In the Interest of: W.R.B. a minor Appeal of: S.B. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-S42045-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN THE INTEREST OF: W.R.B., A MINOR               IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    APPEAL OF: S.B., MOTHER
    No. 146 WDA 2016
    Appeal from the Order January 5, 2016
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Civil Division
    at No(s): CP-7-DP-64-2013
    BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.:                   FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016
    S.B. (“Mother”) appeals from the permanency review order dated and
    entered January 5, 2016, changing the permanency goal to adoption for her
    dependent, female child, W.R.B., (“Child”) (born in February of 2012), and
    also changing the placement of Child by removing Child from the home of
    her legal custodian, D.B., who is Child’s maternal great-grandmother
    (“MGG”). The trial court order also vested legal and physical custody to Blair
    County Children Youth and Families (“BCCYF”).1 We affirm.
    The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history
    of this appeal as follows.
    On April 21, 2015, Blair County Children Youth &
    Families (hereinafter “BCCYF”) filed a Dependency Petition,
    alleging that the subject child, W.R.B., was a dependent
    child who was without proper care or control, under the
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    Child’s father, T.S. (“Father”), is not a party to this appeal, and has not
    filed a separate appeal of his own.
    J-S42045-16
    Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §6302(1). In its Dependency
    Petition, BCCYF identified S.B. as the Mother, T.S. as the
    Father, and D.B., as the Maternal Great-Grandmother of
    the subject child.     At the time of the filing of the
    Dependency Petition, the Mother and child were residing
    with D.B. [Dependency Petition, p. 5, No. 1.c.i.].
    As set forth in the Allegations of Dependency,1 BCCYF
    has a history with this family dating back to June 2012.
    The Agency received multiple reports that the Mother was
    involved in drug use; that the Mother had entered mental
    health treatment on October 16, 2012 due to superficially
    cutting herself approximately six hundred (600) hundred
    times; the Mother was arrested and placed at the Blair
    County Prison in late 2012 with the child being placed with
    the Maternal Great-Grandmother; and that upon the
    Mother’s release from prison on February 25, 2013, a
    safety plan was put into effect stating that all contact
    between the Mother and child would be supervised by the
    Maternal Great-Grandmother, and that the Mother would
    not remove the child from D.B.’s residence. [D.P., pp. 5-6,
    No. 2].
    During 2013, BCCYF received additional reports from a
    service provider, New Steps, who was providing in-home
    services, as to cluttered home conditions and the volatile
    relationship between S.B. and D.B.         Further, it was
    reported by both New Steps and Pyramid Healthcare that
    the Mother was not attending her scheduled appointments.
    On June 20, 2013, the Mother tested positive for
    marijuana and amphetamines and was detained by her
    probation officer until December 2014.[2] [D.P., p. 6, No. 2.
    h.-j.].
    The Mother also has a criminal history dating back to
    July 6, 2012, when she pled guilty to Simple Assault (M-2)
    for which she received probation.       Due to numerous
    probation violations. she was detained in prison on at least
    four (4) separate occasions.    On August 26, 2013, she
    2
    The date is an apparent clerical error, and should be December 2013.
    -2-
    J-S42045-16
    pled guilty to Retail Theft (M2) for which she received
    probation. [D.P., p. 6, No. 3.a.].
    The Dependency Petition also sets forth the Father’s
    criminal history dating back to February 2, 2011 when he
    pled guilty to Disorderly Conduct as a summary offense.
    In 2012, the Father pled guilty to Purchasing Alcoholic
    Beverage by Minor, Simple Assault and Recklessly
    Endangering Another Person. In 2013, he pled guilty to
    Criminal Mischief, Harassment and Retail Theft. In 2014,
    he pled guilty to Public Drunkenness and Theft by Unlawful
    Taking.     On March 26, 2015, he pled guilty to
    Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. [D.P., p. 6, No.
    3.b.].
    Relative to the case history giving rise to the most
    recent Dependency Petition that was filed on April 21,
    2015, BCCYF received a report that the Mother was taking
    her child with her to [a] friend’s residence while she
    smoke[d] marijuana. Following the report, a caseworker
    conducted a home visit on March 3, 2015[3] at D.B.’s
    residence[,] at which time the Mother admitted to smoking
    marijuana and that she could not understand “what the big
    deal is”. When asked to take a drug screen, the Mother
    reported that she would also test positive for street
    Subutex. The Mother indicated that she takes Subutex to
    help her stay “clean” from pain pills and that she can get
    street Subutex for free. The drug screen was positive for
    Opiates, THC and Benzodiazepines. The Mother denied
    having a drug problem. A safety plan was put into effect
    on March 3, 2015 providing that D.B. would supervise all
    contact between the Mother and child. [D.P., pp. 6-7. No.
