J-S60015-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.A., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

APPEAL OF: K.D.A., MOTHER

No. 1006 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered March 7, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County

Civil Division at No(s): CP-64-DP-2-2014

BEFORE: SHOGAN, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 01, 2016

Appellant, K.D.A. (“Mother”), appeals from the permanency review 

order dated February 24, 2016, and entered on March 7, 2016, changing the 

permanency goal for her son, A.A. (“Child”) (born in November of 2009), to 

adoption and changing his concurrent goal to subsidized permanent legal 

custodian (“SPLC”), pursuant to section 6351 of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6301-6365. We affirm.

We summarize the procedural history of this case as follows. On 

January 17, 2014, Children and Youth Services (“CYS” or the “Agency”) filed 

an emergency petition for protective custody regarding Child. The trial court 

granted the petition and placed Child in foster care. On January 21, 2014, 

____________________________________________

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S60015-16

- 2 -

CYS filed a petition for shelter care, which the trial court also granted. On 

February 19, 2014, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent pursuant to 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(1). The trial court then held permanency review hearings 

on March 31, 2014, June 25, 2014, and September 2, 2014. In an order on 

September 11, 2014, the trial court found aggravated circumstances as to 

Child’s father, M.S. (“Father”). The trial court held subsequent permanency 

review hearings on November 25, 2014, February 4, 2015, March 18, 2015, 

and July 27, 2015. On July 27, 2015, the trial court suspended Child’s 

visitation with Mother and W.A. (“Maternal Grandfather”) until a therapist 

could introduce Child to Father. Thereafter, the trial court held a 

permanency review hearing on September 15, 2015. On December 10, 

2015, Child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) filed a motion for the appointment of 

legal counsel for Child, and the trial court appointed Attorney Michael 

Lehutsky as counsel for Child.

The trial court held a permanency review hearing on February 23, 

2016. At the hearing, CYS presented the testimony of its Assistant Director, 

Amy Bass. Mother testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony 

of Maternal Grandfather. Father testified on his own behalf and presented 

the testimony of his mother, D.S. (“Paternal Grandmother”).

In an order dated February 24, 2016, and entered on March 7, 2016, 

the trial court changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption, and his 

concurrent goal to SPLC. On March 28, 2016, Mother filed a timely notice of 
J-S60015-16

- 3 -

appeal and concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, along with 

a concise statement, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). Initially, 

the trial court failed to file an opinion with its order and/or a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion. On September 12, 2016, this Court entered a judgment 

order directing the trial court to provide an analysis of the factors under 

section 6351(f) and (f.1) of the Juvenile Act, within thirty days. In 

compliance with this Court’s judgment order, on October 17, 2016, this 

Court received a supplemental record that included the trial court’s 

“Amended Statement of Reasons Opinion” filed on October 11, 2016, setting 

forth its analysis of the factors in 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) and (f.1) as applied 

to the evidence in this case.1 This matter is now ripe for our disposition.

Mother presents the following issue for our review:

Whether the trial court below erred as a matter of law and/or 

abused its discretion in Ordering a Goal Change from 

Reunification to Adoption after first having suspended Mother’s 

visitation with (A.A.) seven (7) months earlier?

Mother’s Brief at 5.

Mother argues that the trial court erred in first suspending her 

visitation with Child on July 27, 2015, and then, after barring her from 

contact with Child, approving CYS’s request for a goal change from 

____________________________________________

1

 We note the trial court opinion of October 11, 2016, contains apparent 

clerical errors in several places by indicating the date of the permanency 

hearing was February 24, 2016, rather than the correct date of February 23, 

2016.
J-S60015-16

- 4 -

reunification to adoption. Mother’s Brief at 9. Mother concedes that her 

record of compliance in this case may have been poor, but she contends that 

the trial court’s July 27, 2015 order is unsupported. Id. at 13. Mother 

posits that the trial court could have suspended Father’s visitation, and 

provided more time for Mother to improve her parenting skills and show the 

effect of her rehabilitation and her “re-found” ability to care for Child. Id. at 

15. Accordingly, Mother contends that the trial court erred in first 

suspending her visitation in July of 2015, and then, after seven months of 

allowing CYS to stand between Child and Mother, changing Child’s 

permanency goal to adoption. Id. at 15-17.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently 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, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). We review for abuse 

of discretion[.]

