J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

____________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W., AND 

K.W. MINORS,

APPEAL OF: S.G., NATURAL 

MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 602 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No(s): CP25-DP-0000103-2016, 

CP-25-DP-0000124-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W., JR. & 

K.W., MINORS

APPEAL OF: M.W., NATURAL 

FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 694 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order March 21, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Domestic Relations at 

No(s): Nos 103 & 124 of 2016

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2018

Appellants, S.G (“Mother”) and M.W. (“Father”) appeal from the orders 

dated March 15, 2017, and entered on March 21, 2017, that changed the 

permanency goals from unification with parents to adoption for their two 

children, M.W., Jr., a male born in April of 2016, and K.W., a female born in 

April of 2015, (collectively, “the Children”). We affirm. 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 2 -

The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history 

of this appeal, with regard to Mother, as follows.

M.W., Jr. was born [in April of 2016] and adjudicated 

dependent on July 12, 2016. Mother was not present at the 

adjudication hearing and specific findings were made on the

record supporting [Erie County Office of Children and Youth’s (the 

Agency)] allegations [that Mother] was unable to meet M.W., Jr.’s 

basic needs. Permanency Hearing Transcript, 11/3/16, p. 3. The 

Agency was primarily concerned with M.W., Jr.’s continued weight 

loss in [Mother’s] care. M.W., Jr. was seen at Children’s Hospital 

of Pittsburgh, UPMC Hamot, and St. Vincent Hospitals. Providers 

at each facility observed [Mother] struggle to feed M.W., Jr., saw 

she was often asleep at feeding time, and that she did not respond 

to instruction given by hospital staff. As a result, M.W., Jr. was 

diagnosed with [n]on-[o]rganic [f]ailure to thrive. Doctors 

specifically stated [Mother’s] lack of care caused M.W., Jr[.]’s 

severe weight loss, as he began to gain weight while he was in 

the hospital receiving regular care. Court Summary, March 15, 

2017, p. 1-2. See also Permanency Hearing Transcript I, 

3/15/17, p. 11.

K.W. was born [in April of 2015] and adjudicated dependent 

on August 26, 2016. The evidence presented at the adjudication 

hearing revealed [Mother] was not providing K.W. with a safe and 

stable home environment or providing for her basic needs. When 

Agency workers arrived at [Mother’s] home, they noticed K.W. 

was screaming and suggested Mother give her something to drink. 

Mother refused, stating K.W. broke her “sippy cup a few days ago”

and was not allowed to drink. When workers approached K.W. to 

comfort her, they found her in a crib, surrounded by a large teddy 

bear and multiple blankets caked in what appeared to be vomit or 

feces. Court Summary, March 15, 2017, p. 2. See also

Permanency Hearing Transcript I, 3/15/17, p. 12, 57.

At the time K.W. was detained, the Agency also voiced 

concerns with [Mother’s] poor home conditions, despite ongoing 

involvement with Agency services beginning in May, 2015. 

Permanency Hearing Transcript II, 3/15/17, p. 3. Workers found 

animal urine and feces on the floor of the residence, which K.W. 

was permitted to walk through. Again, workers noted dried, old, 

feces and vomit in K.W.’s bedding. Garbage, medications, and 

rotten food were strewn throughout the house. The Agency also 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 3 -

noted [Mother] acquiesced to Megan’s Law offenders providing 

care for K.W. on several occasions. Court Summary, March 15, 

2017, p. 2. See also Permanency Hearing Transcript I, 3/15/17, 

p. 12.

The first permanency review hearing was held on November 

3, 2016. At this time, the [C]hildren had been in Agency care for 

approximately three months. The Agency recommended the goal 

be changed to adoption. The Agency stated Mother was resistant 

to services offered. Further, her unwillingness to cooperate made 

it difficult for the Agency to address its concerns with her. 

Permanency Hearing Transcript, 11/3/16, p. 3-4. [Mother] also 

failed to attend any visitation with the [C]hildren from the time 

the [C]hildren were adjudicated dependent to the November 3, 

2016 hearing. Permanency Hearing Transcript I, 3/15/17, p. 15.

The guardian ad litem for the [C]hildren agreed [Mother] was

resistant to services, but felt it was too early to change the goal 

to adoption. [Mother] stated she wanted to “push[ ] forward with 

what [she’d] been trying to do” and that she could “put more 

effort, 100 percent more effort into it to do what [she] had to do.” 

Permanency Hearing Transcript, 11/3/16, p. 3-4, 6.