    4.a.].
    On March 16, 2015, during an office visit with the
    family, the Mother was offered an opportunity to
    participate in the Blair County Family Drug Court Program,
    which she refused. D.B. confirmed to the caseworker that
    the Mother was taking the child places and staying the
    3
    The date should be March 13, 2015. See Dependency Adjudication Pet., p.
    1; N.T., 6/29/15, at 2-3.
    -3-
    J-S42045-16
    night. Further, BCCYF alleged that the Father had been
    minimally involved with the child. (D.P., p. 7, No. 4.b.c.).
    On May 13, 2015, BCCYF filed both an Application for
    Emergency Protective Custody and a Shelter Care
    Application. In each Application, BCCYF alleged that the
    subject child, W.R.B., was without proper care or control
    pursuant to The Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §6302(1). . . .
    The Mother requested that the matter be waived to court.
    Since the voluntary safety plan was due to expire on May
    13, 2015, and the Custody Order in effect did not prohibit
    unsupervised contact between the Mother and child, BCCYF
    filed its Applications. The Agency also reported that the
    Mother continued to test positive for illegal substances
    after the filing the Dependency Petition, and that the
    Mother continued to deny her drug use. Furthermore, the
    Mother discontinued her mental health treatment.
    This Court granted emergency protective custody on
    May 13, 2015 to the Maternal Great-Grandmother, D.B.,
    with the stipulation that the parents only have supervised
    contact with the child until the date of the
    Adjudicatory/Dispositional Hearing.
    On May 15, 2015, a Shelter Care Hearing was held[,]
    after which an Order was entered finding that sufficient
    evidence was presented to prove that return of the child to
    the home of either parent was not in the child’s best
    interest. Furthermore, the Master’s Recommendation on
    May 22, 2015 (approved as an Order of Court on May 28,
    2015) granted legal and physical custody of the child to
    D.B., and permitted only supervised contact for the
    parents.
    The Adjudicatory/Dispositional Hearing was held on
    June 29, 2015, after which an Order of Adjudication and
    Disposition - Child Dependent was entered June 30,
    2015 finding the child to be a dependent child.[4] Further,
    said Order continued legal and physical custody in D.B.,
    4
    Child was adjudicated dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1), as
    lacking proper parental care and control.
    -4-
    J-S42045-16
    and established a goal of return home to one or both
    parents, with a concurrent goal of adoption. The court
    ordered the parents to invest in all recommended services,
    including but not limited to drug and alcohol, mental health
    and re-unification services, and to comply with all
    treatment recommendations. The Order also directed that
    each parent to undergo a mental health assessment and
    follow through with all treatment and counseling that
    would be recommended. The parents were ordered to
    maintain sobriety and establish and maintain stability
    relative to housing.
    An Amended Order of Adjudication Disposition -
    Child Dependent was entered July 13, 2015.2
    On September 22, 2015, a status conference was held.
    At the time of the status conference. the Mother had
    moved back into the residence with D.B., and, therefore,
    FICS Re-unification Services were transitioned to FICS
    Preservation Services. The Father was in the Cambria
    County Prison at the time.
    On November 25, 2015, BCCYF filed its Motion for 6th
    Month Permanency/Dispositional Review Hearing/Goal
    Change.    After hearing held December 15, 2015, a
    Permanency Review Order was entered January 5, 2016,
    changing the goal to adoption, and also removing the child
    from the home of D.B. Legal and physical custody was
    vested in BCCYF.
    On January 13, 2016, the Mother, S.B., filed a Request
    for Reconsideration. On January 15, 2016, the Maternal
    Great-Grandmother,     D.B.,  filed  her    Request   for
    Reconsideration.   Oral argument on said Requests for
    Reconsideration was held on January 29, 2016, after which
    an Order was entered February 2, 2016 denying and
    dismissing both Requests.
    On January 13, 2016, the Mother filed a timely Notice of
    Appeal as a “children’s fast track appeal”, along with a
    Statement For Continuance Of In Forma Pauperis Status
    For Purposes Of Appeal (which was approved January 21,
    2016); a Concise Statement of Errors Complained Of On
    Appeal; and a Request for Transcript of both the June 29,
    -5-
    J-S42045-16
    2015 Adjudicatory Hearing and the December 12, 2015
    Permanency Review Hearing.
    On January 15, 2016, the Maternal Great-Grandmother,
    D.B., timely filed a Notice of Appeal, along with her
    Concise Statement of Errors Complaint of on Appeal and a
    Request for Transcript.