In Interest of: L.Z., A Minor Child, 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015). 

Regarding the definition of an abuse of discretion, our Supreme Court has 

instructed the following:

As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not 

result merely because the reviewing court might have 

reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be 

reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon 

demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, 

prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
J-S60015-16

- 5 -

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).

Section 6302 of the Juvenile Act sets forth definitions for various 

words and phrases and defines a “dependent child,” in relevant part, as 

follows:

[a] child who:

(1) is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, 

education as required by law, or other care or control necessary 

for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A

determination that there is a lack of proper parental care or 

control may be based upon evidence of conduct by the parent, 

guardian or other custodian that places the health, safety or 

welfare of the child at risk[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302. In In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004), this 

Court clarified the definition of “dependent child” as follows:

The question of whether a child is lacking proper parental care or 

control so as to be a dependent child encompasses two discrete 

questions: whether the child presently is without proper parental 

care and control, and if so, whether such care and control are 

immediately available.

Id. at 872 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, we note 

that “[t]he burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner 

to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets that 

statutory definition of dependency.” Id.

With regard to the disposition of a dependent child, in In re D.A., 801 

A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc), this Court explained the following:

[A] court is empowered by 42 Pa.C.S. § 6341(a) and (c) to make 

a finding that a child is dependent if the child meets the 

statutory definition by clear and convincing evidence. If the 

court finds that the child is dependent, then the court may make 
J-S60015-16

- 6 -

an appropriate disposition of the child to protect the child’s 

physical, mental and moral welfare, including allowing the child 

to remain with the parents subject to supervision, transferring 

temporary legal custody to a relative or public agency, or 

transferring custody to the juvenile court of another state. 42 

Pa.C.S. § 6351(a).

Id. at 617.

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. 

§ 6351(f)).

Regarding the disposition of a dependent child, section 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.

Section 6351(e) of the Juvenile Act provides, in pertinent part, as 

follows:

(e) Permanency hearings.-
J-S60015-16

- 7 -

(1) [t]he 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 in a manner appropriate 

to the child's age and maturity. . . .

(2) If the county agency or the child’s attorney alleges the 

existence of circumstances and the court determines that 

the child has been adjudicated dependent, the court shall 

then determine if aggravated circumstances exist. If the 

court finds from clear and convincing evidence that 

aggravated circumstances exist, the court shall determine 

whether or not reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate 

the need for removing the child from the child’s parent, 

guardian or custodian or to preserve and reunify the 

family shall be made or continue to be made and schedule 

a hearing as provided in paragraph (3).

42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(e)(1), (2) (emphasis added).

Section 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act prescribes the following pertinent 

inquiry for the reviewing 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.
J-S60015-16

- 8 -

(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.

(7) If the child has been placed outside the 

Commonwealth, whether the placement continues to 

be best suited to the safety, protection and physical, 

mental and moral welfare of the child.

* * *

(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 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 
J-S60015-16

- 9 -

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 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 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.

(5) If and when the child will be placed in another 

living arrangement intended to be permanent in 

nature which is approved by the court in cases where 

the county agency has documented a compelling 

reason that it would not be best suited to the safety, 

protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of 

the child to be returned to the child’s parent, 

guardian or custodian, to be placed for adoption, to 
J-S60015-16

- 10 -

be placed with a legal custodian or to be placed with 

a fit and wiling relative.

(f.2) Evidence.- Evidence of conduct by the parent that places 

the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including 

evidence of the use of alcohol or a controlled substance that 

places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, shall be 

presented to the court by the county agency or any other party 

at any disposition or permanency hearing whether or not the 

conduct was the basis for the determination of dependency. 

(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. § 6351 (emphasis added).

In addition, on the issue of a placement goal change, this Court has 

stated:

When a child is adjudicated dependent, the child’s proper 

placement turns on what is in the child’s best interest, not on 

what the parent wants or which goals the parent has achieved. 

