J-S36017-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.M., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1664 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered August 5, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County

Civil Division at No(s): 30 DP 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.M., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1665 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered August 5, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County

Civil Division at No(s): 31 DP 2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2021

Appellant, R.M. (“Father”), appeals from the orders entered in the 

Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, which changed the permanency goals 

for S.I.M. and S.M. (“Children”) to subsidized permanent legal custodianship

(“SPLC”). We affirm. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S36017-21

- 2 -

The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this 

case as follows: 

[Children] have been placed by [the Monroe County Children 

and Youth Services (“CYS”)] with [L.R. (“Maternal 

Grandmother”)] for almost two ... years. At the time of the 

initial dependency, [R.R.] (“Mother”) was having problems 

with drug use. [Children] were living primarily with her, and 

[Father] had little contact. Father continued to have little 

contact through CYS while [Children] were in care until 

recently.

On November 5, 2020, a hearing was held to change the 

goal to termination of parental rights and adoption 

(“TPR”).[1] At the time, Mother had made no progress on 

her goals, had moved to South Carolina, and had very little 

contact with [Children]. Father had little contact with 

[Children] as well. However, he indicated at that time that 

he wanted to re-establish a relationship and be considered 

a resource for [Children] since Mother was not....

(Trial Court Opinion, filed August 5, 2021, at 2).

On April 27, 2021, CYS requested a goal change to SPLC placement with 

Maternal Grandmother and termination of dependency. A permanency review 

hearing was held on July 30, 2021, where the following testimony was 

presented:

...Father was initially agreeable to SPLC in lieu of TPR, but 

now wants to pursue reunification.

Father has appropriate housing and income, and there are 

no concerns for the safety of [Children] if placed in his care. 

The concern of CYS is that Father has had only sporadic 

contact with [Children], that they have never lived with 

____________________________________________

1 The trial court denied CYS’s request to change the goal to adoption because

Father posed no danger to Children and wanted to maintain a relationship with 

them but noted that Father had not expressed an intent to take custody of 

Children. 
J-S36017-21

- 3 -

Father, and only recently had their first overnight stay at 

Father’s residence. Father resides with his wife and adult 

daughter in close proximity to [Maternal Grandmother] and 

[Children]. Father explained his delay in being involved and 

wanting reunification was due to his hope that Mother would 

get her life together and get [Children] back. He stated that 

when he realized she would not or could not, that he should 

step up as the other parent. 

(Id.)

On August 5, 2021, the court granted CYS’s request for goal change to 

SPLC placement with Maternal Grandmother. Father timely filed separate 

notices of appeal and concise statements of errors on August 13, 2021. On 

September 7, 2021, this Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte.

Father raises the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when it 

determined that giving [SPLC] to ... Maternal Grandmother 

would serve the needs and welfare of the children when 

[Father] is ready willing and able to take the children; there 

are not allegations of abuse or neglect concerning Father; 

Father is speaking with the children every day for a few 

minutes during the week and visiting all day on the 

weekends; and the Agency has no concerns regarding 

[Children’s] return to Father?

(Father’s Brief at 4). 

On appeal, Father argues that since the November 2020 goal change 

hearing, he has worked diligently to regain custody of Children. Father asserts

that he has obtained appropriate housing, maintained stable employment, 

increased visitation with Children, and fully complied with the CYS Service 

Plan. Father maintains that he has never posed a danger to Children and has 

formed a parental bond with them. Father contends that as Children’s natural 
J-S36017-21

- 4 -

father who is ready, able and willing to provide stable care for Children, he 

should not have to fight with Maternal Grandmother for custody. Father 

concludes that “it is in the best interests of the children that the goal remain 

reunification with [Father] and [CYS] work toward this goal.” (Id. at 11). We 

disagree.

On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion 

standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006). 

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. We are 

bound by the trial court’s 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 witness 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.” 

Id. at 822-23 (internal citations omitted). 

The Juvenile Act controls the disposition of dependent children. In re 

R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1217 (Pa.Super. 2008). Section 6351 provides in 

relevant part: 

§ 6351. Disposition of dependent child

(a) General rule.—If the child is found to be a 

dependent child the court may make any of the following 

orders of disposition best suited to the safety, protection 

and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child:
J-S36017-21

- 5 -

(1) Permit the child to remain with his parents, 

guardian, or other custodian, subject to conditions 

and limitations as the court prescribes, including 

supervision as directed by the court for the 

protection of the child.

* * *

(2.1) Subject to conditions and limitations as the 

court prescribes, transfer permanent legal custody 

to an individual resident in or outside this 

Commonwealth, including any relative, who, after 

study by the probation officer or other person or 

agency designated by the court, is found by the 

court to be qualified to receive and care for the 

child. A court order under this paragraph may set 

forth the temporary visitation rights of the parents. 

The court shall refer issues related to support and 

continuing visitation by the parent to the section of 

the court of common pleas that regularly 

determines support and visitation.

* * *

(e) Permanency hearings.—

(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 
J-S36017-21

- 6 -

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.

* * *

(f) Matters to be determined at permanency 

hearing.—At each permanency hearing, a court shall 

determine all of the following: 

(1) The continuing necessity for and 

appropriateness of the placement. 

(2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of 

compliance with the permanency plan developed 

for the child. 

