In the Interest of: D.A., Appeal of: A.A. ( 2023 )

J-S17001-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 60 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Juvenile Division at No(s):
CP-07-DP-0000030-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: G.A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 61 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Juvenile Division at No(s):
CP-07-DP-0000029-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: J. C. A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 62 WDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Juvenile Division at No(s):
CP-07-DP-0000089-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.
J-S17001-23
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JUNE 1, 2023
A.A. (Mother) appeals from the orders,1 entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Blair County, changing the permanency goal for her three minor
children, D.A. (born Oct. 2018), G.A. (born Jan. 2020), and J.A. (Oct. 2021)
(collectively, Children), from reunification to adoption and suspending
Mother’s visits with Children.2 After careful review, we affirm.
D.A. and G.A. were removed from Mother’s care on April 27, 2021,
pursuant to an emergency protective custody order, as a result of Mother’s
homelessness.3 The court held a shelter care hearing on April 28, 2021, after
which D.A. and G.A. were placed in a foster care home and, subsequently,
declared dependent on May 7, 2021. J.A. was later declared dependent on
December 21, 2021. Both Mother and biological Father, B.P., 4 struggle with
____________________________________________
1Mother has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185
A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), by filing a separate notice of appeal for each trial court
docket number. See In re: M.P., 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. 2019) (applying
Walker holding in goal change and termination of parental rights matters).
2On February 7, 2023, this Court sua sponte consolidated these three appeals
at Nos. 60, 61 and 62 EDA 2023. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
3 On April 27, 2021, at approximately 12:08 AM, Blair County Children, Youth
and Families (CYF) received a call from Mother stating that she was outside of
the Sheetz on Plank Road, was homeless, could not get a hotel room, and was
concerned for her Children’s safety. See N.T. Shelter Care Hearing, 4/27/21,
at 2.
4 Children’s Father is not involved in this appeal.
-2-
J-S17001-23
housing instability and mental health issues.5 On May 19, 2022, Children were
placed in the same foster home, where they continue to reside.
The court held permanency hearings in November 2021, February 2022,
June 2022, September 2022, October 2022. Mother’s plan objectives
throughout the life of the case included: (1) obtain appropriate and stable
housing; (2) undergo a psychological evaluation; (3) obtain mental health
counseling and follow through with recommended treatment; (3) continue
with medication management; and (4) participate in domestic violence
counseling. Mother was granted two-hour supervised visits twice a week. At
each permanency hearing, the primary goal was reunification, with a
concurrent goal of adoption. At the permanency hearings, the court found
Mother’s progress toward alleviating the circumstances necessitating
Children’s placement was either none or minimal.
On September 6, 2022, CYF filed a “Motion for 11[-]Month
Permanency/Dispositional Review Hearing/Goal Change” based on the claim
that “return to parent” was no longer a feasible goal, as parents “ha[ve] not
made substantial progress towards reunification, [] have not followed through
with [psychiatric consultation] recommendations, and their visitation has
actually been decreased or suspended as a result of lack of
____________________________________________
5 Mother has been diagnosed with depression, bipolar one depression, manic
depression, post-partum depression, adjustment disorder, offensive defiant
disorder, borderline personality disorder, and psychosis. Id. at 71.
-3-
J-S17001-23
progress/cooperation.” Motion, 9/6/22, at [4.] On November 8, 2022, the
court held a goal change hearing, at which Mother and Father testified. At the
conclusion of the hearing,6 the court held the record open for seven days so
that Mother could supplement the record with “further documentation
regarding [Mother’s] lease [and] . . . review everything that has occurred and
make a decision in the case.” N.T. Goal Change Hearing, 11/8/21, at 113-14.
By order, on November 21, 2022, the court changed the permanency
goal from reunification to adoption and suspended Mother’s visitation with
Children, concluding that Mother had been “minimally” compliant with her
permanency plan and had “minimal” progress toward alleviating the
circumstances which necessitated the original placement.” Permanency
Order, 11/21/22, at ¶ 4(a); ¶ 7(a). The court also ordered an alternate goal,
of placement with a fit and proper relative, to be explored by CYF. 7 Children
had been in placement for 15 of the last 22 months at the time of the final
permanency hearing.
____________________________________________
6 Mary Ann Probst, Esquire, acted as guardian ad litem and represented
Children’s legal interests at the permanency and goal change hearings.