See In re Sweeney, 393 Pa. Super. 437, 574 A.2d 690, 691 

(1990) (noting that “[o]nce a child is adjudicated dependent . . . 

the issues of custody and continuation of foster care are 

determined by the child’s best interests”). Moreover, although 

preserving the unity of the family is a purpose of [the Juvenile 

Act], another purpose is to “provide for the care, protection, 

safety, and wholesome mental and physical development of 

children coming within the provisions of this chapter.” 42 

Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1.1). Indeed, “[t]he relationship of parent 

and child is a status and not a property right, and one in which 

the state has an interest to protect the best interest of the 

child.” In re E.F.V., 315 Pa. Super. 246, 461 A.2d 1263, 1267 

(1983) (citation omitted).

In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006).
J-S60015-16

- 11 -

Our painstaking review of the record reflects the following evidence, 

which supports the trial court’s determination of a goal change to adoption in 

this matter. At the February 23, 2016 hearing, Ms. Bass testified that Child 

was presently six years old and had been in placement since he was four 

years old. N.T., 2/23/16, at 6. Mother did not provide her permanent 

address, which is in New Jersey, until September 2, 2014, following a 

permanency review hearing. Id. Father initially provided an address in Glen 

Burnie, Maryland, but, on February 9, 2016, Father provided an address in 

Baltimore, Maryland. Id. at 7. Ms. Bass explained that CYS had requested 

Father’s address since the December 28, 2015 denial of an Interstate 

Compact for the Placement of Children (“ICPC”) application as to Father. Id.

Ms. Bass further testified that on January 17, 2014, CYS received a 

telephone call from New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services 

(“DYFS”) informing CYS that Child was in New Jersey at the home of 

Maternal Grandfather. N.T., 2/23/16, at 7. Ms. Bass indicated that, before 

CYS could investigate the report, an incident occurred involving Child’s 

maternal aunt, D.A. (“Maternal Aunt”), and Child in New Jersey. Id. at 7-8. 

Mother alleged that Maternal Aunt had kidnapped Child. Id. at 8. The police 

became involved, and New Jersey’s DYFS reported that Child was safe that 

night. Id. at 8. CYS obtained the order for protective custody and went to 

Maternal Aunt’s home to retrieve Child. Id. Maternal Aunt was under the 

influence of several substances, and Child was in a car with three other 
J-S60015-16

- 12 -

women who were about to leave the premises when the police apprehended 

them. At the time of this incident, CYS knew Father’s identity, but paternity 

had not yet been established. Id. In 2014, CYS had asked Father to take a 

paternity test, to which he submitted in December of 2014 or January of 

2015. Id. at 8-9.

Child is currently placed at the home of B.H. and R.M. (“Foster 

Parents”) in Waymart, Pennsylvania. N.T., 2/23/16, at 9. Child is doing 

very well and participates in all family activities. Id. Child has a consistent 

routine and sleeps and eats well. Id. However, within the six to eight 

months prior to the February 2016 hearing, Child began having emotional 

outbursts, had behavioral problems, was crying, and had regressed. Id. at 

9-10. Child’s regression was a concern to CYS. Id. at 10. Ms. Bass 

testified that Child is in the least restrictive placement that meets his needs 

at this time. Id. CYS believes that there is a continuing necessity for Child’s 

placement, the placement is appropriate, and Child is safe in his placement 

setting. Id.

Ms. Bass testified that, in regards to the “reasonable and prudent 

parents’ standard,” Child is in an out-of-home placement that allows [him] 

to benefit. N.T., 2/23/16, at 10. CYS believes that Foster Parents are 

following the “reasonable and prudent parents” standard, because they have 

both been trained in that standard. Id. at 10-11. Child told Ms. Bass that 

he participates in regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in appropriate 
J-S60015-16

- 13 -

activities, including fishing, bicycling, sledding, going to Foster Parents’ barn, 

and learning to maneuver a new family-owned drone. Id. at 11. Child does 

not face any barriers in participating in those activities. Id.

The visitation for both Mother and Father had previously been 

suspended by court order at the time of the February 23, 2016 hearing. 

N.T., 2/23/16, at 11. At the initial time of Child’s placement, Mother was 

offered bi-weekly visitation, but she did not want that type of visitation. Id. 

After CYS scheduled bi-weekly visitation more regularly, Mother had 

inconsistent attendance with the visitation. Id. Father denied paternity for 

one year. Id.

