J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INT. OF: A.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: O.S., FATHER

No. 1646 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered September 7, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000157-2010

*****

IN THE INT. OF: A.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: L.S., MOTHER

No. 1652 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered September 7, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000157-2010

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2017

O.S. (Father) and L.S. (Mother) appeal1from the trial court’s order 

changing the primary goal from reunification to adoption for the parties’ 

minor son, A.S. (born 11/09). After careful review, we affirm.

____________________________________________

1 We have sua sponte consolidated Father’s and Mother’s appeals as they 

are taken from the same goal-change order and each raise a similar issue. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 2 -

A.S. is an insulin-dependent juvenile diabetic. In November 2010, 

York County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) received a referral 

regarding A.S. due to allegations of environmental and medical neglect. 

After several hearings, the court permitted A.S. to remain in Parents’ 

custody since they were cooperating with CYF and accepting ongoing 

services to remedy the situation; juvenile court jurisdiction was terminated 

in 2013.2 

On November 5, 2015, CYF received another referral regarding A.S. 

due to concerns about Mother and Father’s ability to properly attend to 

A.S.’s medical condition as well as concerns regarding the safety (exposed 

wiring) and cleanliness (excessive cat and dog urine and animal feces on 

floors and carpets) of the family home. On January 20, 2016, CYF filed a 

dependency petition alleging that A.S. “is without proper parental care or 

control.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. On January 22, 2016, CYF filed an emergency 

protective custody application and A.S. was removed from Mother and 

Father’s care and placed in temporary foster care. On April 7, 2016, 

following two days of hearings, A.S. was adjudicated dependent and physical 

and legal custody was awarded to CYF; A.S. remained in foster care. The 

court-ordered goal was set at reunification, with a projected date to achieve 

____________________________________________

2 On July 8, 2011, CYF filed a dependency petition. However, CYF later 

withdrew that petition when Parents began cooperating with early 

intervention services and attending parenting support groups in an effort to 

remedy the conditions that led to the referral.
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 3 -

the goal established at 6-12 months. In December 2015, February 2016, 

and June 2016, CYF prepared three family service plans (FSP) for Mother 

and Father, setting forth the following objectives: attend mental health 

therapy, significantly improve conditions of the home, work with an in-home 

team, obtain psychological evaluations, and continue to attend nutritional 

classes to understand A.S.’s significant medical needs. Justice Works, a 

social services organization, was assigned to assist the family to achieve 

their goals.

On June 8, 2016, the court held a combined placement review and 

dispositional review hearing. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e). After the hearing, 

the court entered a permanency review order indicating that A.S.’s 

placement continues to be necessary, that Mother and Father have 

minimally complied with the permanency plan, that CYF continues to provide 

the family ongoing services, and that A.S. is thriving in foster care. Most 

notably, the order notes that Mother and Father have made “minimal 

progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the 

original placement.” Permanency Review Order, 6/8/16, at 2. CYF’s report 

to the court also indicates that it had concerns regarding A.S.’s health, that 

he appeared to be malnourished and that his diabetes was not being treated 

appropriately. Report to the Court for Permanency Review Hearing, 6/6/16, 

at ¶ 2(i). Parents continued to have weekly, supervised visits with A.S.

On September 7, 2016, the court held a 90-day status review hearing. 

At the hearing, a CYF worker testified that there were still environmental 
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 4 -

concerns regarding Mother and Father’s home. With regard to Father, 

testimony revealed that while he attends A.S.’s medical appointments, he 

provides A.S. with improper food for his medical condition, which caused 

A.S.’s blood sugar to spike to a dangerously high level3on one occasion. 

Moreover, Father has failed to obtain mental health treatment as 

recommended by CYF. CYF reported that Mother has been cooperative with 

JusticeWorks, maintains her mental health appointments, attends all of 

A.S.’s medical appointments, and keeps records of A.S.’s food intake and 

insulin doses. Overall, CYF noted Mother’s progress as “moderate.” At the 

conclusion of the hearing, CYF recommended ongoing foster care placement 

for A.S. and the court changed the goal to adoption, with a concurrent goal 

of reunification. In justifying its goal change, the court stated:

Well, we’re going to go a little further than that. We’re going to 

change the goal. And we are going to change the goal to 

adoption. And secondarily, or the concurrent goal will be 

reunification.

I want to make it very clear that even though we are changing 

the goal to adoption that it very well could be totally proper to 

reunify [A.S.] with his mother if his mother and father were not 

living together.

____________________________________________

3 A JusticeWorks employee who provided services to the family testified that 

A.S.’s blood sugar level peaked to 419-420. N.T. Status Review Hearing, 

9/7/16, at 28. For a six-year-old, the preferred range for a fasting blood 

sugar level is 80-90; a range of 120-140 is preferred two hours after a meal. 