(3) The extent of progress made toward 

alleviating the circumstances which necessitated 

the original placement. 

(4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the 

current placement goal for the child. 

(5) The likely date by which the placement goal 

for the child might be achieved. 

(5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to 

finalize the permanency plan in effect. 

(6) Whether the child is safe. 

* * *

(9) If the child has been in placement for at least 

15 of the last 22 months or the court has 

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, whether the county agency has filed or 
J-S36017-21

- 7 -

sought to join a petition to terminate parental 

rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve 

a qualified family to adopt the child unless:

(i) the child is being cared for by a relative best 

suited to the physical, mental and moral welfare 

of the child;

(ii) the county agency has documented a 

compelling reason for determining that filing a 

petition to terminate parental rights would not 

serve the needs and welfare of the child; or

(iii)the child’s family has not been provided with 

necessary services to achieve the safe return to 

the child’s parent, guardian or custodian within 

the time frames set forth in the permanency 

plan.

* * *

(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: 

(1) If and when the child will be returned to the 

child’s parent, guardian or custodian in cases

where the return of the child is best suited to the 

safety, protection and physical, mental and moral 

welfare of the child. 

(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 

to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian is not 

best suited to the safety, protection and physical, 

mental and moral welfare of the child. 

(3) If and when the child will be placed with a 

legal custodian in cases where the return to the 

child’s parent, guardian or custodian or being 

placed for adoption is not best suited to the safety, 

protection and physical, mental and moral welfare 
J-S36017-21

- 8 -

of the child. 

(4) If and when the child will be placed with a fit 

and willing relative in cases where return to the 

child’s parent, guardian or custodian, being placed 

for adoption or being placed with a legal custodian 

is not best suited to the safety, protection and 

physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. 

* * *

(g) Court order.—On the basis of the determination 

made under subsection (f.1), the court shall order the 

continuation, modification or termination of placement or 

other disposition which is best suited to the safety, 

protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the 

child. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a), (e), (f), (f.1), (g). 

Thus, the Juvenile Act provides that “upon the filing of a petition by a 

county children and youth agency that alleges the dependent child’s current 

placement is not safe, and the physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child 

would best be served if [SPLC] were granted,” the court can consider SPLC. 

In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973, 978 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 622 Pa. 761, 

80 A.3d 778 (2013).

In Pennsylvania, a juvenile court may award permanent 

legal custody to a child’s caretaker pursuant to Section 

6351(a)(2.1) of the Juvenile Act. This is an arrangement 

whereby a juvenile court discontinues court intervention as 

well as supervision by a county agency, and awards custody 

of a dependent child, on a permanent basis, to a custodian. 

Parental rights are not terminated....

... In order for the court to declare the custodian a 

“permanent legal custodian” the court must find that neither 

reunification nor adoption is best suited to the child’s safety, 

protection and physical, mental and moral welfare.
J-S36017-21

- 9 -

Id. (internal citations omitted).

Although the agency has the burden to show a goal change 

would serve the child’s best interests, safety, permanency, 

and well-being of the child must take precedence over all

other considerations under Section 6351. The parent’s 

rights are secondary in a goal change proceeding.

In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa.Super. 2010) (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). 

Instantly, the court determined that a goal change to SPLC placement 

was appropriate. The court previously decided adoption was not in Children’s 

best interests because Father posed no danger to Children and had developed 

a bond with them. Regarding reunification with Father, the court found:

It was clear that Father had little contact with [Children]

prior to dependency, and sporadic visits with them

thereafter until April or May of this year. Only very recently 

has Father made an effort to see [Children] regularly, but 

for very short periods of time.

[Children] are bonded with [Maternal Grandmother]. They 

are starting to form a bond with Father, but prefer to live 

with [Maternal Grandmother]. [Children] have lived with

[Maternal Grandmother] for a total of [three and a half]

years, the past 22 months of which have been through

placement by CYS. Father had little involvement with the

[Children] in their lifetimes, even though [Maternal 

Grandmother] has never kept them from Father. She would 

also encourage visitation with Father in the future.

If dependency is terminated, and SPLC is started, Father

could always seek custody or custodial rights through the 

courts. Unlike TPR and adoption, placement with [M]aternal 

[G]randmother and SPLC are not necessarily permanent, 

nor does it bar Father from seeing the minor children or 

pursuing custodial rights.
J-S36017-21

- 10 -

* * *

[Children] want to stay with Maternal Grandmother, to 

whom they are bonded. It does not appear [Children] are 

opposed to spending time with Father, just that they are not 

ready to live with him full-time. That might be something 

that changes with time, but not something to be forced right 

now. Termination of dependency, SPLC, and placement 

with [M]aternal [G]randmother is in [Children]’s best

interests.

(Trial Court Opinion at 2-3, 4). The record supports the court’s analysis. On 

this record, the court properly concluded that neither reunification nor

adoption are appropriate based on Children’s newly developing relationship 

with Father, and their preference and comfort with continuing in Maternal 

Grandmother’s care. See In re S.H., supra. Thus, we see no abuse of 

discretion by the court in determining that SPLC placement with Maternal 

Grandmother serves Children’s best interests. See In re R.M.G., supra; In 

re N.C., supra. Accordingly, we affirm. 

Orders affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/20/2021