In the Int. of A.H., Appeal of: M.H. ( 2022 )

J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1013 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-04-DP-0000012-2020,
Juvenile No.35-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.H., JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1014 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at
No(s): CP-04-DP-0000011-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1052 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at
No(s): Docket No. CP-04-DP-0000012-2020,
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
FID# 04-FN-000004-2010, Juvenile No. 35-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.H., JR., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1053 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at
No(s): cp-04-dp-0000011-2020
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: JANUARY 25, 2022
M.H. (“Father”) and S.L. (“Mother”) (“Parent” or “Parents”) appeal from
the orders, entered on August 4, 2021, changing the permanency placement
goal for the parties’ two dependent children, M.H., Jr. (born in March of 2019)
and A.H. (born in February of 2020) (“Child” or “Children”) from reunification
to adoption.1 Following our review, we affirm.
In March of 2020, the Children were deemed dependent and were placed
in non-kinship foster care where they have remained during the entire
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1Both Parents filed appeals from the separate orders issued by the trial court
as to each Child. The trial court issued a single Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on
September 28, 2021, setting forth an extensive discussion of the facts and
procedure involved in this case and directing its discussion at issues raised by
both Father and Mother. Therefore, because this single opinion relates to both
Parents, we have consolidated Father’s and Mother’s appeals for purposes of
appellate review.
-2-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
pendency of this matter. Permanency review hearings were held on June 11,
2020, October 21, 2020, January 7, 2021, January 11, 2021, April 5, 2021,
and August 2, 2021. The Beaver County Children and Youth Services Agency
(“Agency”) requested that a change of goal to adoption be considered by the
trial court at the August 2nd permanency review hearing. The resulting orders
changing the goals for Children are at the heart of this appeal.
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court summarized its findings
of fact as follows:
The [c]ourt acknowledged that a crossroads was reached in this
case and in the lives of the Children. At times when the Parents
were found to be improving their condition, they shortly regressed
and relapsed. The relapses and regressions were only part of the
problems. The other aspect of that conduct was that the [P]arents
did not seriously avail themselves to the treatment offered to
them even though it was made clear to them by the [c]ourt that
addiction was treated as an illness, which if disclosed properly,
could be properly treated.
[] Father chose to utilize O.A.R.S. for his therapy, his counseling
and to obtain his Suboxone. However, even though he was to be
receiving Suboxone for his treatment, he did not test positive for
that substance on the day of the [h]earing.
Father has a twelve (12) year history of drug abuse[,] yet he
chose to participate in therapy that did not fully address his
addiction. Father has not committed to fully addressing his
addiction issue and … the limited therapies/counseling that he
does receive is of minimal benefit and is a necessary precondition
to Father[’s] receiving his Suboxone.
Father was still not serious about addressing his addiction issue.
A specific finding was made that Father had his Suboxone out and
near the face of M.H., Jr., when Father was sitting on the couch
with the minor.
-3-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
The [c]ourt found that Father specifically relapsed in May of
2021[,] and he continued to exhibit a lack of real commitment to
learning to treat his addiction. The [c]ourt concluded that the
once[-]a[-]month therapy, [and] sporadic A.A./N.A. meetings[,]
were not comprehensive enough to deal with the scope of Father’s
addiction. The [c]ourt also found that Father knew that Mother
was also in active addiction and[] that Mother knew that Father
was in active addiction. However, neither Parent reported the
addiction issues to anyone so that proper treatment could be
obtained or that a safety plan could be put in place if the [P]arents
were using. The Parents were found to be using drugs during
times that they were visiting with the Children and that the
Children were at risk of being improperly attended to during the
visits in which the Parents were actively using.
Mother was in an inpatient facility for twenty-eight (28) days and
during that time, Father did not call the Foster Family at all. He
showed no concern for the care or well-being of the Children
during this twenty-eight (28) day period.
Both Mother and Father had no supports in place to whom they
could go during times that they were using and the Children were
to be in their custody. Further, the Parents showed no willingness
or ability to inform others of the times that they were using so
that other supports could attend to the Children during those
times.
With regard to Mother, the [c]ourt found that Mother was using
drugs prior to the time that she began her inpatient therapy. She
was using those drugs without disclosing it to the Agency or any
other party that could have provided support or care. Further,
Father was aware that Mother was using and Father told nobody
of her serious and active addiction.
Mother missed numerous drug screens and refused to take
scheduled drug screens. All of the screens that she refused to
take and those screens for which she failed to show up for were
deemed to be positive responses.
