In the Interest of: M.S. & B.J.S. Appeal of: J.S.

J-S73031-14
J-S73032-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S. & B.J.S., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Minors, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.S., Mother, : No. 1288 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered on June 30, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-36-DP-0000095-2012;
CP-36-CP-0000196-2012
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S. & B.J.S., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Minors, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.S., Father, : No. 1289 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered on June 30, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-36-DP-0000095-2012;
CP-36-CP-0000196-2012
BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT and MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2015
These consolidated appeals are before us after remand to the trial
court. See In the Interest of J.R., a Minor, M.S., a Minor, and B.J.S., a
Minor, 93 A.3d 506 (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum). We
remand for further proceedings.
On two separate occasions, both J.S. (“Mother”) and R.S. (“Father”)
physically abused a child, who is not a subject of the instant appeals. The
prior panel in this case affirmed the trial court’s Order adjudicating the
J-S73031-14
J-S73032-14
abused child, as well as her two minor half-siblings, M.S. and B.J.S.
(hereinafter “the subject children”), as dependent. Id. at 7-10. However,
the panel vacated the trial court’s Orders finding that aggravated
circumstances existed upon which to cease reunification services. Id. at 10-
14. The panel remanded the matter for a determination as to whether
reunification between the subject children and Mother and Father is
necessary or appropriate. Id. at 14.
Following hearings on the remanded issue and a permanency review
hearing, the trial court entered Dispositional Orders on June 30, 2014,
approving a plan that did not provide for reunification, and maintaining the
goal for the subject children as adoption. Mother and Father timely filed
separate Notices of Appeal from the Dispositional Orders. Mother and Father
argue that the trial court erred in refusing to order a permanency plan for
reunification. Mother also argues that the trial court erred in finding that
she abused the subject children.
Importantly, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court did not
cite to, or provide an analysis of, the factors under section 6351(f) and (f.1)
of the Juvenile Act, which a trial court must consider at a permanency
review hearing. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f) (providing that “[a]t each
permanency hearing, a court shall determine all of the [enumerated factors
in subsection (f)] ….” (emphasis added)); id. § 6351(f.1) (listing the
alternatives available to the juvenile court for the permanent placement of a
-2-
J-S73031-14
J-S73032-14
dependent child); see also In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1186, 1187 n.10 (Pa.
2010) (setting forth the factors and observing that a trial court is obligated
to consider them at a permanency review hearing); see also id. at 1198
(Orie Melvin, J., dissenting) (opining that “[n]owhere in its opinion did the
trial court either acknowledge its duty pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f) …
nor did it explain its evaluation of the considerations enumerated therein.
The Superior Court was responsible for ensuring that the record represented
a comprehensive inquiry, and that the trial court applied appropriate legal
principles.”).
We hereby order that the case be remanded for the trial court to set
forth its consideration of the evidence concerning the factors in 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6351(f) and (f.1), in an opinion to be filed with this Court within sixty days
of the filing of this Order. Panel jurisdiction retained.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/19/2015
-3-