    _______________________________________________
    1
    At the time of the Adjudicatory/Dispositional Hearing, all
    parties through their legal counsel stipulated that if called
    to testify, Agency witnesses would testify consistent with
    the information set forth in the Dependency Petition,
    although not necessary [sic] to the veracity of same. [See
    Findings/Orders. #15(a)(2) of 6/30/15 Adjudicatory
    Order].
    2
    The Amended Order of July 13, 2015 was consistent with
    the prior Order of Adjudication – Child Dependent entered
    June 30, 2015, with the sole exception that we completed
    Section 5.(c)(i) - Placement in Kinship Care in the
    Amended Order.
    Trial Ct. Op., 146 WDA 2016, 2/8/16, at 1-6.5
    On appeal, Mother raises three issues, as follows:
    I. Where a parent has shown progress in compliance with
    the permanency plan developed for a child and toward
    alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the
    original placement, was it premature to enter a goal
    change to adoption after just six months of dependency of
    the child?
    II. Whether the testimony from Mother’s probation officer
    about probation violations prior to dependency and from
    Mother regarding residential history prior to dependency
    5
    On March 28, 2016, MGG filed a petition to withdraw her appeal at Docket
    No. 145 WDA 2016. This Court ordered MGG’s appeal discontinued on April
    1, 2016.
    -6-
    J-S42045-16
    were relevant to the dependency action, the goal change
    petition, and/or the change of placement of the child?
    III. Where a child has resided with the maternal great-
    grandmother for the majority of her life and there was not
    sufficient evidence that the maternal great-grandmother
    could not ensure appropriate safety of the child, was it in
    the child’s best interest to be removed from the home of
    the maternal great-grandmother?
    Mother’s Brief at 14.6
    First, Mother argues that the trial court prematurely changed the
    permanency goal for Child to adoption, only six months after the
    dependency process was in place.        Mother asserts that she had made
    progress in complying with the permanency plan and alleviating the
    circumstances that necessitated the placement. Mother states that she also
    indicated a willingness to continue with her progress. In her second issue,
    Mother claims that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing irrelevant
    evidence into the hearing.   In particular, she contends that the trial court
    improperly relied on testimony from her probation officer regarding her
    probation violations committed prior to the time of Child’s adjudication of
    dependency, as well as her history of residences before Child’s adjudication
    as dependent. In her third issue, Mother argues that the trial court erred in
    removing Child from the care and control of MGG, as the evidence showed
    that MGG was the most stable influence in Child’s young life. She asserts
    6
    Mother stated her issues somewhat differently in her concise statement.
    We, nevertheless, find them preserved for our review.
    -7-
    J-S42045-16
    that Child has a good bond with MGG, and that removing Child from
    placement with MGG was not in Child’s best interests.
    Our Supreme Court set forth our standard of review for dependency
    cases as follows.
    [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.
    In re R.J.T., 
    9 A.3d 1179
    , 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
    Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act defines a “dependent child” as 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, including evidence of the parent’s,
    guardian’s or other custodian’s use of alcohol or a
    controlled substance that places the health, safety or
    welfare of the child at risk[.]
    42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1) (emphasis added).
    In In re G., T., 
    845 A.2d 870
     (Pa. Super. 2004), this Court clarified
    the definition of “dependent child” further.
    “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.”
    -8-
    J-S42045-16
    
    Id. at 872
     (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also In re J.C., 
    5 A.3d 284
    , 289 (Pa. Super. 2010).         Additionally, the “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.” In re G., T., 
    845 A.2d at 872
     (citation omitted).
    With regard to a dependent child, in In re D.A., 
    801 A.2d 614
     (Pa.
    Super. 2002) (en banc), this Court explained:
    [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 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 a private or public agency, or
    transferring custody to the juvenile court of another state.
    42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a).
    Id. at 617 (alteration in original and citation omitted).
    Regarding the disposition of a dependent child, Sections 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:
    (e) Permanency hearings.—
    -9-
    J-S42045-16
    (1) The 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, including the child’s desired
    permanency goal, 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 aggravated 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).
    Section 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act prescribes the 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.
    - 10 -
    J-S42045-16
    (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 custodian within the time frames set
    forth in the permanency plan.
    *     *      *
    - 11 -
    J-S42045-16
    (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 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.
    (5) If and when the child will be placed in another
    planned permanent living arrangement which is approved
    by the court, the following shall apply:
    (i) The child must be 16 years of age or older.
    (ii) The county agency shall identify at least one
    significant connection with a supportive adult willing to
    be involved in the child’s life as the child transitions to
    adulthood, or document that efforts have been made to
    identify a supportive adult.
