In the Int. of: R.F., a Minor ( 2020 )

J-S18027-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.F., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.F., MOTHER : No. 2022 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered November 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000263-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.F., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.F., MOTHER : No. 2023 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered November 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000262-2018
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: APRIL 30, 2020
Appellant, S.F. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered in the York
County Court of Common Pleas, which changed the permanency goal from
reunification to adoption, following the York County Office of Children, Youth
& Families’ (“CYF”) petition for a permanency hearing. We affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S18027-20
In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them. Procedurally, we add that the court appointed legal counsel for
R.F. and T.F. (“Children”) on December 2, 2019. On December 12, 2019,
Mother filed timely notices of appeal, as well as contemporaneous statements
of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925. This Court consolidated
Mother’s appeals sua sponte on December 26, 2019.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
DID THE COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
FAILING TO CONSIDER THE FAILURES OF [CYF] IN
PROVIDING SERVICES WHEN CHANGING THE GOAL?
DID THE COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
FINDING TH[AT] CHANGING THE COURT-ORDERED GOAL
WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF…CHILDREN DESPITE THE
PARENTAL BOND BETWEEN MOTHER AND…CHILDREN?
(Mother’s Brief at 7).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable N.
Christopher Menges, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The trial
court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinions, filed January 7, 2020, at 7-15) (finding:
(1) contrary to Mother’s assertion that CYF failed to provide services, record
indicates Mother was receiving services from Catholic Charities for several
months prior to November 26, 2019 permanency review hearing; specifically,
David Kansburg, family advocate with Catholic Charities, was assisting Mother
-2-
J-S18027-20
with housing, employment, and drug and alcohol treatment; Mr. Kansburg
testified that since previous hearing on September 12, 2019, he had met with
Mother only 4 times, and Mother had cancelled 6 appointments with him; even
though Catholic Charities’ policy was to cease services after 3 missed
appointments, Mr. Kansburg kept Mother’s services open with understanding
he would terminate services if Mother missed any more appointments; further,
Mother’s completion of Nurturing Skills Competency Assessment with Catholic
Charities in August 2019, demonstrates she received services, as directed by
CYF; (2) while Mother’s bond with Children weighs in Mother’s favor, Mother’s
past and continued lack of progress weighs more heavily against Mother; as
of November 26, 2019 hearing, Mother had failed to alleviate circumstances
which necessitated original placement; further, Mother had not complied with
permanency plan; in 15 months prior to hearing, Mother repeatedly tested
positive for drugs; Mother also failed to maintain stable employment, obtain
stable housing, and cooperate with services; despite Mother’s statements that
she intends to undergo effort to be reunified with Children, she has
consistently failed to demonstrate her willingness and ability to do so;
returning Children to Mother, under circumstances, is not in best interests of
Children). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinions.
Orders affirmed.
-3-
J-S18027-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/30/2020
-4-
Circulated 04/16/2020 04:42 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
,. IN THE INTEREST OF: . No.
. -:r: \=--; - CP-67-DP-2�018
·:
MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE
1925(a)(2)(ii) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
I.D
..
N ·')
- -..
rr-- ('":.
.' .·->-l1J AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2020, the Court is in receipt of Mother's ·
. i--
)
::158 A.3d 1266, 1276 (Pa.Super. 2017). The reviewing .
court is bound by the trial court's determination of facts, but not by the trial court's
"inferences, deductions and conclusions." Id.'7
r,
{ii
\.Pl
"[T]he focus of dependency proceedings is upon the best interest of the children
and that those considerations supersede all other concerns, 'including the conduct and the
rights of the parents." Id. "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that
the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id.· Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 635l(f), the following matters are to be determined at a
permanency review hearing:
"(I) 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.
(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. I) Whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency
plan in effect.
( 6) Whether the child is safe.
(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."
42 Pa.CS.§ 6351(1)(1)-(6) and (9).
Upon review of the forgoing, the court shall determine one of the following:
'8
, ..:,
....
"(l) If and when the child wil1 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 for 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 the 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."
42 Pa.CS.§ 6351([.J).
"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 controlledsubstance 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." 42 Pa. CS. §
6351(!.2).