The Juvenile Court found [Mother’s] compliance and 

participation with services was abysmal and advised [Mother] she 

needed to do better if she wanted to be reunited with her children.

Permanency Hearing Transcript, 11/3/16, p. 6.

Despite [Mother’s] non-compliance, the Juvenile Court 

declined to change the goal to adoption and instead added 

adoption as a goal concurrent to reunification. A review was

scheduled for 120 days. [Mother] was advised if she did not 

comply with services, the goal would be changed to adoption at 

the next hearing. [Mother] was also reminded she needed to

continue contacting the Agency 24 hours prior to any visitation to 

confirm attendance because she missed so many visits with the 

[C]hildren in the past. If [Mother] wished to resume services with 

Erie Homes for Children and Adults, [Mother] was instructed she

needed to make arrangements with that agency due to consistent 

non-compliance and resistance to their assistance. Finally, 

[Mother] was directed to participate in a psychiatric evaluation 

with Dr. [Peter] von Korff and sign all medical releases required 

for the doctor to complete a thorough report. Permanency 

Hearing Transcript, 11/3/16, p. 7-8, 10-13.
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 4 -

The next permanency review hearing was held on March 15, 

2017. The evidence presented at this hearing revealed [Mother], 

once again, could not show she was able to provide a safe and 

stable environment for the [C]hildren, attend regular visits, or 

otherwise comply with treatment recommendations. 

Testimony[sic] the oldest child was diagnosed with Reactive

Attachment Disorder and the results of [Mother’s] evaluation with 

Doctor von Korff also supported the Agency’s request the goal be 

changed to adoption and services to [Mother] be terminated.

Agency witnesses testified to [Mother’s] inability to obtain 

or maintain safe and stable housing. In November, 2016, 

[Mother] was evicted from her apartment after she allowed other

people to live in the home in violation of her lease. Some of these 

individuals were Megan’s Law offenders who were permitted 

access to the [C]hildren. She also refused to allow maintenance

into the apartment to repair plumbing which was leaking raw 

sewage openly through the basement. Conditions in the 

apartment were so hazardous Code Enforcement would not allow

anyone else to live there. Despite eviction in November, 2016, 

[Mother] refused to vacate the residence and lived in these 

conditions until she was locked out in February, 2017. 

Permanency Hearing Transcript I, 3/15/17, p. 6, 23.

[Mother] obtained new housing approximately two weeks 

before the March, 2017 review hearing. However, an assessment 

of its cleanliness or suitability for children could not be completed 

because [Mother] was in the process of moving and much of 

[Mother’s] belongings remained packed in boxes. Permanency 

Hearing Transcript I, 3/15/17, p. 16-17.

Despite [Mother’s] request to reopen services with Project 

First Step at the end of November, 2016, Agency witnesses agreed 

[Mother] continued to be resistant to services and refused to 

“prioritize her children.” In spite of an extensive conversation with 

Project First Step workers outlining program and court 

expectations, and the effect of missing visits on her standing with 

the court, [Mother’s] attendance at visits was sporadic. [Mother]

attended only 9 out of 18 visits between November, 2016 and 

March, 2017. Of those visits [Mother] attended, she was late four 

times. The amount of time [Mother] was late varied, and ranged 

from as few as ten minutes to as many as forty minutes per hour 

long visit. She never asked for increased visitation or extra time 

if she was late, and attempted to pass blame for her tardiness or 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 5 -

failure to appear onto others or illness. Permanency Hearing 

Transcript, I, 3/15/17, p. 5, 10, 15, 18, 43. See also Permanency 

Hearing Transcript, II, 3/15/17, p. 4-5.

Workers also noted that during the seven months the case 

was open, the only times [Mother] saw [the C]hildren were on 

these nine occasions. Permanency Hearing Transcript, I,

3/15/17, p. 42.

Finally, workers voiced concern about the results of Dr. von 

Korff’s evaluation and [Mother’s] inability to appreciate the 

[C]hildren’s special and developmental needs. Despite thorough 

explanation of age appropriate goals and K.W.’s diagnosis of 

Reactive Attachment Disorder, [Mother did] not consistently show 

an ability to retain this information and apply it during visitation 

with the [C]hildren. [Although Mother] engaged the [C]hildren 

during visits and attempted to be the [C]hildren’s main caretaker, 

the [C]hildren, especially K.W., did not show strong evidence of a 

bond with [Mother]. In fact, K.W. interacted with workers in much 

the same way she interacted with [Mother]. Permanency Hearing 

Transcript I, 3/15/17, p. 13-14, 27, 31.