    (iii) The county agency shall document:
    - 12 -
    J-S42045-16
    (A) 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 be placed with a legal custodian or
    to be placed with a fit and willing relative.
    (B) Its intensive, ongoing and, as of the date of
    the hearing, unsuccessful efforts to return the child
    to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or to be
    placed for adoption, to be placed with a legal
    custodian or to be placed with a fit and willing
    relative.
    (C) Its efforts to utilize search technology to find
    biological family members for the child.
    (iv) The court shall:
    (A) Ask the child about the desired permanency
    goal for the child.
    (B) Make a judicial determination explaining why,
    as of the date of the hearing, another planned
    permanent    living   arrangement     is  the   best
    permanency plan for the child.
    (C) Provide compelling reasons why it continues
    not to be in the best interests of the child to return
    to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian, be
    placed for adoption, be placed with a legal custodian
    or be placed with a fit and willing relative.
    (D) Make findings that the significant connection
    is identified in the permanency plan or that efforts
    have been made to identify a supportive adult, if no
    one is currently identified.
    (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
    - 13 -
    J-S42045-16
    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(f)-(g).
    In a change of goal proceeding, the best interests of the child—not the
    interests of the parent—must guide the trial court; the parent’s rights are
    secondary to those of the child’s. In re A.K., 
    936 A.2d 528
    , 532-53 (Pa.
    Super. 2007).    The burden is on the Agency to prove the change in goal
    would be in the child’s best interests. In re M.B., 
    674 A.2d 702
    , 704 (Pa.
    Super. 1996). In contrast, in a termination of parental rights proceeding,
    the focus is on the conduct of the parents under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. Id. at
    705.
    This Court has stated:
    the focus of all dependency proceedings, including change
    of goal proceedings, must be on the safety, permanency,
    and well-being of the child. The best interests of the child
    take precedence over all other considerations, including
    the conduct and the rights of the parent. . . . [W]hile
    parental progress toward completion of a permanency plan
    is an important factor, it is not to be elevated to
    determinative status, to the exclusion of all other factors.
    In re A.K., 
    936 A.2d at 534
     (citations omitted).       In addition, the court
    should consider the bond between the child and the child’s parents, foster
    parents, and siblings in determining the child’s best interests. In re H.V.,
    - 14 -
    J-S42045-16
    
    37 A.3d 588
    , 594-95 (Pa. Super. 2012). In In re N.C., 
    909 A.2d 818
     (Pa.
    Super. 2006), another goal change case, the trial court granted a goal
    change to adoption despite the fact that the mother had made substantial
    progress     toward   completing   her   permanency    plan.     
    Id. at 825
    .
    Notwithstanding the mother’s substantial progress, this Court held that the
    extensive record supported the trial court’s factual findings that the mother’s
    parenting skills and judgment regarding her children’s emotional well-being
    remained problematic. 
    Id. at 826
    .
    Regarding the placement of a child who has been adjudicated
    dependent, this Court has explained:
    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 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).
    Instantly, in considering Mother’s issues, as set forth above, the trial
    court stated as follows.
    - 15 -
    J-S42045-16
    In our Order for Adjudication and Disposition - Child
    Dependent entered June 30, 2015 (and our Amended
    Order entered July 13, 2015), we made the following
    specific Findings concerning the Mother:
    BCCYF has been involved with the mother since
    June, 2012 relative to her parenting of [W.R.B.J, who
    is three (3) years of age. Most recently, the Agency
    received a report on 3/12/15 that the mother will
    take the child with her to friend’s houses while she
    smokes marijuana.        Following the report, the
    caseworker conducted a home visit on 3/13/15 at
    [D.B.’s] residence. The mother admitted to smoking
    marijuana, and then tested positive for opiates, THC
    and benzodiazepines. She admitted to taking street
    Suboxone as well. A safety plan was put into effect
    on 3/3/15 placing the child in the custody of the
    maternal great-grandmother, [D.B.], who is to
    supervise all contact between the mother and child.
    At the hearing held 6/29/15, [D.B.] confirmed that
    the mother goes from friend’s house to friend’s
    house and is out late and not conducting herself as a
    mother should.        As a result of a physical
    confrontation that occurred between the mother and
    her father on Father’s Day, [D.B.] requested that the
    mother vacate her residence.       Therefore, at the
    present time, the mother does not have an
    established residence. The mother’s last contact
    with the Agency was on 6/18/15.
    The mother was unsuccessfully discharged from
    Dolminis due to missed appointments and while
    there, had four different positive drug screens. The
    Agency has recommended that she undergo a drug
    and alcohol assessment by the Blair County Drug &
    Alcohol Partnership. The Agency also recommended
    Family Drug Court, to which the mother adamantly
    refused to participate.