"While not required by Pennsylvania statute or rule of court, the request to change
a goal can come in many forms ... nothing precludes the court from initiating a change of
goal." In the Interest ofL.T, at 1278.
'9
r,
d.
1. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider the
failures of the agency in providing services when changing the goal.
It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider
the failures of the agency in providing services when changing the goal. Contrary to
V:,'. Mother's assertion that the agency failed to provide services to her, the record indicates
LFl
0
di that Mother was receiving services with Catholic Charities as of the date of the
Permanency Review Hearing held on November 26, 2019. David Kansburg, a family
advocate, of Catholic Charities has been working with Mother on housing, employment,
stabilization, and drug and alcohol treatment. Report to the Court for Permanency
Review Hearing, p. 2, 11/20/2019. Mr. Kansburg testified at the hearing that since the
previous hearing held on or about September 12, 2019, he had only met with Mother four
(4) times, and Mother had cancelled six (6) appointments with him. He added that
Catholic Charities' policy was to end services after three (3) missed appointments, but as
a courtesy to Mother, he was keeping her services open with the understanding that he
would be terminating services if she missed anymore appointments. Hr'g Tr., p. 13-15.
It is noted that Mother completed the Nurturing Skills Competency Assessment with
Catholic Charities in August of 2019, further evidencing that Mother was receiving
services, as directed by the agency. Therefore, the Court did not commit an abuse of
discretion, because it is reasonably ascertained from the record that the agency did not
fail to provide services to Mother, as she was working with Mr. Kansburg from Catholic
· 10
::::;
•.JI
···.;I
�'J
,.
Charities for several months prior to the Permanency Review Hearing on November 26,
2019.
1./1 2. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in changing the court ordered
goal i11 spite of York County Children Youth and Family's position that the
goal should not be changed.
It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in changing the court
ordered goal in spite of York County Children Youth and Family's position that the goal
should not be changed. As stated above, the Court may initiate a change of goal, without
the recommendation of the agency. In this case, the Children were placed on August 2,
2018, and adjudicated on August 27, 2018. The reason for the adjudication was Mother's
substance abuse, specifically crack/cocaine and Father's whereabouts being unknown.
As of the Permanency Review Hearing held on November 26, 2019, the Children had
been adjudicated 15 months and the conditions which led to the adjudication still existed,
specifically, Mother was continuing to test positive for drugs and Father, while located
and present at the hearing, indicated that he was not a resource for the Children.
It is stated in the Permanency Review Orders dated November 26, 2019, that with
respect to Mother, "There has been minimal compliance with the permanency plan, in
that Mother was referred to and working with Catholic Charities." Permanency Review
Orders, November 26, 2019. Mr. Kansburg from Catholic Charities testified at the
hearing that since the previous hearing held on or about September 12, 2019, he had only
met with Mother four (4) times, and Mother had cancelled six (6) appointments with him.
· 11
(./1
r,
Hr'g Tr., p. 13-15. The Permanency Review Orders dated November 26, 2019, further
indicated that Mother "does continue drug testing through Families United Network."
I_Ti Permanency Review Orders, November 26, 2019. At the hearing, Ms. Lopez from
Families United Network testified that Mother was tested two (2) times per week. Hr 's
Tr., p. 19. Ms. Lopez further testified that since the prior hearing on September 12, 2019,
Mother had tested positive for THC on September 12, 2019 and positive for cocaine,
THC and opiates on October 2, 2019. Id at 20. Mother claims that she had a
prescription for the positive test on October 2, 2019, but did not provide the prescription
to Families United Network. Id.
Therefore, the Court did not commit. an abuse of discretion in changing the
court ordered goal in spite of York County Children Youth and Family's position that the
goal should not be changed, because Mother has not made progress towards alleviating
the circumstances which necessitated the original placement, nor has she complied with
the permanency plan developed for the Children in the past 15 of the last 22 months that
the Children have been in placement.
3. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in/ailing to consider Mother's
medical condition when changing the court ordered.goal:
It _is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider
Mother's medical condition when changing the court ordered goal. The Court is not
unsympathetic to Mother's medical condition, that does not alleviate Mother's
responsibility to keep Families United Network, and the Agency, informed of any and all
'12
r,
C•
•.....;j
!·-...)
C•
medications that Mother is taking which may cause her to have a positive drug test.