It was clear to service providers [Mother] struggled with her 

own untreated mental health conditions, which hindered her 

ability to comply with the treatment plan and handicapped

providers’ ability to ensure services were specifically tailored to 

her needs. [Mother’s] self-assessment to providers at Stairways 

Behavioral Health yielded no recommendation of services because 

[Mother] did not accurately represent her own mental health 

history or history of trauma. In fact, when workers suggested 

[Mother] seek mental health treatment, she became irate and 

extremely argumentative. Only after evaluation by Dr. von Korff 

did the scope and severity of [Mother’s] mental health emerge. 

Permanency Hearing Transcript I, 3/15/17, p. 29, 33, 44. See 

also Permanency Hearing Transcript, II, 3/15/17, p. 7 and 

Psychological Evaluation, Dr. Peter von Korff, generally.

Dr. von Korff’s evaluation, which was admitted into evidence 

without objection at the March 15, 2017 review hearing, offered 

no indication [Mother] functioned as a secure, primary attachment 

figure for the [C]hildren. Additionally, the report cited a very 

“guarded” prognosis for [Mother], given Project First Step’s 

long-term involvement and caseworker’s efforts. [Mother] showed 

no sign of recognizing or accepting the reasons for which M.W., 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 6 -

Jr. was detained. In the doctor’s opinion, it was in the [C]hildren’s 

best interests to pursue adoptive options. Psychological

Evaluation, Dr. Peter von Korff, p. 19-20; [s]ee also Permanency 

Hearing Transcript, [sic] I, 3/15/17, p. 3.

[Mother’s] testimony revealed she did not appreciate the 

ramifications of missing visitation with [the C]hildren. She 

admitted to missing approximately half of the scheduled visits

with her children. Instead of accepting responsibility for her poor 

performance, [Mother] consistently attempted to shift blame onto 

others. She did not address the state of the home in which the 

[C]hildren were living, or acknowledge her part in each child’s 

failure to thrive. Permanency Hearing Transcript, [sic] II, 

3/15/17, p. 31-37.

At the conclusion of the March, 2017 review hearing, the 

Juvenile Court concluded the Agency met its burden in 

establishing the change of goal to adoption was supported by clear 

and convincing evidence, and was in the [C]hildren’s best 

interests. An order was entered March 21, 2017.

Trial Court Opinion (Mother), 5/16/17, at 1-6 (emphasis in original) (footnote 

added).

1

On April 19, 2017, Mother filed her notice of appeal, along with a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On April 20, 2017, Father filed his notice of appeal and 

concise statement.

In her brief on appeal, Mother raises the following issue:

____________________________________________

1 The trial court’s recitation of the factual background and procedural history, 

as well as the discussion of the issues on appeal, was nearly identical in its 

separate Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinions with regard to Mother and Father. 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 7 -

Whether the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion 

and/or error of law when it determined that the concurrent 

permanency goal of reunification/adoption was no longer feasible, 

dispensed with the current goal of reunification, and directed the 

agency to provide no further services to [Mother] or provide 

visitation with the minor children[?]

Mother’s Brief, at 2.

2

In his brief on appeal, Father raises the following issue:

Did the Juvenile Court abuse its considerable discretion or commit 

an error of law when it ruled that the concurrent goal of 

“Reunification/Adoption” should be changed only to “Adoption”

whereby the parents would no longer be involved in attempts at

reunification with their respective children?

Father’s Brief, at 2.

This matter is controlled by the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301 et 

seq. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth our standard of review in a 

dependency case as follows.

“The standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate 

court to accept findings of fact and credibility determinations of 

the trial 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.” In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, [27], 9 A.3d 1179, 

1190 (Pa. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion[.] 

____________________________________________

2 Mother’s concise statement did not include the allegation that the trial court 

abused its discretion or erred when it directed the Agency not to provide 

further services to Mother, and not to provide her with visitation with the 

Children. Thus, we find Mother waived these allegations. See Krebs v. 

United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 

2006) (holding that an appellant waives issues that are not raised in both his 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and the statement of 

questions involved in her brief on appeal). 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 8 -

In Interest of: L.Z., A Minor Child, 631 Pa. 343, 360, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 

(Pa. 2015).

When considering a petition for goal change for a dependent child, the 

trial court considers:

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.

In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 6351(f)).