7 Interestingly, the court recognized that filing a termination petition at that
time would not serve Children’s needs and welfare “in light of the bond that
existed between [C]hildren and parents.” See Permanency Order, 11/21/22,
at ¶ 21(f)(iii). Thus, the court found “that a reasonable delay exists in not
filing a termination petition” and that Children’s placement with a “fit and
proper” relative shall be ruled out as not appropriate before a petition to
terminate parental rights is filed and not before a scheduled January 2023
status conference. Id.
-4-
J-S17001-23
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. In lieu of a
Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court relied upon its detailed November 21,
2022 permanency order to support its decision to change the goal to adoption
and to suspend Mother’s visits. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), 1/9/23, at 1-2. On
appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our consideration:
(1) Whether the [d]ependency [c]ourt erred/abused its
discretion by changing the goal to adoption when the record
showed that Mother was making progress toward the goals
set by [CYF.]
(2) Whether the [d]ependency [c]ourt erred/abused its
discretion by failing to reinstate visitation between [M]other
and [C]hildren, as the evidence did not show that Mother
was a grave threat to [C]hildren[.]
Appellant’s Brief, at 4.
Mother contends that the trial court improperly changed the
permanency goal from reunification to adoption “in light of the strong mutual
bond she has with [C]hildren []and her apparent parenting skills.” Id. at 10.
Our standard of review of a goal change is as follows:
When we review a trial court’s order to change the placement goal
for a dependent child to adoption, our standard is [an] abuse of
discretion. 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. The trial court, not the appellate
court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility
of the witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In
carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence. When the trial court’s findings
-5-
J-S17001-23
are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm
even if the record could also support an opposite result.
In the Interest of S.G., 922 A.2d 943, 946-47 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations
and quotations omitted). See also In the Interest of R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179,
1190 (Pa. 2010) (appellate court not required to accept trial court’s inferences
or conclusions of law). We also recognize that in matters of placement for a
dependent child, the trial court must be guided by the best interests of the
child—not those of his or her parents. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 823 (Pa.
Super. 2006).
Mother contends that because she completed a parenting program, the
court’s concerns with Mother’s ability to parent “are overblown” and that
“[a]ny and all ChildLine reports [regarding her supervision at] the visits were
similarly unfounded.” Id. at 11. Mother also claims that the day before the
November 2022 hearing, she entered into a one-year lease for an apartment,
“demonstrating the requested stability [she was required to have with regard
to] housing,” and that she had “worked diligently [] to pay off a back rent debt
that would have prevented her from obtaining housing assistance.”8
Appellant’s Brief, at 11-12.
As we have stated, in matters of placement for a dependent child, the
trial court must be guided by the best interests of the child—not those of his
or her parents. In re N.C., supra. Instantly, Children were initially removed
from Mother due to her homelessness, significant mental health issues, and
____________________________________________
8 Mother testified that Community Action agreed to pay her $900/month rent
for one year. See N.T. Goal Change Hearing, 11/8/22, at 92.
-6-
J-S17001-23
violence towards others. See Permanency Order, 11/21/22, at 6. Since J.A.’s
placement, Mother has not had any income. The guardian ad litem testified
that Mother’s “mental health also is just as equal [an issue as her housing
instability] in this case” and Mother’s failure to obtain the psychiatric and
psychological counseling she desperately needs to care for Children creates
an “impediment[] to permanency for th[e C]hildren.” N.T. Goal Change
Hearing, 11/8/22, at 104.
Moreover, Mother has had ongoing criminal issues, including allegedly
harassing and threatening a caseworker, as well as existing protection from
abuse orders between Mother and Father due to their “on-again-off-again”
relationship.9 Id. In addition, CYF caseworkers expressed their concern about
Mother’s ability to parent at visits, noting that she is unable to control
Children’s negative behaviors due in part to her inability to read Children’s
social cues. Caseworkers have also observed Mother frequently lose her
temper with Children when they have outbursts. Id. at 7. In August 2022,
Mother allegedly assaulted a security officer10 at a medical facility where she
____________________________________________
9 Mother testified at the goal change hearing that there is a pending petition
to withdraw Father’s and Mother’s PFA orders. See N.T. Goal Change Hearing,
11/8/22, at 97.
