J-S47001-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: C.P., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: LCCYS :
:
:
:
:
: No. 629 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered March 25, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-40-DP-0000012-2015
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.P., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: LCCYS :
:
:
:
:
: No. 630 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered March 25, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-40-DP-0000013-2015
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 25, 2019
Appellant, Luzerne County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”), appeals
from the March 25, 2019 Orders denying CYS’ Petitions for Permanency and
Goal Change, which requested to change the permanency plan goal for
J-S47001-19
thirteen-year-old C.P. and ten-year-old T.P. (collectively, “Children”) from
return to guardian to adoption.1 After careful review, we affirm.
The parties are familiar with the extensive procedural and factual history
in this case, and we need not restate them in detail here. Briefly, Children’s
biological parents are unable to provide care for Children. Since birth, Children
were residing with B.W. (“Maternal Grandmother”) and K.W. (“Maternal Step-
Grandfather”) (collectively, “Maternal Grandparents”). In January 2015, CYS
received a report that Children’s younger brother suffered an unexplained fatal
head injury while in the care of Maternal Grandparents. CYS immediately
obtained a Shelter Care Order and placed children in foster care. CYS
subsequently indicated Maternal Grandparents as perpetrators of physical
abuse against both the deceased sibling and another younger sibling who
suffered an unexplained broken clavicle.2
On April 2, 2015, the trial court adjudicated Children dependent based
on lack of proper parental care. In October 2015, CYS placed Children in a
pre-adoptive foster home, where they continue to reside. Professionals have
diagnosed C.P. with Autism Spectrum Disorder, and both Children with ADHD
and “some needs related to trauma.” N.T. Goal Change Hearing, 3/19/19, at
____________________________________________
1This Court sua sponte consolidated the appeals at Nos. 629 MDA 2019 and
630 MDA 2019.
2 Authorities did not file criminal charges against Maternal Grandparents.
-2-
J-S47001-19
22. Children receive counseling services through Cornerstone and extra
support in school.
On November 2, 2018, Children’s biological mother voluntarily
relinquished her parental rights and the trial court involuntarily terminated the
parental rights of T.P.’s father.3, 4
On September 7, 2018, CYS filed a Petition for Permanency and Goal
Change Hearing. On March 19, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on CYS’
Petition. At the hearing, CYS requested that the trial court change Children’s
permanency goal from reunification with a guardian—Maternal Grandmother—
to adoption.5 CYS presented testimony from Gabrielle Stelmak, CYS
caseworker. Ms. Stelmak testified that Maternal Grandmother has been fully
compliant with the permanency plan and consistently participates in grief
counseling through Catholic Social Services and family counseling with
Children through Cornerstone Counseling. N.T. Goal Change Hearing,
3/19/19, at 17-18; 37; 41. Ms. Stelmak informed the court that Childrens’
counselors recommended an increased visitation schedule between Maternal
Grandmother and Children, which CYS implemented. Id. at 28-30. Ms.
____________________________________________
3 The termination decrees do not appear in the certified record or on the
docket. However, CYS testified to these facts and the trial court made a
specific finding that parental rights were terminated in its Rule 1925(a)
Opinion. See N.T. Goal Change Hearing, 3/19/19, at 15-18; Trial Ct. Op.,
filed 5/17/19, at 6.
4 C.P.’s biological father is unknown.
5Prior to the permanency goal change hearing, Maternal Step-Grandfather
passed away. See N.T. Goal Change Hearing, 3/9/19, at 10.
-3-
J-S47001-19
Stelmak explained that in December 2018, Maternal Grandmother and
Children had four hours of unsupervised visitation per week; in January 2019
they had eight hours of unsupervised visitation per week; in February 2019
they had sixteen hours of unsupervised visitation per week; and in March 2019
they had sixteen hours of unsupervised visitation and one overnight visit per
week. Id. at 28-30. Ms. Stelmak testified that from December to March, the
visitation between Maternal Grandmother and Children was going well enough
to continue increasing the amount and duration. Id. at 30-31.
Ms. Stelmark stated that she received a letter in court that day from
Children’s school indicating that, since the increase in visitation, T.P. has
exhibited some concerning behaviors in school, including being “off task” and
needing constant redirection. Id. at 22-23. Ms. Stelmark explained that
Children have also exhibited some defiant behaviors within the foster home,
including not following rules and talking back to foster parents. Id. at 43.