See http://www.diabetesaction.org.
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 5 -

I know Justice Works has tried to work with [M]other on 

separating and so forth. And if she can’t do that, I feel very 

much for her. But I have to look out for [A.S.].

And candidly, the diabetic problem or the environmental 

problems, either one would cause me to have the goal changed 

to adoption, but two of them together, and [F]ather’s lack of 

cooperation on mental health treatment is a nice – not a nice –

it’s an unfortunate postscript to that.

But the two of them together, even though we are not to the 15 

months, if I’m counting right, we are at seven months in 

placement but ten months of services. It’s time to change 

direction.

[Mother and Father], [c]ounsel can advise you but I can tell you 

in open court that does not necessarily mean your rights will be 

terminated. That requires a Petition to Terminate Parental 

Rights and a hearing. So there is still time to – if you’ll excuse 

the expression – clean up our act.

I did warn you when we were here three months ago. I have it 

in my notes. I warned you that this could happen, and 

unfortunately not only was progress not made, but several steps 

backwards is what has happened since the last hearing. I’m 

extremely concerned about the hoarding getting worse and more 

things going into the home instead of leaving the home. More 

clutter instead of less. That’s completely the wrong trend.

You were warned about the cats and the dogs and the urine last 

time. Now, apparently it’s as bad if not worse. I hear the 

carpets would probably have to be replaced to take care of the 

urine smell. You’ve not only not made progress in the last three 

months, you’ve gone backwards. So you’ve left me no choice 

but to change the goal to adoption.

N.T. Status Review Hearing, 9/7/16, at 41-43. The court entered its order 

changing the goal to adoption; this timely appeal follows. 

On appeal, Father and Mother present the same issue for our 

consideration: Whether the trial court erred in changing the court-ordered 

goal in that the change of goal is not in the child’s best interest and is 
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 6 -

against the sufficiency and weight of the evidence where parents were not 

provided sufficient time to effectuate reunification.

On appeal, Father presents the following issue for our consideration: 

Whether the court abused its discretion in ordering a change of goal to 

adoption because the change was made sua sponte at a 90-day status 

conference without notice of a consideration of change of goal given to any 

party?

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 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 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). 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). 

Placement of and custody issues pertaining to dependent 

children are controlled by the Juvenile Act, which was amended 

in 1998 to conform to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act 
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 7 -

("ASFA"). The policy underlying these statutes is to prevent 

children from languishing indefinitely in foster care, with its 

inherent lack of permanency, normalcy, and long-term parental 

commitment. Consistent with this underlying policy, the 1998 

amendments to the Juvenile Act, as required by the ASFA, place 

the focus of dependency proceedings, including change of goal 

proceedings, on the child. Safety, permanency, and well-being 

of the child must take precedence over all other considerations, 

including the rights of the parents. 

* * * 

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. 

* * * 

While this 18-month time frame may in some circumstances 

seem short, it is based on the policy 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. 

Id. at 823-24 (citations and quotations omitted; footnotes and emphasis in 

original).

Mother asserts that the court improperly changed the goal to adoption 

where she was making “moderate progress towards achieving her goals” and 

she “was cooperative with in-home services, maintains her mental health 

appointments[,] attends all [of A.S.’s] appointments [and] keeps records in 

[a] designated notebook of [A.S.’s] food intake and insulin doses.” Mother’s 

Brief, at 10. We do not doubt that Mother has been cooperative with Justice 

Works’ caseworkers, is working toward achieving her service goals, and is 

open to recommended changes to better A.S.’s home environment. 
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 8 -

However, this does not change the reality that Mother’s positive efforts are 

constantly thwarted by Father and that Mother’s acquiescence to Father is 

not in the best interest of A.S. 

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 S.G., supra. Moreover, while Mother argues that she 

was never given the opportunity to separate herself from Father, she is an 

adult and has a parental obligation to pursue A.S.’s best interests. Although 

the court and CYF may not have originally suggested that she leave Father, 

the simple fact remains that she and Father have not been able to effectively 

and permanently meet and maintain the goals established for them since 

A.S. was adjudicated dependent. See In re N.C., supra (goal change may 

be necessary when parents have not advanced themselves to point of 

discharging parental duties and obligations because “a child’s life simply 

cannot be put on hold in the hope that a parent will summon the ability to 

handle the responsibilities of parenting.”) (quoting In re Adoption of 

M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003)). Accordingly, we find no 

merit to her issue on appeal.