10At the time of the adjudicatory/dispositional hearing, held on May 7, 2021,
two charges of simple assault, and one count of summary harassment were
pending against Mother; Father, B.P., was the alleged victim in the matter.
Simple assault, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct[,] and
harassment charges were pending against Mother at the time of the November
2022 hearing as a result of Mother’s actions toward the security officer.
-7-
J-S17001-23
was being treated for a wrist sprain she sustained during an altercation with
a woman Mother believed was Children’s foster mother.
The court also determined as not credible Mother’s report to law
enforcement that a casework supervisor was stalking and harassing Mother.
In fact, when Mother found out she would no longer have visits with Children,
Mother, who had to be escorted out of the courthouse because of her behavior,
stated that she would be taking matters into her own hands and would be
back to “jump” the supervisor. Id.
Ultimately, the trial court concluded that “[t]here appears to be no
significant progress toward either parent addressing their mental health
needs,” id. at 8, and “that return to parents should no longer be the primary
goal as neither [parent] has made substantial progress toward reunification.”
Id. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(f)(3), (5.1), (6), (9). The court did not find
Mother’s testimony that she had completed Women Aware mental health
training was credible where a KidsFirst employee reported Mother still had two
remaining classes left in the program. The court also concluded that Mother’s
belief that any type of trauma therapy was “unnecessary” was just a veiled
attempt to “avoid addressing past trauma [that ultimately] is not serving her
mental health well.” Permanency Order, 11/21/22, at 7.
The court’s findings that Mother downplayed her mental health issues,
and is unable to address the stress in her life, as well as her general mindset
toward receiving mental health treatment, supports its decision to change the
permanency goal to adoption. See In Interest of R.J.T., supra at 1190
-8-
J-S17001-23
(appellate court must defer to trial judges who see and hear parties and can
determine credibility to be placed on each witness and gauge likelihood of
success of current permanency plan, even if appellate court would have made
different conclusion based on cold record). See also In re A.P., 728 A.2d
375, 379 (Pa. Super. 1999) (holding where, despite willingness, parent cannot
meet “irreducible minimum parental responsibilities, the needs of the child
must prevail over the rights of the parent”); In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901
A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006) (even where parent makes earnest efforts,
“court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s need for
permanence and stability to a parent’s claims of progress and hope for the
future”). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in changing the goal from reunification to adoption where the
decision is in Children’s best interests. In the Interest of S.G., supra.
Next, Mother contends that the court’s decision to suspend visitation is
not supported in the record where she does not pose a “grave threat” to
Children. Mother misapprehends the appropriate standard regarding
visitation and, thus, her claim is meritless.
In a dependency case,
[t]he standard against which visitation is measured . . . depends
upon the goal mandated in the family service plan. Where . . .
reunification still remains the goal of the family service plan,
visitation will not be denied or reduced unless it poses a grave
threat. If . . . the goal is no longer reunification of the
family, then visitation may be limited or denied if it is in the
best interests of the child or children.
-9-
J-S17001-23
In re B.G., 774 A.2d 757, 760 (Pa. Super. 2001) (quoting In Re C.J., 729
A.2d 89, 95 (Pa. Super. 1999)) (emphasis added).
With regard to suspending Mother’s visits with Children, the court found
that “Mother has significant mental health issues that have been unaddressed
throughout this dependency proceeding. Unless [] Mother immediate[ly]
pursues trauma therapy[,] visitation is not in the children’s best interest.”
Permanency Order, 11/21/23, at 6; id. at 7 (Children continue to act out at
visits and “[Mother does not] appear able to control their behaviors”); id.
(Mother lacks ability to read Children’s cues at visits “to address their needs
in an appropriate manner, which appears to compound the behavioral
outbursts [C]hildren experience during their visits”); id. (ChildLine reported
Mother for losing temper with Children at visits). Because the court changed
the goal to adoption, its decision to suspend visits due to the fact that visits
with Mother, who still exhibited significant mental health issues, were not in
Children’s best interest is legally proper. In re B.G., supra. Moreover,
having determined that record evidence supports the court’s conclusion that
Mother still suffers from anger issues, mental health issues, and is unable to
adequately address Children’s needs in an appropriate manner during visits,
we find that it was in Children’s best interests to suspend Mother’s visits with
Children.
Orders affirmed.
- 10 -
J-S17001-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/1/2023
- 11 -