    The mother indicates a desire to cooperate with
    FICS Preservation Services, however, there have
    been several “no shows” for meetings to date
    without adequate explanations being offered. Ashley
    Langston of FICS testified that based upon her
    - 16 -
    J-S42045-16
    observations, [D.B.] is the primary caretaker of
    [W.R.B.]. She did express concern that [D.B.] has
    “enabled” the mother. We find merit in this concern.
    During her testimony, [D.B.] stated that she would
    re-consider [S.B.] returning to her home, but only if
    she maintained sobriety for a period of time. When
    asked to indicate for what period of time, she replied
    that she “would want her to be totally clean for a
    week or so”. Clearly, with the significance of the
    mother’s drug addiction, and her refusal/inability to
    acknowledge it, we agree with the Agency and
    service provider that the mother needs to
    demonstrate sobriety for a significantly longer period
    of time (e.g., 6 months) before the goal of
    reunification can become a reality. Based upon her
    discussions with the Agency, the mother does not
    recognize or appreciate the significance of her drug
    addiction and its impact on her ability to safely
    parent her very young child. The mother would also
    benefit from a mental health assessment and any
    treatment that may be recommended.
    [6/30/15 Adjudicatory Order, No. 1.(c)].
    We made the following Findings from our January 5,
    2016 Permanency Review Order:
    [T]he mother has not established any structure or
    stability in her life, and has never served in the
    primary caretaker role for her daughter.            The
    mother’s history with the Blair County Adult Parole &
    Probation Office dates back to 2012 [see history set
    forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 2]. Such history includes
    multiple parole/probation violations, including but
    not limited to positive tests for THC, opiates, K2,
    Suboxone, Amphetamines, Methadone, and Alcohol.
    In July, 2012, she was referred for in-patient
    treatment at Gaudenzia, but left against medical
    advice on 9/10/12. She was released from prison to
    in-patient at Pyramid on 12/21/12, only to report six
    days later she would rather be in jail than inpatient.
    Due to her parole/probation violations, she has been
    detained in prison on a number of occasions.
    - 17 -
    J-S42045-16
    Most recently, the mother was on pre-trial bail
    supervision due to pending Criminal Conspiracy and
    Theft by Unlawful Taking charges. According to the
    testimony of Ashley Michelow of the Blair County
    Adult Probation Office, the mother reported for her
    in-take and drug screen on 11/17/15 and the
    following week, but failed to report the last two
    weeks.    She has not kept the probation office
    informed as to her current address. She tested
    positive for Opiates, Benzodiazepines, THC and
    Methadone on 11/17/15; and voluntarily admitted to
    use of Opiates (Heroin) and THC on 11/24/15. As a
    result of these violations, the Commonwealth has
    filed a motion to revoke her bail which is scheduled
    for hearing on 12/18/15. The mother voluntarily
    reported to the Crisis Center on or about 12/1/15,
    but was initially denied admission. As a result, she
    engaged in self-injurious behavior (cutting herself),
    and then was admitted.
    Officer Daniel Vasil of the Altoona Police
    Department testified concerning two separate
    incidents which occurred on 11/8/15 at the residence
    of the legal custodian, [D.B.]. The first dispatch was
    for a report of a domestic incident involving a knife.
    In summary, a dispute arose between [D.B.], the
    mother and her then-boyfriend, [A.M.S.].           The
    mother had [A.M.S.] stay over in the residence over
    [D.B.’s] objection and an argument ensued which
    resulted in [D.B.] grabbing a knife and [waving] it at
    [A.M.S.].     There was also vulgar name-calling
    between the parties. During her interview with the
    police, the mother claimed [D.B.] (her grandmother)
    was not competent and wanted the police to take
    [D.B.] to Crisis. During her interview, [D.B.] stated
    that she was afraid of both the mother and [A.M.S.].
    After being advised by the police, [D.B.] applied for
    and received an emergency protective order against
    the mother (which she later dropped over the advice
    of the Agency caseworker).
    The second incident that occurred on 11/8/15
    happened approximately three hours later. Officer
    Vasil went to the home to serve the PFA, and
    - 18 -
    J-S42045-16
    received a dispatch that there was a male with a
    knife threatening everyone. Upon arrival, the officer
    observed [A.M.S.] arguing with [R.M. and L.M.]
