In the Interest of: C.W., Appeal of: C.G. ( 2023 )

J-A08028-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: C.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1273 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered September 27, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000200-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1274 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered September 27, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000201-2021
BEFORE: STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: APRIL 26, 2023
C.G. (“Mother”) appeals from the orders changing the permanency goals
for C.W., born in February 2009, and N.S., born in March 2019 (collectively,
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08028-23
“Children”), from concurrent goals of reunification and adoption to adoption.1
We affirm.
The trial court has thoroughly summarized the factual and procedural
history of this appeal, see Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 1-7, and we
highlight the following points from the record. In September 2021, the Erie
County Office of Child and Youth (“the Agency”) received reports that Mother
choked her eldest child, N.A., during a domestic dispute and had left C.W.
alone with N.S.’s father, a “Megan’s Law” offender. Application for Emergency
Protective Order, 9/10/21, at 1-2 (unnumbered).2 The trial court issued an
emergency order granting the Agency temporary protective physical and legal
custody of Children and N.A. Thereafter, the Agency applied for shelter care
orders for Children and N.A., and filed petitions to adjudicate Children
dependent. The Agency’s dependency petitions recited the history of
Children’s emergency removal from Mother’s care and alleged that Mother had
been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, panic attacks, and anxiety, but was not
receiving treatment for those conditions. See e.g. Dependency Petition, No.
200-2021, 9/14/21, at 3-4. The Agency further noted that Mother had refused
____________________________________________
1 This Court consolidated these appeals sua sponte.
2The emergency order and the dependency proceedings included the removal
of N.A. from Mother’s care The Agency did not seek goal change to adoption
as to N.A., who was seventeen at the time, and he is not a party to these
appeals. However, the trial court weighed evidence concerning Mother’s
parenting of N.A. when changing Children’s goals to adoption.
-2-
J-A08028-23
to cooperate and had a criminal history, including a pending charge for
harassment. See id. at 4-5.3
Mother stipulated to the reports leading to the emergency removal of
Children and the allegations in the dependency petitions. 4 See Trial Court
Opinion, 11/28/22 at 2. The trial court granted the applications for shelter
care, and in September 2021, the court adjudicated Children dependent. See
Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition, 9/29/21, at 1-2. The trial
court set goals for reunification of the family. See id. at 2. Mother’s
permanency plan required her to: obtain and maintain a safe and stable living
environment; actively participate in a parenting program and demonstrate an
ability to meet Children’s needs; undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation and
follow all recommendations, refrain from using drugs and submit to random
drug testing; participate in a psychiatric evaluation and follow
recommendations; and sign releases for information. See id. at 3.5
Following a permanency review hearing in December 2021, the trial
court found that Mother was not compliant with her permanency plan and had
made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances that necessitated
Children’s placement. See e.g. Permanency Review Order, No. 200-2021,
____________________________________________
3 The trial court appointed counsel for Mother and a guardian ad litem (“GAL”)
for Children. The GAL supports the goal changes to adoption.
4 The parties’ stipulation included minor amendments to the dependency
petitions which do not affect our disposition of this appeal.
5 Children’s fathers participated only minimally in the dependency
proceedings, and they have not appealed or participated in these appeals.
-3-
J-A08028-23
12/7/21, at 1. In January 2022, police took Mother into custody for new
criminal matters including driving under the influence, possession of a
controlled substance, simple assault, criminal mischief, and other offenses.
See Court Summary Addendum, 12/2/21, at 1. In March 2022, following a
permanency hearing, the trial court found that Mother was in prison and not
compliant with her permanency plan goals, and had made no progress toward
reunification. See e.g. Permanency Review Order, No. 200-2021, 3/29/22,
at 1. The court added a concurrent goal of adoption.6 See e.g. id. at 2.
Following the March 2022 permanency review, N.A. absconded from his
foster home from March to July 2022, and again from July to September 2022.