Ms. Stelmak testified that she just learned of the school behaviors and had
not yet spoken to Children’s counselors about the behaviors at home. Id. at
27, 56-57. Ms. Stelmark testified that she does not have any concerns about
the interactions between Maternal Grandmother and Children, Children are
“very bonded” to Maternal Grandmother, and both Children want to return to
her home. Id. at 37, 40.
Nevertheless, Ms. Stelmak stated that CYS does not believe that
reunification with Maternal Grandmother is a feasible permanency goal for
Children because Maternal Grandmother is an indicated perpetrator of physical
-4-
J-S47001-19
abuse. Id. at 18-19; 40-42. Specifically, Ms. Stelmak testifed, “[o]ther than
the safety concerns that would come from the indicated status, there are no
concerns regarding the relationship between [Maternal Grandmother] and
[C]hildren.” Id. at 40. Ms. Stelmak testified that CYS could not ensure the
safety of Children in Maternal Grandmother’s home because of her indicted
perpetrator status and because CYS did not know what caused the injuries to
Childrens’ siblings while in the care of Maternal Grandparents, including the
fatal injury. Id. at 19, 40.
Finally, Ms. Stelmak testified that CYS is requesting that the trial court
change Children’s goal to adoption. Id. at 20. Children are in a pre-adoptive
foster home and foster parents are willing to allow Children to maintain contact
with Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 20, 53.
Maternal Grandmother presented testimony from Jessica Martin and
Debra Passarella, both licensed professional counselors from Cornerstone
Counseling. Ms. Martin testified that she has worked with C.P., and the family,
since December 2015. Id. at 68. Ms. Martin stated that she recommended
increased visitation between Maternal Grandmother and Children so that she
could assess how Children responded. Id. at 70. Ms. Martin testified that
visits were going well: “Children continue to do well and respond positively to
the increased periods of unsupervised contact with [Maternal Grandmother].
So overall, a positive transition with the amount of time that they were
spending with [Maternal Grandmother], emotionally and behaviorally.” Id. at
71. Ms. Martin explained that it was typical and normal to see behavioral
-5-
J-S47001-19
issues or acting out in children that were transitioning or in the process of
reunification and that the behaviors could be addressed in counseling. Id. at
74, 76-77. Ms. Martin testified that she believed moving towards reunification
with Maternal Grandmother was the appropriate permanency goal for Children
and that ceasing contact would “not be in their best interest.” Id. at 77-78.
Ms. Passarello testified that she has worked with T.P., and the family,
since December 2015. Id. at 87. Ms. Passarello stated that it is not
uncommon for there to be a correlation between when there is change and
transition in a child’s life and a change in that child’s behavior. Id. at 95. Ms.
Passarello explained several times that some of T.P.’s reported behaviors
could be related to medication management rather than organic
circumstances. Id. at 89, 92-93, 95. Ms. Passarello stated that she always
addresses T.P.’s reported behaviors in her therapy sessions with him. Id. at
94. Finally, Ms. Passarello testified that she believed it was in T.P.’s best
interest to increase visitation with Maternal Grandmother and work towards
reunification. Id. at 90, 93.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Children’s court-appointed Guardian
Ad Litem (“GAL”) informed the court that she believed reunification continued
to be the appropriate permanency goal for Children and that she did not
recommend changing Children’s permanency goal to adoption. Id. at 102.
On March 25, 2019, the trial court, inter alia, denied CYS’ request to
change Children’s permanency goal to adoption, ordered the permanency goal
-6-
J-S47001-19
to remain return to guardian, and made a finding that Maternal Grandmother
was in full compliance with her permanency plan.
CYS timely appealed. Both CYS and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
CYS raises the following issue for our review: “Whether the trial court
committed an error of law or otherwise abused its discretion in denying
[CYS]’s Petition to change [C]hildren’s placement goal to adoption, as
adoption is the appropriate and feasible goal for [C]hildren and a change of
goal to adoption would be in [C]hildren’s best interest.” CYS’ Br. at 6 (some
capitalization omitted).
We review the denial of a petition for goal change for an abuse of
discretion. In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). In order to conclude
that the trial court abused its discretion, this Court “must determine that the
court's judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not apply
the law, or that the court's action was a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or
ill will, as shown by the record.” Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d 22, 25 (Pa. Super.
2019).
Our standard of review in dependency cases requires this Court “to
accept the 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.” R.J.T., 9 A.3d at
1190. This Court is “not in a position to make the close calls based on fact-
specific determinations.” Id. Rather, “we must defer to the trial judges who
-7-
J-S47001-19
see and hear the parties and can determine the credibility to be placed on
each witness and, premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of the success of
the current permanency plan.” Id. Notably, even if this Court “would have
made a different conclusion based on the cold record, we are not in a position
to reweigh the evidence and the credibility determinations of the trial court.”
