In the Interest of: S.B., Appeal of: S.B., Sr.

J-S42045-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B., JR., Minor IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Child PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.B., SR., Father No. 495 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered February 26, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Domestic Relations, at No.: 43 of 2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 27, 2014
S.B., Sr. (“Father”), appeals from the Order changing the permanency
goal for his dependent child, S.B., Jr. (“Child”), to adoption. We affirm.
In its April 7, 2014 Opinion, the juvenile court set forth the relevant
factual and procedural history underlying the instant appeal, which we
incorporate herein by reference. Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/7/14, at 2-7.
On February 27, 2014, the juvenile court entered a permanency
review Order, which changed Child’s goal from reunification to adoption.
The juvenile court ordered that placement would remain with Child’s
maternal aunt in kinship care. Further, the Order permitted the Erie County
Office of Children and Youth (“OCY”) to proceed with adoption plans, and to
petition for the termination of Father’s parental rights at the appropriate
time. Additionally, the Order provided that Child should remain in the legal
J-S42045-14
custody of OCY, in accordance with the permanency plan, as modified.1
Father timely filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order changing Child’s
permanency goal, and a Concise Statement of errors complained of on
appeal.
On appeal, Father claims that the juvenile court “abused its discretion
by sua sponte ordering an elimination of reunification as a goal, and by
disregarding his efforts at sobriety and his compliance with the reunification
plan developed for him.”2 Brief for Appellant at 2 (unnumbered). Father
asserts that the Court Summary prepared by OCY indicated that Father was
in substantial compliance with the court-approved reunification plan. Id.
According to Father,
[h]e was receiving drug and alcohol treatment ([Court]
Summary, p.4), was participating in random urinalysis, which
never generated a positive result of substance abuse ([Court]
Summary, p.5), had completed a parent skills program (Id.),
was having success in mental health treatment (Id.), and had
participated in visits (Id.)….
Brief for Appellant at 2 (unnumbered). Father concedes, however, that “his
main problem was a relapse on heroin, which he admitted to his probation
officer.” Id. According to Father, he presented evidence that he had a plan
1
The record indicates that, on March 17, 2014, OCY filed a termination
Petition, approximately fifteen months after Child entered into kinship care
with his maternal aunt.
2
Father did not include, in his appellate brief, a Statement of Questions
Involved, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2116.
-2-
J-S42045-14
for himself upon release from the halfway house, which included family
support, a job and continuing his sobriety. Id. at 3 (unnumbered).
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 [juvenile] 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).
[A]n abuse of discretion occurs “when the course pursued
represents not merely an error of judgment, but where the
judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not
applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of
partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.”
In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967, 973 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).
In a change of goal proceeding, the best interests of the child, and not
the interests of the parent, must guide the juvenile court, and the parent’s
rights are secondary. In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 532-33 (Pa. Super. 2007).
The burden is on the Agency to prove the change in goal would be in the
child’s best interests. In the Interest of M.B., 674 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa.
Super. 1996).
In addressing Father’s argument, the juvenile court stated the
following:
It was clear to this [c]ourt that [] Father’s testimony lacked
credibility. He sought to minimize his situation and place blame
on others. His lack of effort to follow the treatment plan in place
-3-
J-S42045-14
was apparent not only from the substance of his words but his
demeanor at the time. There is no reason to believe Father will
follow through with his stated plan upon his return to Erie.
Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/7/14, at 7.
Although Father contends that OCY was willing to work with him
toward reunification with Child, and that OCY had only requested a ninety-
day review period, as opposed to a change in goal to adoption, OCY states
that Father was aware that the agency was seeking to add adoption, as a
concurrent goal, at the hearing. Brief of OCY at 5. OCY explains that the
juvenile court did not agree with the concurrent goal of adoption, and
ordered a change of goal to adoption. Id. OCY asserts that Father has a
history of heroin use with multiple relapses, and has untreated mental health
issues because he refuses to take his medication. Id. at 6. OCY points out
that, while there was some testimony suggesting a bond between Child and
Father during the supervised visits, the juvenile court rejected that evidence.
Id. Child, through his guardian ad litem, concurs with OCY’s brief. Brief for
Guardian Ad Litem at 3.
Father acknowledges that, in the Court Summary filed on February 24,
2014, OCY stated its intention to change the permanency goal from
reunification to add the concurrent goal of adoption. Brief for Appellant at 2
(unnumbered); Court Summary, 2/24/14, at 1. At the hearing on February
24, 2014, OCY presented evidence that it sought to add the concurrent goal
of adoption because of Father’s long history of ongoing drug use and his
-4-
J-S42045-14
relapse on heroin and cocaine in October and November of 2013, which
resulted in Father’s incarceration. N.T., 2/24/14, at 4.
Our careful review of the record, including the testimony and other
evidence, discloses that the juvenile court’s decision was not manifestly
unreasonable, a misapplication of the law, or a result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill will. See In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d at 973. We agree with the
sound reasoning of the juvenile court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm
on this basis. See Juvenile Court Opinion, 4/7/14, at 9-11. We additionally
observe the following.
Our review discloses that the juvenile court considered the evidence,
and assessed Father’s credibility. See id. at 7 (wherein the juvenile court
does not credit Father’s testimony regarding his plans upon release from the
halfway house). Further, the parties agree that there is no existing case law
that prevented the juvenile court from changing the goal at a second
permanency review hearing.
We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law by the juvenile court
when it determined that it was not in Child’s best interests to have a
concurrent goal of return to parent with a goal of adoption, and that a goal
of adoption was in Child’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the order of
the juvenile court.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-S42045-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/27/2014
-6-
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:24 AM