In March of 2015, CYS sought a goal change at a permanency review 

hearing, and the trial court denied the request. N.T., 2/23/16, at 12. 

Mother’s bi-weekly, supervised visits continued at the Agency office, and 

Father was to begin a reunification plan that would include visitation. Id. 

Prior to the suspension of the parents’ visitation, neither parent had ever 

progressed to unsupervised visitation. Id. Initially, Father had three visits 

in a therapeutic setting and later progressed to supervised visitation at the 

Agency office. Id.

Child had not seen Mother since July of 2015. N.T., 2/23/16, at 12. 

Child last saw Father in December of 2015. Id. at 12-13. Ms. Bass testified 

that CYS was seeking a change to the visitation and that CYS wanted to 

have the goal changed to adoption. Id. CYS sought to consult with a 
J-S60015-16

- 14 -

therapist as to closure visitation, and for the visitation schedule to be vested 

in the entire treatment team, if the goal change to adoption was granted. 

Id. at 13.

Ms. Bass testified that, at the time of initial placement, Child was in 

pre-school. N.T., 2/23/16, at 13. He was likewise in school at the time of 

the hearing. Id. At the time of initial placement, Child was behind his age 

group in typical behaviors for a four-year-old. Id. He could not identify 

colors, did not know his numbers or the alphabet, had speech delays, and 

could not count past three. Id. Child then became involved in an “early 

intervention” program, and he exhibited success and was ready to begin 

kindergarten in a regular classroom on time. Id. at 14. He progressed very 

well in school and enjoyed it. Id. Child was eager to learn, and he was a 

model student. Id. He was not involved in special education. Id. Child’s 

report card reflected at least satisfactory proficiency, and one “N” for “needs 

improvement” in holding his pencil. Id. at 14. As of the hearing on 

February 23, 2016, Child had exceeded the expectations for fluency and 

reading for an end-of-year kindergarten student. Id. at 15.

Child was participating in counseling. N.T., 2/23/16, at 15. At the 

time of his initial placement, he did not have a counseling requirement, but, 

with the need to introduce Father, counseling became necessary because 

Child had not known Father. Id. Although Child had seen Father while he 

was a baby, he was unaware of him. Id. As a result of the requirement for 
J-S60015-16

- 15 -

reunification, CYS initiated therapy. Id. Child’s therapy was through 

Friendship House, and began with Child’s individual sessions with Kim 

Osbourne. Id. Ms. Osbourne also had a few individual sessions with Father, 

and then she had three joint sessions with Child and Father. Id. After the 

joint sessions, Child continued individual therapy with Ms. Osbourne. Id. 

When Ms. Osbourne left Friendship House, CYS requested a subsequent 

therapist, Gloria Bluett, through the Aaron Center in Dickson City. Id. at 16. 

Child’s counseling with Ms. Bluett began in January of 2016, and was going 

well, but he was still building a rapport with her. Id. Ms. Bluett was waiting 

for the outcome of the hearing to know what direction/goals to set. Id. 

With regard to the progress of counseling, CYS had seen a marked change in 

Child, who looked forward to going to this counseling and eagerly would get 

in the car and attend without incident. Id.

Child was healthy but on multiple medications for allergies and 

asthma. N.T., 2/23/16, at 16-17. When Child came into placement, he did 

not have any medications for either asthma or allergies, and he had not seen 

a dentist. Id. at 17. CYS arranged for Child to see an allergist. Id. He had 

the allergen prick tests and, by process of elimination and ruling in, medical 

professionals have been able to identify Child’s allergies. Id. Child sees 

Highland Physicians as his primary care provider. Id. at 17. A dentist filled 

eight cavities in Child’s teeth. Id. at 18.
J-S60015-16

- 16 -

CYS identified Child’s extended family and attempted to contact 

multiple family members by letter. N.T., 2/23/16, at 18. CYS has 

determined that additional family finding efforts no longer serve Child’s best 

interest. Id. CYS developed a permanency plan for Child, dated February 1, 

2014, which is appropriate and feasible. Id. at 19. Ms. Bass testified that 

Child was in substantial compliance with his objectives of the plan: obtaining 

and maintain good health and consistency of care; attending medical 

appointments; having his needs met; and attending age appropriate services 

and programs to prepare him for success in kindergarten. Id. at 19-20. 