    (family members) and several other people. Officer
    Vasil performed a pat-down search of [A.M.S.] and
    discovered a knife matching the description he
    received from the witnesses. When Officer Vasil
    interviewed the mother, she refused to answer his
    questions and kept questioning why [A.M.S.] was in
    handcuffs.    Officer Vasil subsequently discovered
    that the mother and [A.M.S.] had packed their
    belongings in vacating the residence (due to the
    PFA), but that they were attempting to steal items
    that belonged to [D.B.], including a safe which
    contained jewelry and checks, and a laptop
    computer. Officer Vasil also observed the mother
    and [A.M.S.] in possession of several items that
    constitute drug paraphernalia, therefore, he also
    arrested the mother.       The mother, who [was]
    pregnant, complained of cramps. AMED was called
    and transported her to the hospital, where it was
    discovered that she had inserted a pill bottle into her
    vagina. Several criminal charges were filed against
    the mother, including Criminal Conspiracy, Theft by
    Unlawful    Taking,    Receiving   Stolen    Property,
    Possession      of     a    Controlled     Substance,
    Use/Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Access
    Device Fraud.       Both the mother and [A.M.S.]
    admitted certain items of drug paraphernalia
    belonged to them.
    [W.R.B.] was present within the home during the
    incidents of 11/8/15.
    Suzi Brannock has been a registered nurse for
    twenty years, and is employed by the Pregnancy
    Care Center of UPMC-Altoona Hospital. She has
    been involved with the mother since 10/8/15 and
    confirmed that the mother [was] approximately
    sixteen weeks pregnant.      She has had several
    discussions with the mother about the importance of
    not using illegal drugs during her pregnancy. The
    mother tested positive for Methadone, Marijuana,
    Opiates and Benzodiazepines during her second visit;
    - 19 -
    J-S42045-16
    and then for Methadone, Marijuana, Opiates and
    Cocaine during her last visit in the week prior to the
    hearing. During her discussions, the mother stated
    that she felt it was “safer” using drugs during her
    pregnancy and that it helped her with her nausea.
    The mother had no contact with the Pregnancy
    Center during November.
    Kristel Wisor of FICS Preservation Services
    opened with the mother and child on 9/9/15. FICS
    was originally opened during June and July, however,
    its services closed when the mother moved out of
    [D.B.’s] home and [W.R.B.] remained with her great-
    grandmother.       Ms. Wisor noted that when the
    mother “was clear” and calm and positive, she did a
    better job parenting.         Once she started her
    Methadone treatment, Ms. Wisor indicated            that
    mother seemed “really out of it”, nodding off and
    didn’t interact with the child. Also, if the mother was
    agitated, her interaction with the child was not
    appropriate. There was an approximate two week
    period of time in September that the mother was
    doing well, however, that was short-lived. Between
    9/9/15 and 11/8/15 (when the mother went to jail),
    she passed all drug tests, but Ms. Wisor
    acknowledged that these were not random screens
    and the mother knew she would be tested.
    Ms. Wisor described the relationship between the
    mother and [D.B.] as “interesting”, and indicated
    that it is difficult for [D.B.] to stand up to the
    mother. Ms. Wisor stated [W.R.B.] is a “spirited”
    child, and expressed concern for [D.B.] to care and
    control the child as she gets older.
    Kendra Wheelden, the Agency caseworker,
    testified as to the mother’s inability to establish and
    maintain stable housing. She also confirmed that
    [D.B.] stated that she didn’t want the mother to be
    in her home and that she wanted to keep [W.R.B.]
    from all the drug activity, but then dropped the PFA
    versus the mother against the caseworker’s advice.
    Ms. Wheelden testified that [D.B.] “enables” the
    mother and that when [D.B.] personally feels the
    - 20 -
    J-S42045-16
    “mother is “doing better”, she allows her to be
    around. The Agency is seeking a goal change to
    adoption and a modification of placement, seeking to
    place the child in a pre-adoptive home (which has
    been identified). Ms. Wheelden confirmed that the
    Agency’s recommendations are not only based upon
    the recent events, but on the long history of this
    case.     Such history includes the mother taking
    [W.R.B.] out of [D.B.’s] home and into various
    homes where there was on-going drug activity. The
    Agency feels that [D.B.] cannot control the situation
    with the mother, and that if this child remains with
    her great-grandmother, the mother will still
    essentially be the one “in control” and pose a
    potential safety risk to the child. Ms. Wheelden also
    testified that the Agency has exhausted all possible
    resources to assist this family.        Despite those
    services, no progress has been made to eliminate
    the issues that led to Agency involvement.
    The mother, [S.B.], testified and acknowledged
    the pending criminal charges and stated she is
    currently residing in the domestic abuse shelter.