See Court Summary Addendum, 9/26/22, at 21. During that time, N.A.
reportedly committed an assault and a retail theft. See id. Mother was
released from prison in July 2022, and when the Agency questioned her about
N.A.’s whereabouts and her contacts with him, she gave vague responses and
stated that she was not responsible for turning N.A. into the police. See id.;
see also N.T., 9/23/22, at 12. In August 2022, Mother reported that she
convinced N.A. to turn himself in to authorities for pending delinquency
matters. See Court Summary Addendum, 9/26/22, at 22. Police took N.A.
into custody. See id.
____________________________________________
6 The record indicates that the Agency discussed the process of concurrent
planning with Mother and told her that it would pursue adoption rather than
reunification if she failed to remedy the reasons for the dependency
adjudications. See Court Summary Addendum, 3/29/22, at 17; see also
N.T., 9/23/22, at 32.
-4-
J-A08028-23
In August 2022, the Agency filed petitions to change Children’s goals to
adoption due to Mother’s lack of compliance and her failure to address the
circumstances that necessitated their placement. The trial court held a
hearing at which an Agency caseworker, Kaitlyn Patton (“Patton”), and Mother
testified. Patton, during questioning by the Agency’s counsel, agreed that the
goal change to adoption was necessary due to Mother’s failure to alleviate the
circumstances of Children’s placement and Children’s need for permanency.
See N.T., 9/23/22, at 9-10. Mother testified that she had taken steps to meet
her permanency plan in the two months following her release from prison;
however, she conceded that she had not done enough for Children and asked
the court to give her more time. See id. at 23-29, 31. Additionally, C.W.,
who stated that she preferred to remain in her current placement. N.S. did
not attend the hearing.7
On September 27, 2022, the trial court determined that Mother had
been minimally compliant with her permanency plan and was making minimal
progress toward alleviating the circumstances that necessitated Children’s
placement. The trial court concluded that the Children’s concurrent goals for
reunification and adoption were not appropriate or feasible, and ordered goal
changes to adoption. Mother appealed and contemporaneously filed a
____________________________________________
7 At the time of hearing, C.W. was in a residential facility, and N.S. was in
kinship care with his father’s side of the family. See N.T., 9/23/22, at 9. The
trial court heard testimony from N.A, who stated he preferred to live with
Mother.
-5-
J-A08028-23
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The trial court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.8
Mother raises the following issue for our review:
Whether the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion
and/or error of law when it determined that the concurrent
permanency goal of reunification was no longer feasible and
changed the goal to adoption?
Mother’s Brief at 4.
It is well settled that the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6365,
governs the placement and custody of a dependent child. See In re N.C.,
909 A.2d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2006). This Court reviews an order regarding
a dependent child’s placement goal pursuant to an abuse of discretion
standard. See Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d 22, 25 (Pa. Super. 2019). “In
order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine
that the court’s judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not
apply the law, or that the court’s action was a result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill will, as shown by the record.” In re N.C., 909 A.2d at 822-23(internal citations and quotations omitted).
____________________________________________
8 During the pendency of these appeals, the Agency filed petitions to terminate
Mother’s parental rights to Children. However, the current record contains no
indication of the status of the termination of parental rights proceedings. We
note that a goal change and termination of parental rights are distinct matters
that result in separate appealable orders. An agency may change a goal
without seeking a termination of parental rights and may seek the termination
of parental rights without changing a goal to adoption. See In re Adoption
of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017, 1027-28 (Pa. 2006); see also In Interest of M.B.,
674 A.2d 702, 704-05 (Pa. Super. 1996).
-6-
J-A08028-23
Our scope of review is of the broadest possible nature, and this Court
will ensure that the record represents a comprehensive inquiry and that the
hearing judge has applied the appropriate legal principles to that record. See
In re K.J., 27 A.3d 236, 241 (Pa. Super. 2011). This Court affords great
deference to the trial court’s findings of facts that are supported by the record.
See Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. If the record supports the trial court’s
findings, this Court will affirm, even if the record could also support an
opposite result. See id.When reviewing the trial court’s goal change order, we are mindful that
the focus of all dependency proceedings, including goal change proceedings,
is on the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child and that the best
interest of the child must take precedence over all other considerations. See
id. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f), the trial court must consider numerous
factors, including the appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement
goal for the child at each permanency review hearing. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6351(f)(4). If the trial court determines that reunification with a parent is
not in a child’s best interest, the court may change the child’s goal to adoption.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f.1)(2). A goal change to adoption does terminate
parental rights to a child, but “is a step in that direction.” See Interest of
H.J., 206 A.3d at 25.
This Court recognizes that “[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[,]” and that an agency should complete the
-7-
J-A08028-23
placement process within eighteen months. Id. (internal citation and
quotations marks omitted). Further, an agency must make reasonable efforts
to return a child to a biological parent. See Interest of T.M.W., 232 A.3d
937, 947 (Pa. Super. 2020). However, when an agency’s reasonable efforts
fail, the agency shall redirect its efforts towards placing the child in an
adoptive home. See N.C., 909 A.2d at 823. Once the trial court sets a goal
to adoption, an agency is no longer required to provide services to a parent.
In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2008).
In her sole issue in this appeal, Mother claims that the goal changes to
adoption lack adequate support in the record. Mother argues that she was
participating in services and working toward alleviating the circumstances that
led to Children’s placement. Mother adds that after her release from prison,
she obtained employment, achieved stability, and she sought help from the
Agency with employment, housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and was in
the process of obtaining a psychological evaluation. Mother further contends
that the trial court abused its discretion when weighing her conduct as to N.A.,
a non-party to this appeal, as a basis for changing Children’s goals to adoption.
The trial court, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, explained its decision to
change Children’s goals as follows:
In the instant matter, the [c]ourt considered all the
statutorily mandated factors as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)
in determining the Children’s permanent placement goal. In
viewing all relevant evidence and testimony throughout the life of
the dependency case, the [c]ourt found [Mother] had done little if
anything, on her treatment plan and was unable to demonstrate
-8-
J-A08028-23
an understanding of the reasons that led to the removal and
consequently an ability to alleviate them.
The record reflects that the Children were removed from
[Mother’s] care on September 10, 2021, due to physical abuse
perpetrated against at least one of them in the home, domestic
violence, and concerns with [Mother’s] mental health, erratic
behaviors, and criminal history. During the first review period,
[Mother] did not engage in her court-ordered services and tested
positive for controlled substances. During the second review
period, [Mother] again made no progress with her treatment plan.
In fact, she was arrested in three different incidents and was
incarcerated from February 2022 until July 27, 2022.
[Mother] was aware upon her release from incarceration
that she had lost valuable time working on her treatment plan and
that there was a concurrent goal of adoption for the Children, yet
she still did not engage in her court-ordered services. She
essentially did nothing until the date of her review hearing was
approaching and then she made an eleventh-hour effort, at least
according to her testimony, with no supporting documentation, to
schedule her services. Additionally, despite not having a medical
marijuana card[,] the urinalysis tests [Mother] did attend were all
positive for marijuana.
Finally, and perhaps more concerning than [Mother’s]
complete disregard for her treatment plan is her inability to
demonstrate she can parent her children when they needed it the
most. N.A. absconded from placement in May of 2022 and was
not located until September of 2022. The [c]ourt heard credible
testimony that [Mother] knew where he was but reported she had
“enough on her plate[.”] She “didn’t need to turn her child into
the police.” [Mother’s] refusal to help the Agency locate her
seventeen (17) year-old son who was essentially homeless during
the review period, substantially jeopardized his safety and
wellbeing and clearly demonstrated her inability to parent . . .
Children. Ultimately[,] the [c]ourt found [Mother’s] testimony, as
reflected in a review of the record, all over the place and lacking
in credibility.
Based on [Mother’s] lack of ability to remedy the
circumstances that led to the Children’s dependency after one (1)
year, C.W.’s unwavering desire not to be reunified with [Mother],
and N.S.’s young age[,] the [c]ourt found that [Mother’s] claims
of progress and hope for the future were not sufficient reasons for
-9-
J-A08028-23
the Children’s lives to be put on hold in the hopes [Mother] would
summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.