Mother was found to utilize family resources to obtain drugs and
Mother continued to attend visits with the Children while she was
under the influence of drugs and that this was a three (3) to four
(4) times a week occurrence.
-4-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
It was acknowledged that Mother was treated at an inpatient
rehabilitation facility for twenty-eight (28) days, a portion of which
was used for detox. After Mother was released from inpatient
treatment, she did not follow the discharge instructions which
required intensive outpatient treatment: Her only follow-up action
was to attend an evaluation that occurred one (1) week before the
Permanency Review Hearing. For approximately one and one[-
]half (1½) months after her discharge, she took no action to
follow-up with her discharge instructions. A recent drug screen
was positive for Suboxone even though it had been more than
three (3) or four (4) months since Mother received her last
Suboxone injection. The [c]ourt found incredible Mother’s
testimony that Suboxone was in her system as a result of the
March[] 2021 injection and Mother’s reasons for failing to attend
the intensive outpatient treatment. The [c]ourt found that Mother
was not serious about her drug and alcohol treatment. Mother
was aware that she had been through at least two (2)
unsuccessful inpatient treatments, but [she] still did not comply
with the discharge instructions[,] which required intensive
outpatient treatment. The [c]ourt found that Mother was not
committed to her mental health or drug and alcohol treatment and
that, to the contrary, she was still going through the motions as
opposed to taking that treatment seriously. The [c]ourt found
that Father’s trigger for drug use was noted to be boredom and
that Mother’s trigger was when her mental health was off[;] she
used drugs to deal with her mental condition. The [c]ourt then
found that relapses for both Mother and Father were on the
precipice of happening again because of the lack of seriousness
that each Parent devoted to their treatment endeavors for which
they failed to make a real and serious commitment.
The [c]ourt’s finding included its conclusion that the reoccurring
use of drugs for the Parents was something that the Parents have
not been able to address and that relapse was a predictable event
in light of the Parent[s’] failure to commit to treatment. The
Parents were found incapable of being able to address the safety
and care of the Children while they were using because of an
inability to put a safety plan in place in the event that there was
a relapse. The Parents’ drug use and relapses were found to be a
repeating cycle that the Parents did not address.
. . .
-5-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
The findings [in the August 3, 2021 permanency review order]
were stated on the record and are incorporated into this decision.
In summary, both Parents recently relapsed at a time when visits
with the Children were to increase. Each Parent knew that the
other was in active addition and neither Parent notified the Agency
or another responsible adult so that other accommodations for the
Children could be made when they were using. Father’s main drug
treatment is a once[-]a[-]month therapy session that is required
for him to receive his Suboxone. Mother went through inpatient
treatment for twenty-four (24) days beginning May 24, 2021. She
did not commit to the recommended discharge treatment of
intensive outpatient treatment and only obtained her evaluation
on July 26, 2021, one (1) week before the Change of Goal Hearing.
When … [M]other was doing her inpatient treatment, Father never
called the Foster Parents to check on the Children. Father has
never called the Foster Parents to check on the Children. During
a June visit, Father exposed one Child to a [S]uboxone strip under
circumstances where he was sitting with the Child and opening a
[S]uboxone strip at that time.
The domestic violence between Mother and Father has once again
become more prevalent even during visits with the Children.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 9/28/2021, at 25-29 (footnotes to record omitted).
The court then explained its reasoning as follows:
In this case, the court made specific findings that Mother
and Father were not in compliance with the Family Service Plan,
as Mother and Father both failed to undergo and comply with their
drug and alcohol treatment[.] Parents both relapsed
notwithstanding their treatment, the domestic violence between
Parents was again becoming more prevalent[,] including during
times when the Parents are visiting with the Children, and Father
exposed one child to a [S]uboxone strip during one of the visits.
Parents were not making progress. The [c]ourt found that Mother
and Father both relapsed and have not tried to implement the
skills taught in their respective drug and alcohol treatment despite
positive prodding by the [c]ourt and the caseworker. The
caseworker followed up with the mental health and drug and
alcohol providers and she tried to persuade Parents to engage with
those providers. In this case, everything was in place for Parents
to work on the services that the Agency deemed appropriate for
-6-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
the Children to be returned to Parents. As the trial court found,
Parents minimally complied with the Service Plan and were
making merely moderate progress toward alleviating the
conditions which led to the Children[’s] being removed from the
care of Parents. The Children have been in foster care for
seventeen (17) months and Mother is still not cooperating with
the Agency and Father continues to reside with Mother.
. . .
In the instant case, both Parents have recently relapsed.
