In the Interest of: T.W., Appeal of: D.W.

J.S43031/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.W., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: D.W., MOTHER No. 792 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered February 4, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Domestic Relations at No(s): CP-45-DP-0000064-2012
64 DP 2012, FID: 45-FN-41-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED AUGUST 22, 2014
Monroe County
Court of Common Pleas changing the permanency goal of her child, T.W.
with a concurrent goal of reunification. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history as set forth by the trial
court. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/11/14, at 1-15. For ease of review, we
marked by numerous claims of domestic violence by each
parent, criminal charges flying back-and-forth, multiple
outright lies told by Mother about Father, instability,
periods of separation, and significantly, a rare level of
pathological co-dependence that has continually brought
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S43031/14
Mother and Father back together despite the volatility of
their union. Acts of violence occur when Mother and
Father are together and when they are separated.
Id. at 1-2 (citations to notes
monitoring. Id. at 3.
Child came to the attention of Monroe County Children and Youth
that during a
Id. at 4.1
record, includin
warrant in Georgia for forgery charges. Id. at 6. On July 1, 2012, CYS was
granted emergency protective custody of Child, and Child was placed in
foster care. After a hearing on August 2nd, the court adjudicated Child
dependent and set an initial permanency goal of reunification. Id. at 8.
The most recent review hearings were held on December 20, 2013 and
January 24, 2014. On February 4, 2014, the court issued the underlying
order changing the priority of the goals for Child, to a primary goal of
adoption and secondary goal of reunification with Mother. Mother took this
timely appeal and filed a contemporaneous statement of matters complained
1
Father was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and related
offenses for this incident. Trial Ct. Op. at 6.
-2-
J. S43031/14
of on appeal.2
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether a dependence goal should be changed where:
(A) The circumstances necessitating the original
placement have been alleviated;
(B) Mother has completed the requirements of the
family service plan; and
(C) [CYS] failed to make reasonable efforts to
accomplish reunification?
Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion in changing the
goal from reunification to adoption. First, she argues that the trial court
failed to give due consideration to her evidence that showed the
Id.
at 15. In support, Mother claims the following: (1) she recanted her
owing Child from a
vehicle; (2) the Georgia arrest warrant was no longer active and she was not
in prison;3
2
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2).
3
Mother was arrested on the warrant, the same day that CYS gained
emergency protective custody of Child, but authorities in Georgia declined to
extradite Mother. Trial Ct. Op. at 6, 7. However, Mother was subsequently
Id.
at 8. Mother also later pleaded guilty to false reports to law enforcement
and was sentenced to probation. Id. at 11.
-3-
J. S43031/14
were not caused by the roadside incident but instead occurred during her
premature delivery.
Second, Mother maintains she completed her child permanency plan
goals, including completing anger management and parenting courses, and
undergoing psychological evaluations and domestic abuse counselling.
Mother also contends the court diminish
Id.
at 19-20.
Finally, Mother alleges CYS failed to make reasonable efforts to
accomplish reunification. She avers that CYS failed to conduct a home visit
before it concluded her home was inappropriate for Child, and that her visits
Id. at 21.
Mother further asserts the court erred in finding a seven-month lapse
between review hearings, in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6531(e)(3), did not
prejudice her. She also claims CYS failed to identify or recruit a qualified
family to adopt Child. Id. at 22.
We first note the relevant standard of review:
placement goal for a dependent child to adoption, our
standard is abuse of discretion. In order to conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine
-4-
J. S43031/14
action was a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,
as shown by the r
findings of fact that have support in 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
findings are supported by competent evidence of record,
we will affirm even if the record could also support an
opposite result.
In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 532-33 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
At each review hearing for a dependent child who has been
removed from the parental home, the court must consider
the following, statutorily-mandated factors:
the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of
the placement; the extent of compliance with the
service plan developed for the child; the extent of
progress made towards alleviating the circumstances
which necessitated the original placement; the
appropriateness and feasibility of the current
placement goal for the child; and, a likely date by
which the goal for the child might be achieved. [42
Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)].
* * *
When the child welfare agency has made reasonable
efforts to return a foster child to his or her biological
parent, but those efforts have failed, then the agency must
redirect its efforts towards placing the child in an adoptive
home. This Court has held that the placement process
should be completed within 18 months.
Id. at 533 (some citations omitted).
Additionally, Section 6351(f.1) of the Juvenile Act requires the trial
-5-
J. S43031/14
(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:
* * *
(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
parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited to the
safety, protection and physical, mental and moral
welfare of the child.
42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1)(2).
On the issue of a placement goal change, this Court has stated:
When a child is adjud
interest, not on what the parent wants or which goals the
parent has achieved. Moreover, although preserving the
unity of the family is a purpose of the [Juvenile] Act,
an
safety, and wholesome mental and physical development
42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1.1). . . .
In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some citations omitted).
-track system
under which child welfare agencies provide services to parents to enable
their reunification with their children, while also planning for alternative
permanent In re Adoption of S.E.G.,
901 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Instantly, after careful review of the record, including the notes of
testimony of the December 20, 2013 and January 24, 2014 review hearings,
-6-
J. S43031/14
the parti -reasoned decision of the Honorable Jonathan
See Trial. Ct. Op.,
at 18-21, 28 (finding, inter alia: (1) underlying problem of roadside tug-of-
-documented, deep-seated history
of violence between Mother and Father that . . . presents a danger to others,
nt and abusive
counseling from a clinician, minister, and pregnancy crisis group; (3)
suitable for Child because it was located
in a high crime, drug-
there, now stands charged with felonies related to selling drugs in the home;
(5) Mother has failed to support her claims of having a job and going to
nursing school with formal documentation; and (6) Child had been in care
for more than eighteen months). We discern no abuse of discretion by the
trial court. See In re A.K., 936 A.2d at 532-33. Accordingly, we affirm the
concurrent goal of reunification.
Order affirmed.
-7-
J. S43031/14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/22/2014
-8-
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM
Circulated 08/14/2014 11:13 AM