Moreover, it would not be in the best interest of the [C]
hildren to delay their permanency any longer.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 10-11.
Following our review, we conclude that the record supports the trial
court’s findings of fact and that its legal conclusions are sound. Following
Children’s removal and adjudications of dependency, Mother’s permanency
plan required, inter alia, her (1) maintenance of a safe and stable living
environment; (2) active participation in a parenting program and a
demonstration of her ability to meet Children’s needs; (3) submission to drug
tests to ensure she refrained from substance abuse; and (4) participation in a
psychiatric evaluation.
Mother does not dispute the ample evidence that she was not compliant
with her permanency plan for the three months from the adjudications of
dependency until her imprisonment in January 2022. The trial court further
heard testimony that following her release from prison in July 2022, Mother
became more receptive to contact with the Agency and was consistent with
visitations. See N.T., 9/23/22, at 5, 15. However, as to Mother’s living
arrangements, Mother was not at home for either a scheduled and an
unannounced home visit, and Patton, the Agency caseworker, was not able to
inspect Mother’s home after Mother’s release from prison. See id. at 5-6.
Regarding parenting, Patton attempted to refer Mother to a parenting
program following Mother’s release from prison, but one program refused to
admit her due to her prior unsuccessful participation; Patton made a second
- 10 -
J-A08028-23
referral, but that program had not contacted Mother before the hearing. See
id. at 6-7. Patton also testified about N.A.’s troubled history during this case
and his flight from foster care; Mother, Patton noted, provided little assistance
after N.A. ran away despite indications that Mother had contact with N.A., and
Patton recalled that Mother stated, “[S]he had enough on her plate to turn
her own child over into the police[,]” and did not believe it was “her
responsibility to turn in [N.A.]” See id. at 12.
Patton testified that Mother reported attending an anger management
program and drug and alcohol programs; Mother, however, did not provide
any documentation of her attendance and only provided Patton with a
certificate of her completion of a prison drug and alcohol program the day
before the hearing.9 See id. at 7. As to Mother’s requirement that she
address her drug and alcohol issues, Mother has not passed a drug test since
being released from prison.10
Concerning Mother’s mental health requirements, Patton testified that
Mother did not appear for a scheduled intake appointment, despite Patton’s
warnings that Mother needed to act immediately after her release from prison
____________________________________________
9We note that Patton testified that Mother did not give her documentation of
her employment; however, Patton also noted that she did not ask for that
documentation. See N.T., 9/23/22, at 18.
10 Mother did not consistently appear for drug tests, and when she did, she
tested positive for marijuana use despite only having an expired medical
marijuana card. She also tested positive once for Suboxone, for which, she
testified, she had a prescription; however, she did not provide documentation
of the prescription and only showed Patton the prescription bottle and label.
- 11 -
J-A08028-23
because programs and resources often have waitlists. See id. at 8-9. Mother
then attended an intake appointment ten days before the hearing but could
only schedule a psychiatric evaluation to take place after the hearing. See
id.
The foregoing record demonstrates that Mother failed to complete her
permanency plan goals for more than one year. The trial court appropriately
concluded that Mother has failed to demonstrate an ability to safely parent
Children and lacked an appropriate insight into her parenting skills as
evidenced by her responses to N.A.’s flight from foster care. The trial court’s
determination that reunification, even as a concurrent goal, was not
appropriate or feasible has support in the record and was reasonable. See 42
Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)(4), (f.1)(2). To the extent Mother claims that she made
recent progress, we decline her invitation to reweigh the evidence or disturb
the trial court’s conclusion that neither Mother’s minimal compliance
immediately before the goal changes, nor her hopes that she could “summon
the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting” in the future, outweigh
Children’s needs for permanency. Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 10-11;
accord Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d at 25, 27.
Thus, we conclude that Mother’s arguments fail to establish an abuse of
discretion in the trial court’s decision to change Children’s goals to adoption,
and we affirm the goal change orders. See id.Orders affirmed.
- 12 -
J-A08028-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/26/2023
- 13 -