Regarding the disposition of a dependent child, subsections 6351(e), (f), 

(f.1), and (g) of the Juvenile Act provides the trial court with the criteria for 

its permanency plan for the subject child. Pursuant to those subsections of 

the Juvenile Act, the trial court is to determine the disposition that is best 

suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the 

child.

With regard to Mother’s contention that the trial court abused its 

discretion in changing the Children’s permanency goal to adoption, the trial 

court stated as follows:

[Mother] alleges the Juvenile Court committed abuse of 

discretion when it changed the goal of the proceedings from 

reunification concurrent with adoption to adoption. This allegation

lacks merit.
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 9 -

The Juvenile Act generally requires the child protective 

agency to request a goal change when the child has been in 

placement fifteen out of twenty-two months. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

6351(b)(9). The Superior Court has held the underlying policy of 

the Juvenile Act is to curb an inappropriate focus on protecting the 

rights of parents when there is a risk of subjecting children to 

indefinite foster care or returning them to abuse homes. In Re:

C.B., 861 A.2d. 287, 295 (Pa. Super. 2004). Moreover, safety, 

permanency, and the well-being of the child must take precedence 

over all other considerations, including the rights of the parents. 

Id.

Furthermore, the agency is not required to offer services 

indefinitely, where a parent is unable to properly apply instruction 

provided. In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 340 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Preserving reunification as a goal is not a viable option in 

this case. The record reveals [Mother] did very little to maintain 

continuous and meaningful contact with the [C]hildren after they 

were taken into care. [Mother] testified she understood 

substantial compliance with the treatment plan meant she had to 

put forth “as much effort as [she could at] every single visit,

every, appointment, everything” and did not feel like the court 

order was overwhelming, yet continued to miss visits with her 

children without adequate explanation. Permanency Hearing

Transcript, I, 3/15/17, p. 31-33.

During the first three months of the [C]hildren’s placement, 

[Mother] refused visitation and did not see the children at all. 

From November, 2016 through the permanency review hearing in 

March, 2015, [Mother] saw her [the C]hildren a total of nine times. 

She was egregiously late to four of these visits, despite knowing 

100% attendance and participation was required of her. 

Moreover, the testimony revealed even when [Mother] appeared 

for visits, K.W. interacted with her in the same way she interacted 

with other caseworkers in the room, evidencing a lack of bond 

between K.W. and Appellant. Permanency Hearing Transcript, I, 

3/15/17, p. 5, 10, 15, 18, 43. See also Permanency Hearing 

Transcript, [sic] II, 3/15/17, p. 4-5.

Concerns about [Mother’s] housing and mental health 

remained, given the home’s rapid deterioration shortly after the 

[C]hildren were detained, [Mother] eviction, and subsequent

failure to obtain new housing until after she was locked out of the 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 10 -

apartment. Though [Mother] recently moved into a new 

residence, boxes and clutter prevented workers from assessing 

the safety of the home and its suitability for small children.

Appellant’s choice to minimize her traumatic past and 

mental health history to providers also concerned the Juvenile 

Court. Dr. von Korff’s evaluation was the first time [Mother’s] full

mental health history could be examined in relation to her ability 

to parent because [Mother’s] prior evaluations, based on her own 

reports, resulted in a finding [Mother] did not need services.

In Dr. von Korff’s opinion, given [Mother’s] history of 

trauma, patently biased-self reporting, and little evidence of a 

meaningful bond between [Mother] and [the C]hildren, it was in 

the [C]hildren’s best interests to consider adoptive options. 

Psychological Evaluation, Dr. Peter von Korff, p. 19-20.

[Mother’s] statements she would “make more of an effort” 

if services were continued did not assure the Juvenile Court 

[Mother] would be able to adequately parent [the C]hildren in the 

future. [Mother] stated transportation issues prevented her from 

attending court, visits, and other appointments, yet the Agency 

and other aides provided [Mother] with bus passes and other 

transportation assistance. When [Mother] testified at the March, 

2017 review hearing, she continued to cite a series of 

extraordinary excuses for her lack of communication with Project

First Step and inability to comply with the treatment plan. At 

every turn[, Mother] refused to take ownership of the reasons the 

[C]hildren were detained. Permanency Review Hearing

Transcript, II, 3/15/17, p.13, 33-36.

* * *

To subject the [C]hildren to continued placement and deny 

them the safety and stability they deserve is not in their best 

interests. [Mother’s] testimony, and the evidence presented by

the Agency, show [Mother] refused to parent [the C]hildren or 

remedy the conditions which led to their placement. A goal 

change to adoption is therefore appropriate. It is respectfully 

requested the Superior Court affirm the order changing the goal 

of the dependency proceedings to adoption.
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 11 -

Trial Court Opinion (Mother), 5/16/17, at 7-10 (emphasis in original) (some 

brackets in original).