Id.
The overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act, which governs goal change
requests, is “[t]o preserve the unity of the family whenever possible[.]” 42
Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1)). At each dependency review hearing, the trial court
must consider, inter alia, the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of
the Child's placement, and the appropriateness and feasibility of the current
placement goal for the child. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(1), (4). The focus of goal
change proceedings, like all dependency proceedings, is on “the safety,
permanency, and well-being of the child and the best interests of the child
must take precedence over all other considerations.” H.J., 206 A.3d at 25
(citation omitted).
“[T]he agency has the burden to show [that] a goal change would serve
the child’s best interests[.]” In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa. Super.
2010) (citations omitted). If reunification with the child's parent or guardian
is not in the child’s best interest, the trial court may determine that adoption
is the appropriate permanency goal. H.J., 206 A.3d at 25; 42 Pa.C.S. §
6351(f.1)(2). Notably, “[a]doption may not be an appropriate
permanency goal if severing an existent parent-child bond would have a
-8-
J-S47001-19
detrimental effect on a child.” Id. at 25. Further, “[b]ecause the focus is on
the child's best interests, a goal change to adoption might be appropriate,
even when a parent substantially complies with a reunification plan.” R.M.G.,
997 A.2d at 347 (citation omitted).
In their sole issue on appeal, CYS avers that the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied CYS’ Petition to change Children’s permanency goal
to adoption. CYS’ Br. at 6. CYS argues that the evidence demonstrated that
reunification with Maternal Grandmother is not in Children’s best interest
because Maternal Grandmother has failed to provide an explanation as to how
Children’s siblings suffered injuries while in her care, and, therefore, CYS
cannot ensure Children’s safety in Maternal Grandmother’s home. Id. at 12-
13. Rather, CYS contends, the evidence demonstrated that a goal change to
adoption was in Children’s best interest because Children have lived in a pre-
adoptive foster home that is meeting their needs, and the foster parents have
agreed to allow Children to have contact with Maternal Grandmother if they
adopt Children. Id. at 13-14.
The trial court opined:
The [c]ourt did not err in denying the goal change from
reunification to adoption. Both [C]hildren’s counselors and the
Guardian Ad Litem did not find that it is in the best interest of
[C]hildren for the visits with [] Maternal Grandmother to
terminate. In fact, they both indicate that [] Maternal
Grandmother should continue her overnight periods of visitation
and that further expansion of her visitation should be explored. .
. . In conclusion, the [c]ourt finds that it is in the best interest of
[Children] to maintain the goal of reunification with [] Maternal
Grandmother, in light of Maternal Grandmother’s full compliance
-9-
J-S47001-19
with the court ordered services. Furthermore, the [c]ourt agrees
with [C]hildren’s counselors and the Guardian Ad Litem who
recommended that the goal should remain reunification with []
Maternal Grandmother. The [c]ourt is also aware of the close
bond between both [C]hildren and [Maternal] Grandmother[,]
which was confirmed by Ms. Stelmak, the Guardian Ad Litem, and
[C]hildren’s counselors.
Trial Ct. Op., filed 5/17/19, at 3, 19-20. Our review of the record supports
the trial court’s findings.
Instantly, the trial court placed a great deal of weight on Ms. Martin and
Ms. Passarella’s testimony, who both recommended to the court that a
permanency goal of reunification with Maternal Grandmother is in Children’s
best interest. Id. In turn, the trial court placed less weight on Ms. Stelmak’s
testimony, and found portions of it to be contradictory. Specifically, the trial
court noted that: Ms. Stelmak testified that CYS had safety concerns about
Children reunifying with Maternal Grandmother, but CYS did not send a
caseworker to check on Children during their first overnight visit; Ms. Stelmak
testified that CYS had concerns over Children’s behaviors after visits, but
acknowledged that the behaviors were not so concerning that she contacted
Childrens’ therapists to discuss; Ms. Stelmak testified that adoption was the
appropriate permanency goal for Children, despite the fact that she does not
have any concerns about the interaction between Maternal Grandmother and
Children and they have a strong bond. Id. at 6-7, 11-12, 14-15. We decline
to reweigh the evidence and the credibility determinations of the trial court.
In sum, the record supports the trial court’s finding that a goal change
to adoption is not in Children’s best interest. We decline to reweigh the
- 10 -
J-S47001-19
evidence or disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations. Thus, we find
no abuse of discretion.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/25/2019
- 11 -