    She admitted to self-injurious behavior in order to
    gain admission into the Crisis Center in early
    December. She is on a waiting list for Section 8
    housing and looking for employment. She has a
    mental health diagnosis, and is in Methadone
    treatment at Discovery House. She believes she did
    well for approximately 3 to 4 months, but admitted
    that she has “slid back”. According to her own
    testimony, it appears that the mother lived at at
    least five different residences between June 20 and
    late-July when she moved back in with [D.B.] until
    the 11/8/15 incident.
    Relative to her relationship with [A.M.S.], the
    mother acknowledged that he stayed the night and
    came over other days and that his presence was a
    source of contention with [D.B.]. The mother also
    testified that [A.M.S.] was physically and emotionally
    abusive toward her, and that he forced her to sleep
    with men for drug money.             She stated that
    [A.M.S.’s] friends were also using drugs. During one
    - 21 -
    J-S42045-16
    incident, the mother said [A.M.S.] beat her up,
    knocked her out, and tried to kill her baby.
    [1/5/16 Permanency Review Order, No. 3(a)(ii)].
    SUMMARY:
    In addressing the Concise Statement of Errors that the
    Mother raised on appeal, we considered the entire history
    that BCCYF has had with this family, dating back to June
    2012.      The issues that led to the Agency’s initial
    involvement remain the issues today, i.e., the Mother’s
    drug addiction; the Mother’s refusal to acknowledge that
    she has a drug problem; the Mother’s refusal to invest in
    necessary drug and alcohol treatment; the Mother’s refusal
    to engage in mental health treatment; the Mother never
    serving in the primary caretaker role for her daughter; the
    Mother never establishing any structure or stability in her
    life; the Mother’s involvement in criminal activity and
    inability to abide by the terms and conditions of her
    supervision; the Mother’s questionable decisions relative to
    whom she associates; and the Mother’s volatile
    relationship, at times, with the Maternal Great-
    Grandmother, D.B. We also believe that the testimony of
    the Mother’s probation officer, Ashley Michelow, during the
    6th Month Review Hearing held December 15, 2015 was
    highly relevant and probative. Ms. Michelow’s testimony
    confirmed that the Mother tested positive for several
    different illegal drugs and failed to keep her probation
    officer informed as to her current residence. As a result,
    the Commonwealth moved to revoke her bail.
    Finally, our January 5, 2016 Permanency Review Order
    set forth in detail the reasons why we removed the child
    from placement with D.B., the Maternal Great-
    Grandmother, as we outlined above. We also note the
    child’s GAL supported our decision.
    Therefore, we respectfully request your Honorable
    Superior Court of Pennsylvania to affirm our Permanency
    Review Order of January 5, 2016, including the goal
    change to adoption.
    - 22 -
    J-S42045-16
    Trial Ct. Op., No. 146 WDA 2016, 2/8/16, at 1-14.              For the reasons
    expressed by the trial court, we find no merit to Mother’s contention that the
    trial court prematurely changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption, in
    view of the ample evidence before the trial court that supported the goal
    change. See In re N.C., 
    909 A.2d at 825-26
     (holding record substantiated
    trial court’s factual findings); see also In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190 (holding
    appellate court required to accept trial court’s findings of fact and credibility
    determinations when they are supported by the record).
    Next, as to Mother’s second issue, regarding whether the trial court
    improperly relied on irrelevant evidence, the question of whether to admit
    evidence is in the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the
    decision under an abuse of discretion standard. See A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 
    945 A.2d 744
    , 749 (Pa. Super. 2008).
    Evidentiary rulings are committed to the sound
    discretion of the trial court, and will not be overruled
    absent an abuse of discretion or error of law. In order to
    find that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings constituted
    reversible error, such rulings must not only have been
    erroneous but must also have been harmful to the
    complaining party. Appellant must therefore show error in
    the evidentiary ruling and resulting prejudice, thus
    constituting an abuse of discretion by the lower court.
    Whitaker v. Frankford Hosp. of the City of Phila., 
    984 A.2d 512
    , 522
    (Pa. Super. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
    Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the
    existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
    determination of the action more probable or less probable
    than it would be without the evidence.” Pa.R.E. 401. “All
    - 23 -
    J-S42045-16
    relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise
    provided by law.” Pa.R.E. 402. “Although relevant,
    evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
    outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of
    the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of
    undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
    cumulative evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403.
    Jacobs v. Chatwani, 
    922 A.2d 950
    , 963 (Pa. Super. 2007).