Additionally, prescription drugs were not the only substances which Mother tested
LTi
positive for on October 2, 2019. Mother has a long history of substance abuse and it
(Y.•.
appears to the Court that she continues with struggle with her addiction. Therefore, the
..
1,,n
Q Court did not commit an abuse of discretion in failing to consider Mother's medical
d�
151
condition when changing the court ordered goal, because Mother continues to test
positive for substances which are not prescribed substances, and further Mother has failed
to provide to Families United Network and the Agency proof of her prescription
medications.
4. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in finding that the changing of
the Court ordered goal was in the best interest of the children despite the
parental bond between Mother and the children.
It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in the finding that the
changing of the court ordered goal was in the best interest of the Children despite the
parental bond between Mother and the Children. While the bond between parent and
child is considered, _it is only one of the factors which the Court considers. The bond
between Mother and the Children is in Mother's favor, however, Mother's past and
continued lack of progress weighs heavily against Mother.
Attached to the Order of Adjudication and Disposition entered for each child was
an Appendix of Court Ordered Services and Conditions, wherein Mother was to complete
a mental health assessment, cooperate with random drug tests, cooperate with an in-home
,13
team, cooperate with individual drug and alcohol counseling, and cooperate with group
drug and alcohol counseling. Additionally, Mother was to cooperate with supervised
lJj visits with the Children, maintain safe, stable, and appropriate housing for the children,
and maintain stable and lawful income to support the children. Order ofAdjudication
and Disposition, August 27, 2019.
Q'•
As of the date of the Permanency Review Hearing on November 26, 2019,
Mother has continually failed to alleviate the circumstances which necessitated the
original placement, and she has not complied with the permanency plan developed for the
Children in the past 15 of the last 22 months that the Children have been in placement.
Specifically, over the past 15 months, Mother has repeatedly and continually tested
positive for drugs, other than prescription drugs (which she does not always provide a
prescription for); Mother has failed to maintain stable employment; Mother has failed to
obtain and maintain stable housing; and Mother has failed to cooperate with services.
Returning the Children to Mother under the stated circumstances would not be in the
Children's best interest. "The courts of this Commonwealth have long held that a child's
life 'simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that [she] will summon the ability to handle
the responsibilities of parenting. [ A ]dequate parenting requires action as well as intent."
In Re Z.S. W, 946 A.2d 726, 732 (Pa.Super. 2008). Mother states that she intends to put
in the work and effort to be reunified with the Children, but she consistently does· not
follow through with actions.
·14
r,
lfl
C'•
··.-.,j
�-..:•.
r,.;,.
Therefore, the Court did not commit an abuse of discretion in the finding that
the changing of the court ordered goal was in the best interest of the Children despite the
parental bond between Mother and the Children, because Mother has failed to alleviate
the circumstances which necessitated the original placement, and she has not.complied
with the permanency plan developed for the Children.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby reaffirms its Order dated November
26, 2019, changing the Court ordered goal from reunification to adoption.
BY THE COURT,
ES,JUDGE
· 15
Circulated 04/16/2020 04:42 PM
(/1
. r,
lf!
(·'•
-�-,1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
i--';
0.;,. IN THE INTEREST OF: No. CP-67-DP-26l-2018 .
{<.J:.
�·-
\f-1
MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE
1925{a}(2)(ii) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2020, the Court is in receipt of Mother's
I..C Notice of Appeal and Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Rule 1925 of the
'
-..
N l
C"'.'.
c:r->- 1
- - --
1-'
'
-. -· Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court hereby reaffirms its Order dated
I
·1- r ...
:.:.: L�J �1'::
' c.,
,·· ... : ! J '·
November 26, 2019, changing the Court ordered goal from reunification to adoption.
�?f:;
1 ·.ti..,.,) .. ,_J r-
i
-·., -
'
::-!!'.:
f;�;�c�
---·, ::.:::>
.,:,:;:::
LI
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL IDSTORY
L,.: > =
= s.� \'!\ ,. ��
(",J
C°',J (hereinafter "Mother") and · . (hereinafter
"Father"), are the natural parents or- � ,r. , born November . 2014; and·
T. F.. , born August : 2013 (hereinafter collectively the "Children", or individually by
name). On or about August 1,- 2018, an Application for Emergency Protective Custody
was entered regarding .. . J< , r=: . \ setting forth the following allegations:
"1. YCOCYF had prior involvement with the family and half siblings,
[K.L.] and [P.B.], due to substance abuse by mother[.]