With regard to Father’s contention that the trial court abused its 

discretion in changing the Children’s permanency goal to adoption, the trial 

court stated as follows:

[Father] alleges the Juvenile Court committed abuse of 

discretion and/or error of law when it changed the goal of the 

dependency proceedings to adoption. 

The Juvenile Act generally requires the child protective 

agency to request a goal change when the child has been in 

placement fifteen out of twenty-two months. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

6351(b)(9). The Superior Court has held the underlying policy of 

the Juvenile Act is to curb an inappropriate focus on protecting the 

rights of parents when there is a risk of subjecting children to 

indefinite foster care or returning them to abuse homes. In Re:

C.B., 861 A.2d. 287, 295 (Pa. Super. 2004). Moreover, safety, 

permanency, and the well-being of the child must take precedence 

over all other considerations, including the rights of the parents. 

Id.

Furthermore, the agency is not required to offer services 

indefinitely, where a parent is unable to properly apply instruction 

provided. In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 340 (Pa. Super. 2002).

Preserving reunification as a goal is not a viable option in 

this case. It is clear from the record [Father] refused to maintain 

continuous and meaningful contact with the [C]hildren. Further, 

[Father’s] statements to service providers suggest he did not take 

parenting [the C]hildren or participation in Agency services 

seriously.

On several occasions, [Father] reported he would comply 

with Agency directives or attempt to be more involved with [the 

C]hildren “because people tell me I have to.” Permanency 

Transcript, II, 3/15/17, p. 9. Despite these statements, [Father’s]

attendance at visitation and the effort put forth interacting with 

[the C]hildren was abysmal. From November, 2016 through the 

permanency review hearing in March, 2015, [Father] saw [the 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 12 -

C]hildren a total of nine times and was often late. Even when 

[Father] attended visitation, he “parented from the couch” and 

interacted with the [C]hildren minimally.

Dr. von Korff’s evaluation of [Father] included statements 

from [Father that] he declined services, refused to speak with 

workers, and chose not to participate with visitation requirements 

because he was upset with the Agency. Further, observation of 

[Father’s] interaction with K.W., led Dr. von Korff to conclude K.W. 

was not bonded to [Father] and did not look to him as a secure, 

primary attachment figure. Psychological Evaluation, Dr. Peter 

von Korff, p. 4, 20. 

Workers[’

] description that [Father’s] home severely 

deteriorated after the [C]hildren were detained also remained 

concerning to the Juvenile Court. [Father] allowed the home to 

become uninhabitable, had to be locked out of his residence 

before he moved, and only recently obtained new housing, which 

could not be easily assessed for safety and/or cleanliness. 

Permanency Transcript, II, 3/15/17, p. 15.

[Father’s] completion of the Fatherhood Initiative Program 

and statements [indicating that] he wanted to parent [the 

C]hildren were contradicted by [Father’s] actions. He did not deny 

attending only nine visits with the [C]hildren in the span of seven 

months, nor could he show any appreciation of, or responsibility 

for, the reasons the [C]hildren came into care. [Father] continued 

to place blame on others, stating the [C]hildren were “wrongfully 

taken away.” [Father’s] inability to appreciate the severity of the 

[C]hildren’s condition upon detention shows he will be unable to 

safely parent the [C]hildren at any point in the foreseeable future. 

His statements [that] he would participate only because he had to 

further show [Father] will not be able to successfully or 

independently parent [the C]hildren. Permanency Transcript, 

[sic] II, 3/15/17, p. 25-27. 

* * *

To subject the [C]hildren to continued placement and deny 

them the safety and stability they deserve is not in their best 

interests. [Father’s] testimony, and the evidence presented by

the Agency, show [Father] refused to parent [the C]hildren or 

remedy the conditions which led to their placement. A goal 

change to adoption is therefore appropriate. It is respectfully 
J-S78012-17 & J-S78013-17

- 13 -

requested the Superior Court affirm the order changing the goal 

of the dependency proceedings to adoption.

Trial Court Opinion (Father), 5/16/17, at 6-10 (emphasis in original).

After a careful review of the record in this matter, we find no abuse of 

discretion on the part of the trial court in changing the permanency goal for 

the Children to adoption. Accordingly, we affirm the goal change orders on 

the basis of the discussion in the trial court opinions.

Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/13/2018