substantially, perhaps moderately"
complied with the family plan.24 He described MoYhlV: as having made
"substantial gains" in the preceding months, but he also opined, "it's too little,
too late."25 The undersigned is inclined to agree with the case-worker's
opinion, based upon the first-hand knowledge. The undersigned has presided
over this dependency action since its inception and has observed S.A. and
spoken with her numerous times during the course of the hearings. Based
upon the testimony produced in all of the hearings and the observations of the
undersigned, it is clear that :Mothe..r 's recent improvement does not support a
conclusion that S.A. 's best interest would be served by further delaying a
decision as to permanent legal custody.
Discussion
The Superior Court neatly summarized the rules applicable to this case
in In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
In Pennsylvania, a juvenile court may award permanent legal
20 Id. at 18.
21 Id. at 18, 19-20.
22 Id. at 12, 16, 20.
23 Id. at 13.
24 Id.
zs Id. at 11.
4
custody to a child's caretaker pursuant to Section 6351 (a)(2. 1) of
the Juvenile Act. This is an arrangement whereby a juvenile court
discontinues court intervention as well as supervision by a county
agency, and awards custody of a dependent child, on a permanent
basis, to a custodian. Parental rights are not terminated. See In re
H. V., 37 A.3d 588, 589 (Pa.Super.2012).
* * *
A trial court may consider permanent legal custody, upon
the filing of a petition by a county children and youth agency that
alleges the dependent child's current placement is not safe, and
the physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child would best be
served if subsidized permanent legal custodianship (SPLC) were
granted. See In re S.B., 208 Pa.Super. 21, 943 A.2d 973, 983-984
(2008). Upon receipt of this petition, the court must conduct a
hearing and make specific findings focusing on the best interests of
the child. See id. In order for the court to declare the custodian a
"permanent legal custodian" the court must find that neither
reunification nor adoption is best suited to the child's safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare. See id.; see also
42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann.§ 635l(f.1).
In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973, 977-78 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).
An order granting "permanent" legal custody "does not confer or divest
parents of any substantive rights but rather addresses the proper venue for
visitation and support matters following the grant of a permanent legal custody
arrangement." Id. at 979 (bold emphasis in original). Following a grant of
permanent legal custody, the venue for a parent's petition to regain custody
changes from juvenile court to family court. See id. at 980 (quoting 23 Pa.C.S.
§§ 5324 and 5338). Because parental rights are not terminated by an order
declaring the custodianship permanent, the fitness of the mother or father to
be a parent is relevant, but only to whether reunification or adoption is not in
the best interest of the child. The Office of Children and Youth must prove that
reunification or adoption is not best suited to the child's safety, protection and
5
physical, mental and moral welfare, but it need not prove more. Id. at 980
(quoting In re B.S., 861 A.2d 974, 977 (Pa. Super. Ct 2004)).
The evidence in this case supports the conclusion that the order granting
permanent legal custody to the foster mother the best interests of S.A. In the
anteroom discussion, S.A. shared the stress she feels when visiting with her
biological parents in a manner that was eloquent, articulate, respectful, and
completely without animosity. S.A. has been in foster care for six years, and
during that time she has earnestly participated in difficult psychological
counseling. Mainly as a result of her diligence and courage in confronting her
own issues, but with the help of her counselors and foster mother, S.A. has
been rewarded with the growth of family bonds with her foster mother,
friendship with her peers and academic success. To leave her uncertain as
whether she will continue to enjoy her relationships with her foster mother and
friends would not be in her best interest. S.A. must be able to trust that these
relationships will not be lightly upended.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the foregoing discussion, the undersigned
respectfully submits that the order filed September 12, 2017 should be
affirmed.
6
Copy of above sent on /(J /3 /" to:
Erin C. Lentz-Mclvlahon , Es uite; 21 West Airy Street; Norristown, PA 19401;
by first-class mail
Eric J. Cox, Asststartt S-olicitor and Alisa Levine, Assistant-sn-U-citor;-byinter= ·
office mail
Kara Humphries, Esquire; c/ o Public Defender; by inter-office mail
John Armstrong, Esquire; 621 Swede Street; Norristown, PA 19401; by first-
class mail
7