    In the case before us, the concern before the trial court was Child’s
    best interests and Mother’s best interests were only secondary. In re A.K.,
    
    936 A.2d at 532-33
    ; In re M.B., 
    674 A.2d at 704-705
    .              Because the
    evidence of Mother’s probation history and lack of a residence was relevant
    to Child’s best interests, we discern no abuse of discretion. See Whitaker,
    
    984 A.2d at 522
    ; Jacobs, 
    922 A.2d at 963
    .
    Finally, with regard to Mother’s contention that the trial court abused
    its discretion in changing Child’s placement from residing with MGG, we
    observe that MGG has withdrawn her appeal from the change in placement.
    In its opinion regarding MGG’s appeal, the trial court stated as follows:
    In our January 5, 2016 Permanency Review Order, we
    made the following specific Findings concerning the
    Maternal Great-Grandmother, D.B.:
    [D.B.] tends to the basic needs of the child. The
    concern of the Agency and the service providers,
    which we find to be a legitimate concern, is whether
    the maternal great- grandmother will make safe and
    appropriate decisions when it comes to the mother
    and allowing the mother access to the child. The
    mother has significant addiction and mental health
    issues and has never demonstrated a consistent
    willingness to engage in appropriate treatment for
    her co-occurring issues. Her life is chaotic, and she
    - 24 -
    J-S42045-16
    has exposed the child to the culture of the illegal
    drug world. There are concrete examples of the
    maternal great-grandmother not being able to
    control situations involving the mother and/or
    making unwise decisions concerning the mother.
    One example would be the incidents of 11/8/15 set
    forth above and as testified to by Officer Vasil of the
    Altoona Police Department. The situation became so
    volatile and extreme that [D.B.] grabbed a knife and
    wielded it at [A.M.S.]. The child was present during
    both incidents on 11/8/15. A second example would
    be when [D.B.] decided to drop the PFA Order she
    had against the mother one day after being advised
    by the caseworker to keep the protective order in
    effect. The mother testified that if we continued
    custody with [D.B.], that she would abide by any
    court order directing that she have no contact. We
    do not accept this testimony as being credible.
    Based upon the history of this case, we are
    satisfied that there will continue to be incidents and
    situations that will create an unhealthy environment
    for the child (who is only 3 1/2 years of age), and
    will expose her to circumstances that would certainly
    not be in her best interests and welfare. Another
    concern is a very practical concern, i.e., the maternal
    great-grandmother’s age and health. [According to
    the Dependency Petition filed 5/13/15, [D.B.] was
    born 12/[--]/51, making her 64 years of age]. As
    Ms. Wisor testifed, [W.R.B.] is a very spirited and
    strong-willed child and at times, difficult to control.
    We have serious concern as to [D.B.’s] ability to
    maintain proper supervision and control of the child
    in the coming years. If and when [D.B.] is unable or
    incapable of doing so, what then? Who will be the
    resource for the child? The parents, neither of whom
    have demonstrated any ability or even a sincere
    willingness to achieve and maintain sobriety and
    structure and stability in their lives? The appropriate
    time to seek safety and permanency for this young
    child is the present.
    Finally, we incorporate herein our FINDINGS OF
    FACT as set forth in our Order of Adjudication and
    - 25 -
    J-S42045-16
    Disposition - Child Dependent entered 6/30/15. In
    said Findings, we found merit in the testimony of
    Ashley Langston of FICS that based upon her
    observations, [D.B.] was the primary caretaker of
    [W.R.B.] and she expressed concern that [D.B.]
    enables the mother. We also found the following
    (p.2 of 5):
    “During her testimony, [D.B.] stated that she
    would re-consider [S.B.] returning to her home, but
    only if she maintained sobriety for a period of time.
    When asked to indicate for what period of time, she
    replied that she “would want her to be totally clean
    for a week or so.” Clearly, with the significance of
    the mother’s drug addiction, and her refusal/inability
    to acknowledge it, we agree with the Agency and
    service provider that the mother needs to
    demonstrate sobriety for a significantly longer period
    of time (e.g., 6 months) before the goal of
    reunification can become a reality.”
    Trial Ct. Op., 145 WDA 2016, 2/8/16, at 13-14.
    After a careful review of the record, we find that the trial court’s
    findings of fact and credibility assessments are supported by competent
    evidence of record that support the change in placement, vesting of legal
    and physical custody in BCCYF, and the change in permanency goal to
    adoption. In view of our deferential standard of review as set forth in In re
    R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190, we cannot disturb the findings and credibility
    assessments of the trial court. See also In re A.B., 
    19 A.3d 1084
    , 1093-94
    (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that this Court will not upset the juvenile court’s
    credibility determinations). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.
    Order affirmed.   Child’s “Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File
    Documents” denied as moot.
    - 26 -
    J-S42045-16
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 9/9/2016
    - 27 -