2. On July 17, 2018, YCOCYF received a referral regarding the
minor child, :� ·1<.. P"� -; ': and her sibling, · -·-"--f. F� due to allegations of
substance abuse by the mother; those · children are with maternal relatives in
Pennsylvania and three other siblings are with paternal friends in Ohio.
. 1
U'!
·c,
·--.:I
3. The mother has a past history of drug usage, her drugs of choice
being heroin and crack cocaine.
1-'-:
v.;•. 4. Allegedly, the mother had been "clean" for four (4) years;
l)'i
however, information received was that recently the mother had relapsed and was
().:•. using crack cocaine.
5. The mother was residing at the Rodeway Inn with her significant
other, . .: 11).'l).. r and the minor children, T. � . and t< � \=:
6. YCOCYF went to the Rodeway Inn accompanied by a York City
Police Officer at which time the mother was found sitting outside the motel room;
the mother did not appear to be under the influence of any substances.
7. Due to the allegations, YCOCYF requested that the mother submit
to a drug screen; however, the mother refused to submit to a drug screen.
8. YCOCYF contacted the mother's probation officer who told the
mother that she was required to submit to the drug test; the mother agreed to the
test, but could not provide a urine sample.
9. The mother admitted to the caseworker and the drug tester that she
had smoked crack cocaine; the drug tester told the mother they would return in
three (3) hours to complete the testing.
10. Later that day, the drug tester returned to the Rodeway Inn, but the
mother was not there and her whereabouts were unknown.
11. The children were left by the mother in the custody of her
significant other, 1).1). , who advised YCOCYF that the mother had
signed over guardianship of the minor child and sibling; Y�OCYF learned that
the mother did not execute any guardianship paperwork.
12. The mother advised YCOCYF that .she bad an appointment with
her probation officer at 10:00 a.m.; she also advised her probation officer that she
had an appointment with YCOCYF at the same time as her probation
appointment; YCO�YF did not have a scheduled appointment with the mother.
'13. On July 20, 2018, YCOCYF spoke with the mother's significant
other who was staying at the Super 8 Motel with the_ minor child and sibling, and
. 2
c,;·
!-<;
I·}
C•.
reported that the mother had gone inpatient at White Deer Run; however,
YCOCYF later learned that the mother did not enter the inpatient treatment
program until July 21, 2018.
14. The exact whereabouts of the father are currently unknown and
there are allegations that the father may also have substance abuse issues.
0··
i.n'· 15. The mother's significant other, b. D... ,, contacted
YCOOCYF asking for financial assistance with the children, then stated he was
unable to continue to care for the children.
16. YCOCYF .learned that , i).1),. has a lengthy criminal history in
the State of Maryland; it is believed that he may have an outstanding warrant from
Philadelphia County, PA.
17. YCOCYF has concerns for the safety of the minor child in the
custody of the parents and mother's significant other.
18. YCOCYF will also be filing an Application for Emergency
Protective Custody regarding the sibling, 1, � _ contemporaneously
herewith."
Application/or Emergency Protective Custody, p. 3-4, August 1, 2018.
The Children were adjudicated on August 27, 2018, and placed with family
friends, . A. c; \ and N-, c'f : Order ofAdjudication and Disposition,
August 27, 2018. On October 16, 2018, Upon motion by YCOCYF, the Children were
placed in foster care with - M--. R,. · _r and· b. 'Q.. . .s. Order Regarding
Modification a/Child's Placement, October 16, 2018. Shortly thereafter, the first status
review hearing in this matter was held on October 31, 2018, at which time Mother's
progress was moderate. The Status Review Order dated October 31, 2018, states as
follows:
' 3
·�.;!
"Mother was in treatment at White Deer Run. She reports that she
successfully completed the program. She will provide a certificate of
completion to the Agency. She then went to Seize the Day and completed
90 days there. She was concerned about_ the amount of relapse in the
VI program so she transferred to Sober Living where she is currently living.