Mother continues to refuse to cooperate with the Agency. Mother
never made any effort to check on the Children while she was in
inpatient treatment. Father does not and has not ever made any
effort to check on the Children. Parents continuously refuse to
submit to random drug screens.
Parents have not sufficiently engaged in drug and alcohol
counseling. Father’s minimal attempt to complete drug and
alcohol treatment is attending a monthly medication management
appointment, which he is not consistently attending. This is not
in compliance with the court[-o]rdered drug and alcohol treatment
and the Family Service Plan requirements. Mother completed
inpatient drug treatment, but failed to comply with the
requirement that she attend intensive outpatient treatment upon
discharge. Mother instead, on the eve of the goal change hearing,
obtained another independent drug and alcohol evaluation from
another provider that recommended the same level of treatment
as her prior discharge from inpatient treatment.
Although Parents have maintained stable housing
throughout the pendency of this action[, they] are prone to
domestic violence incidents, which have become more prevalent
in the past few months, including … at times when the Parents are
visiting with the Children.
Id. at 36-37, 38-39.
Based on these findings, the trial court determined the goal for the
Children should be changed to adoption. Each Parent filed appeals from the
-7-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
orders entered by the trial court relating to each Child. Both Parents also filed
concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.
Father raises the following issues in his brief to this Court:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that the permanency goal
of the above cases should be from reunification to adoption?
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that [Father] made minimal
progress in alleviating the circumstances that necessitated
placement of the [C]hildren at issue?
3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that [Father] was
moderately compliant with the permanency plan?
Father’s brief at 1. In her brief, Mother raises three issues:
1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion
when the trial court found a goal change appropriate when
there was insufficient evidence presented to the [t]rial [c]ourt
to support the finding that the current placement goal was not
appropriate and/or feasible.
2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion
when the trial court found Mother made minimal progress in
alleviating the circumstances that necessitated placement.
3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion
when the trial court found Mother was moderately compliant
with the permanency plan.
Mother’s brief at 7-8.
We review issues relating to the changing of the placement goal for
Children to adoption pursuant to the following:
[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an
appellate 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.
Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion.
-8-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).
Pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.] § 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, when
considering a petition for a goal change for a dependent
child, the juvenile court is to consider, inter alia: (1) the
continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the
placement; (2) the extent of compliance with the family
service plan; (3) the extent of progress made towards
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement; (4) the appropriateness and feasibility of the
current placement goal for the children; (5) a likely date by
which the goal for the child might be achieved; (6) the
child’s safety; and (7) whether the child has been in
placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months.
The best interests of the child, and not the interests of the
parent, must guide the trial court. As this Court has held, 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.
In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088-89 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations
and quotation marks omitted).
In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 908 (Pa. Super. 2017).
Having reviewed the record and the statutory directives governing a
goal change, we determine that the findings support the conclusion that
reunification of Children with Parents is not a realistic goal. The court took
into account the entire history of this case and noted the period of time that
the Children have been in placement. The court also recognized Mother’s
mental health issues and both Parents’ drug and alcohol problems, noting that
despite the services provided and/or offered throughout the history of this
matter, the Parents have been unable to maintain a safe environment for the
Children.
-9-
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
Our Supreme Court in R.J.T. discusses why this Court must employ an
abuse of discretion standard of review when these types of cases are before
us. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. Noting that appellate courts are not in a position
to make fact-specific determinations, the Supreme Court stated:
Not only are our trial judges observing the parties during the
hearing, but usually, … they have presided over several other
hearings with the same parties and have a longitudinal
understanding of the case and the best interests of the individual
child involved. Thus, we must defer to the trial judges who 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. Even if an appellate
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.
Both Mother and Father are primarily seeking to have this Court reweigh
the evidence in a light more favorable to them individually. However, it is
beyond our purview to disturb the credibility determinations of the trial court
when the testimony relied upon is supported in the record. The trial court was
free to conclude that neither Mother nor Father were likely to remedy their
issues in the near future and, thus, the permanency needs of Children dictate
changing their goal to adoption. The trial court gave reasons for its
determination that adoption was the appropriate goal for these Children. The
reasons are based upon the evidence of record. Finally, we are aware that
the “[s]afety, permanency, and well-being of the child[ren] must take
precedence over all other considerations, including the rights of the parents.”
- 10 -
J-S38001-21
J-S38002-21
In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2006) (emphasis in original). The
goal of adoption will end Children’s languishing in limbo. Accordingly, we
conclude that the trial court did not err in ordering the change of goal for both
Children from reunification to adoption.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/25/2022
- 11 -