Likewise, Father asserts that the court erred in changing the goal to 

adoption where it was not in A.S.’s best interest and contrary to the weight 

of the evidence. A.S.’s home continues to be in deplorable condition, 

smelling of cat urine and dog feces strewn on the floors. A.S.’s educational, 

developmental and medical needs are neither being effectively addressed 
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 9 -

nor met by Father. At the time of the status review hearing, A.S. was six 

years old and still wearing diapers. CYF had concerns regarding Father’s 

ability to provide the correct insulin dosage as well as implement a 

nutritional program for A.S.’s diabetes. Most alarming, however, was 

testimony that Father had provided A.S. food that caused his blood sugar 

level to spike to more than 400. Additionally, health care providers testified 

that they were concerned Mother and Father may not be able to address 

A.S.’s long-term medical needs, which directly impacts A.S.’s health, wellbeing and safety. See In re N.C., supra (“Safety, permanency, and wellbeing of the child must take precedence over all other considerations, 

including the rights of the parents.”). Accordingly, we find no merit to this 

claim.

In Father’s final issue, he contends that the formal, six-month 

permanency review hearing, not a 90-day status review hearing, is the 

appropriate time to review and change a goal in a dependency case. Father 

contends that compared to regular six-month permanency hearings, threemonth status review hearings are less formal and a caseworker report 

detailing the parents’ progress and FSP compliance is not required. Because 

the court “sua sponte” changed the goal at the status review hearing on 

September 7, 2016, Father asserts that his right to notice was violated.

Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351 of the Adoption Act:

(e) Permanency hearings.
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 10 -

(1) The court shall conduct a permanency hearing for the 

purpose of determining or reviewing the permanency plan 

of the child, the date by which the goal of permanency for 

the child might be achieved and whether placement 

continues to be best suited to the safety, protection and 

physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. In any 

permanency hearing held with respect to the child, the 

court shall consult with the child regarding the child’s 

permanency plan, including the child’s desired permanency 

goal, in a manner appropriate to the child’s age and 

maturity. If the court does not consult personally with the 

child, the court shall ensure that the views of the child 

regarding the permanency plan have been ascertained to 

the fullest extent possible and communicated to the court 

by the guardian ad litem under section 6311 (relating to 

guardian ad litem for child in court proceedings) or, as 

appropriate to the circumstances of the case by the child’s 

counsel, the court-appointed special advocate or other 

person as designated by the court.

* * *

(3) The court shall conduct permanency hearings as follows:

(i) Within six months of:

(A) the date of the child’s removal from the child’s parent, 

guardian or custodian for placement under section 6324 

(relating to taking into custody) or 6332 or pursuant to a 

transfer of temporary legal custody or other disposition 

under subsection (a)(2), whichever is the earliest; or

(B) each previous permanency hearing until the child is 

returned to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or 

removed from the jurisdiction of the court.

(ii) Within 30 days of:

(A) an adjudication of dependency at which the court 

determined that aggravated circumstances exist and that 

reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to 

remove the child from the child’s parent, guardian or 

custodian or to preserve and reunify the family need not 

be made or continue to be made;
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 11 -

(B) a permanency hearing at which the court determined 

that aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable 

efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the 

child from the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or to 

preserve and reunify the family need not be made or 

continue to be made and the permanency plan for the child 

is incomplete or inconsistent with the court’s 

determination[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 6351. Moreover, at each permanency hearing, the court shall 

determine, among other things, “[t]he appropriateness and feasibility of the 

current placement goal for the child.” Id. at § 6351(f)(4).

Instantly, the court sua sponte changed A.S.’s primary goal from 

reunification to adoption at the 90-day status hearing on September 7, 

2016. At that time, A.S. had been in placement for less than 8 months. 

While an agency typically files a petition to change a goal in a dependency 

proceeding, there is nothing in the Juvenile Act, case law or rules of 

procedure that prevents an agency from requesting a goal change sooner, 

nor is there law in Pennsylvania prohibiting a trial court from ordering the 

agency to change the permanency goal at any time if it is clear reunification 

is not viable. 

Additionally, we do not find that Father’s due process rights were 

violated where he was afforded notice of the dependency petition, 

emergency protective custody petition, shelter care hearing, several 

permanency hearings, regular review hearings, and was also represented by 

counsel at the status review hearing where he had the opportunity to 

present evidence and cross-examine CYF witnesses. See in re G.P.-R., 851 
J-S07027-17

J-S07028-17

- 12 -

A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2003) (where agency filed petition to terminate 

parental rights where placement plan remained reunification, Father's due 

process rights protected where he was afforded adjudication hearing, regular 

review hearings, hearing on his exceptions to goal change and on petition to 

terminate his parental rights, was represented by counsel and had 

opportunity to present evidence).

After careful review, we find that the trial court’s decision to change 

A.S.’s primary goal to adoption is supported by clear and convincing 

evidence and that there was no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. In the 

Interest of S.G., supra.

Order affirmed.4

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/10/2017

____________________________________________

4 We reiterate the fact that merely because a court changes the primary goal 

to adoption, it does not necessarily mean that parental rights will be 

terminated. Here, the court changed A.S.’s goal in an effort to emphasize 

the urgency of A.S.’s medical condition and declining home environment and 

to prompt Mother and Father to be more compliant with their FSP so that 

they may have the goal returned to reunification.