She [is] completing IOP there tomorrow. She is required to be sober and
have a job to remain there. She is stepping down to Blue Prints outpatient
tJ'I
therapy tomorrow ... Mother is drug tested by Probation, Sober Living, and
2•. · the Agency. FUN was not present at this hearing to present evidence of
.!::!; Mother's testing ... Mother attends !OP and Group · therapy
Q. 3xs/week .... Mother just started orientation for Aerotek to begin work
soon. She was assigned a team from Pressley Ridge to supervise her
visitation. Mother missed two intake appointments scheduled for 10/26
and 10/29/18 ... She did not contact PR before missing the appointments.
She is to meet with PR today to schedule twice weekly supervised
visitation. She has not had a visit since 10/10/18." ·
Status Review Order, October 31, 2018.
Additionally, it is noted in the said order that "The Hearing Officer drove home the need
for Mother to be cooperative and consistent with services and the possible consequences
if she is not. The Agency also needs to be consistent in their provision of services and
maintenance of communication." Id. Finally, the Children had made substantial
progress in their new foster care placement with M.R;,10.Id.A status review hearing was held on or about March 20, 2019, and it was
indicated that the Children continue to do well in their foster care placement. Status
Review Order, MarchZll, 2019. The Status Review Order dated March 20, 2019,
provides as follows with respect to Mother:
"Mother is employed full-time through a temp agency at RHI
Magnesita. Mother was cooperative with the Pressley Ridge Team who
supervised 23 visits ... and report that all was going well with visits. PR
closed unsuccessfully on March 11, 2019 due to missed appointments or
late appearances. To date, Mother has not acquired stable housing. Since
January 22, 2019, F.U.N. has attempted random drug tests of Mother. In
16 attempts Mother has been unavailable 16 times. Today she tested
positive for Adderall and THC. She referred to a prescription, but did not
produce a prescription from Dr. James at Recovery Wellness Center."
A permanency review hearing was held on or about June 19, 2019; at which time
it was indicated that the Children were continuing to do well in their foster care
placement; however, Mother was not in compliance with the permanency plan and still
had no acquired appropriate housing for the Children. Permanency Review Order, June
19, 2019. Further, Mother did not appear for six out of eight scheduled drug tests; and
' 5
on May 13, 2019 and May ·23, 2019 Mother tested positive for THC. Id Lastly,
Mother's visits with the Children are being supervised by maternal grandmother. Id.At the status review hearing held on or about July 25, 2019, Mother provided
proof of current employment through Triple D Restaurants, and indicated that she was
continuing to seek appropriate housing for the Children. Status Review Order, July 25,
2019. Mother began working with Catholic Charities to seek housing and assist her with
maintaining a budget and other financial matters. id. Mother tested positive twice for
THC and buprenorephine (for which she has no prescription) on July 25, 2019, the same
day as the hearing. Id. At the next status review hearing held on or about September 12,
2019, it was reported to the Court that Mother continues to test positive for substances
other than prescribed drugs. Since July 25, 2019, there were 14 attempts to test, Mother
tested positivefor THC four (4) times, refused one time, was unavailable seven (7) times,
and unable to provide a sample two (2) times. Status Review Order, September 12,
2019. Throughout the reporting period, the Children· continue to do well in their foster
care placement. Id.The Permanency Review Orders dated November 26, 2019 subject to this appeal
were the result of a permanency review hearing held on the same date. With respect to
Mother, "[t]here ha[d] been minimal compliance with the permanency plan."
Permanency Review Orders, November 26, 2019. Testimony was also offered at the
. 6
hearing that Mother continued to fail drug tests and continued to be uncooperative with
services.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
The following issues are raised in Appellant's l 925b Statement, each will be
c,,;,_
lfi
'·
discussed in turn below:
1. The Court committed an abuse ofdiscretion in failing to consider the
failures ofthe agency in providing services when changing the goal.
2. The Court committed an abuse ofdiscretion in changing the court
ordered goal in spite of York County Children Youth and Family's
position that the goal should not be changed.
3. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider
Mother's medical condition when changing the court ordered goal.
4. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in finding that the
changing of the Court ordered goal was in the best interest of the
children despite the parental bond between Mother and the children.
DISCUSSION
"In cases involving a court's order changing the [court-ordered] goal ... to
adoption, [the] standard of review is abuse of discretion. To hold that the trial court
abused its discretion, we must determine its judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that
the court disregarded the law, or that its action was the result of partiality, prejudice, bias,
or ill will." In the Interest ofL.T., 158 A.3d 1266, 1276 (Pa.Super. 2017). The reviewing
court is bound by the trial court's determination of facts, but not by the trial court's
"inferences, deductions and conclusions." Id.. 7
v,,
o.
>I
"[T]he focus of dependency proceedings is upon the best interest of the children
and that those considerations supersede all other concerns, 'including the conduct and the
III rights of the parents." Id. "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that
0).
the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id.Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 635l(f), the following matters are to be determined at a
permanency review hearing:
"(I) 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 origina] placement.
(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.
(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."
42 Pa.CS.§ 6351(1)(1)-(6) and (9).
Upon review of the forgoing, the court shall determine one of the following:
. 8
r·-__;,_
q
,...j_
"(l) 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.
1..!J
(2) If and when the child will be placed for adoption, and the county
o:, agency will file for termination of parental rights in cases where return to the
child's parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited for 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 the 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."
42 Pa.CS.§ 635l(f.l).
"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." 42 Pa.CS.§
635J(f.2).
"While not required by Pennsylvania statute or rule of court, the request to change
a goal can come in many forms ... nothing precludes the court from initiating a change of
goal." In the Interest ofL.T., at 1278.
' 9
v,,
r,
!))
:::;
V'I
1. The Court committed an abuse of discretion infailing to consider the
failures of the agency in providing services when changing the goal
....,.t
,'
��' It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider
lf'I
o;, the failures of the. agency in providing services when changing the goal. Contrary to .
Mother's assertion that the agency failed to provide services to her, the record indicates
that Mother was receiving services with Catholic Charities as of the date of the
Permanency Review Hearing held on November 26, 2019. David Kansburg, a family
advocate, of Catholic Charities has been working with Mother on housing, employment,
stabilization, and drug and alcohol treatment. Report to the Court for Permanency
Review Hearing, p.i11/20/2019. Mr. Kansburg testified at the hearing that since the
previous hearing held on or about September 12, 2019, he had only met with Mother four
(4) times, and Mother had cancelled six ( 6) appointments with him. He added that
Catholic Charities' policy was to end services after three (3) missed appointments, but as
a courtesy to Mother, he was keeping her services open with the understanding that he
would be terminating services if she missed anymore appointments. Hr'g Tr., p.13-15.
It is noted that Mother completed the Nurturing Skills Competency Assessment with
Catholic Charities in August of 2019, further evidencing that Mother was receiving
services, as directed by the agency. Therefore, the Court did not commit an abuse of
discretion, because it is reasonably ascertained from the record that the agency did not
fail to provide services to Mother, as she was working with Mr. Kansburg from Catholic
· 10
d
i--1.:
Charities for several months prior to the Permanency Review Hearing on November 26,
2019.
2. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in changing the court ordered
O:•. goal in spite of York County Children Youth and Family's position that the
goal should not be changed.
.It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in changing the court
ordered goal in spite of York County Children Youth and Family's position that the goal
should not be changed. As stated above, the Court may initiate a change of goal, without
the recommendation of the agency. In this case, the Children were placed on August 2,
2018, and adjudicated on August 27, 2018. The reason for the adjudication was Mother's
substance abuse, specifically crack/cocaine and Father's whereabouts being unknown.
As of the Permanency Review Hearing held on.November 26, 2019, the Children had
been adjudicated 15 months and the conditions which led to the adjudication still existed,
specifically, Mother was continuing to test positive for drugs and Father, while located
and present at the hearing, indicated that he was not a resource for the Children.
It is stated in the Permanency Review Orders dated November 26, 2019, that with
respect to Mother, "There has been minimal compliance with the permanency plan, in
that Mother was referred to and working with Catholic Charities." Permanency Review
Orders, November 26, 2019. Mr. Kansburg from Catholic Charities testified at the
hearing that since the previous hearing held on or about September 12, 2019, he had only
met with Mother four (4) times, and Mother had cancelled six (6) appointments with him.
'11
v,
Q·
··-.:.{
r..:.,.
Hr 's Tr., p. 13-15. The Permanency Review Orders dated November 26, 2019, further
indicated that Mother "does continue drug testing through Families United Network."
. :f1 Permanency Review Orders, November 26, 2019. At the hearing, Ms. Lopez from
o�.
Families United Network testified that Mother was tested two (2) times per week. Hr 'g
Tr., p. 19. Ms. Lopez further testified that since the prior hearing on September 12, 2019,
Mother had tested positive for THC on September 12, 2019 and positive for cocaine,
THC and opiates on October 2, 2019. Id. at 20. Mother claims that she had a
prescription for the positive test on October 2, 2019, but did not provide the prescription
to Families United Network. Id.
Therefore, the Court did not commit. an abuse of discretion in changing the
court ordered goal in spite of York County Children Youth and Family's position that the
goal should not be changed, because Mother has not made progress towards alleviating
the circumstances which necessitated the original placement, nor has she complied with
the permanency plan developed for the Children in the past 15 of the last 22 months that
the Children have been in placement.
3. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider Mother's
medical condition when changing the court ordered goal
It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to consider
Mother's medical condition when changing the court ordered goal. The Court is not
unsympathetic to Mother's medical condition, that does not alleviate Mother's
responsibility to keep Families United Network, and the Agency, informed of any and all
. 12
c,_
--�.,
medications that Mother is taking which may cause her to have a positive drug test.
Additionally, prescription drugs were not the only substances which Mother tested
1.i-1
positive for on October 2, 2019. Mother has a long history of substance abuse and it
co.
appears to the Court that she continues with struggle with her addiction. Therefore, the
(�':
,.n
G).
Court did not commit an abuse of discretion in failing to consider Mother's medical
condition when changing the court ordered goal, because Mother continues to test
positive for substances which are not prescribed substances, and further Mother has failed
to provide to Families United Network andthe Agency proof of her prescription
medications.
4. The Court committed an abuse of discretion in finding that the changing of
the Court ordered goal was in the best interest of the children despite the
parental bond between Mother and the children.
It is denied that the Court committed an abuse of discretion in the finding that the
changing of the court ordered goal was in the best interest of the Children despite the
parental bond between Mother and the Children. While the bond between parent and
child is considered, it is only one of the factors which the Court considers. The bond
between Mother and the Children is in Mother's favor, however, Mother's past and
continued lack of progress weighs heavily against Mother.
Attached to the Order of Adjudication and Disposition entered for each child was
an Appendix of Court Ordered Services and Conditions, wherein Mother was to complete
a mental health assessment, cooperate with random drug tests, cooperate with an in-home
'13
team, cooperate with individual drug and alcohol counseling, and cooperate with group
drug and alcohol counseling. Additionally, Mother was to cooperate with supervised
visits with the Children, maintain safe, stable, and appropriate housing for the children,
CG•
and maintain stable and lawful income to support the children. Order ofAdjudication
and Disposition, August 27, 2019.
As of the date of the Permanency Review Hearing on November 26, 2019,
Mother has continually failed to alleviatethe circumstances which necessitated the
original placement, and she has not complied with the permanency plan developed for the
Children in the past 15 of the last 22 months that the Children have been in placement.
Specifically, over the past 15 months, Mother has repeatedly and continually tested
positive for drugs, other than prescription drugs (which she does not always provide a
prescription for); Mother has failed to maintain stable employment; Mother has failed to
obtain and maintain stable housing; and Mother has failed to cooperate with services.
Returning the Children to Mother under the stated circumstances would not be in the
Children's best interest, "The courts of this Commonwealth have long held that a child's
life 'simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that [she) will summon the ability to handle
the responsibilities of parenting. [A)dequate parenting requires action as well as intent."
In Re Z.S. W, 946 A.2d 726, 732 (Pa.Super. 2008). Mother states that she intends to put
in the work and effort to be reunified with the Children, but she consistently does not
follow through with actions.
'14
,-,
0
·-.;J
Therefore, the Court did not commit an abuse of discretion in the finding that
the changing of the court ordered goal was in the best interest of the Children despite the
parental bond between Mother and the Children, because Mother has failed to alleviate
the circumstances which necessitated the original placement, and she has not complied
with the permanency plan developed for the Children.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby reaffirms its Order dated November
26, 2019, changing the Court ordered goal from reunification to adoption.
BY THE COURT,
.i->:
· 15