Ms. Bass testified that Child had made full progress in alleviating the 

circumstances of his original placement. Id.

Mother’s objectives were to provide CYS with her address; become and 

remain a law-abiding citizen; remain clean and sober; attend a drug and 

alcohol evaluation, and follow all recommendations; attend counseling and 

Narcotics Anonymous; and submit to and test negative on random urine 

screens. N.T., 2/23/16, at 20. Mother was also to attend a parent fitness 

evaluation and follow all recommendations; maintain a safe and stable living 

environment; obtain and maintain steady employment; comply with court 

orders and recommendations; and establish her state residency. Id. at 20-

21. Additionally, Mother was to ensure that Child received and attended 

programs to be successful in school; attend his medical appointments and 

follow through with providers; not allow individuals under the influence of 
J-S60015-16

- 17 -

illegal substances or alcohol or who are inappropriate to care for Child; and 

to ensure that Child’s needs are met, i.e., hygiene, sleeping, and clothing. 

Id. On June 11, 2015, additional objectives for Mother were added: 

complying with rules and recommendations of the inpatient rehabilitation 

Mother was attending, and to cooperate with probation. Id. at 21.

At each of the permanency review hearings, the trial court found that 

Mother had failed to comply with CYS recommendations. At the hearing on 

July 27, 2015, on a motion to amend visits, the trial court did not address 

Mother’s compliance, and her visits were suspended at the hearing. At the 

permanency hearing on September 15, 2015, the trial court found Mother’s 

compliance was minimal. N.T., 2/23/16, at 21. Ms. Bass testified that 

Mother’s compliance was minimal as of February 23, 2016. Id. at 22.

Mother completed an inpatient rehabilitation program prior to 

September 15, 2015, and had begun intensive outpatient rehabilitation, but 

dropped out. N.T., 2/23/16, at 22. Mother attended forty-nine meetings in 

the 162 days since the previous hearing, for a 22% attendance rate, with 

two and three meetings sometimes held on the same day. Id. Mother 

submitted reports on urine screens, which were negative. Id. However, the 

screens were non-random (Mother could decide when to voluntarily provide 

the screen). Id. Mother’s urine tested positive for morphine on 

February 23, 2016, the day of the hearing in this case. Id.
J-S60015-16

- 18 -

On November 13, 2014, Mother refused to provide a urine screen at 

Maternal Grandfather’s home when CYS performed an unannounced visit. 

N.T., 2/23/16, at 23. Ms. Bass explained that, nearly two years later, 

Mother was still refusing to do a urine screen and had a compliance issue. 

Id. at 22-23. Mother attended a combination of both Alcoholics Anonymous 

and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Id. at 23. Ms. Bass testified that 

Mother had made no progress toward alleviating the circumstance of Child’s 

original placement over the course of the case. Id. Mother’s compliance 

history was: June 2014, none; September 2014, none; November 2014, 

minimal; February 2015, minimal; March 2015, none; July 2015, visits 

suspended; September 2015, not addressed because the focus was shifted 

to reunification with Father. Id.

Father’s permanency plan objectives were: cooperate with paternity 

testing; schedule, facilitate, and attend a parent fitness evaluation; engage 

in having a relationship with Child; accept financial responsibility for Child; 

and become actively involved in case planning and developing a “family 

tree” for possible resources for Child. N.T., 2/23/16, at 23-24. CYS added 

additional objectives to Father’s permanency plan in 2015, as follows: 

ensure Child receives and attends programs to be successful in school; 

schedule and attend medical appointments and follow through with 

providers; not allow individuals under the influence of illegal substances or 

alcohol or who are inappropriate to care for Child; and ensure Child’s needs 
J-S60015-16

- 19 -

are met. Id. at 24. Father’s objectives also included: be honest with the 

Friendship House therapist; follow all Friendship House recommendations; 

and be available for any and all visits and contacts requested by Friendship 

House and CYS regarding timeline and visitations. Id. Further, Father was 

required to: provide any and all documentation requested by the state; be 

open and honest with Maryland during the ICPC process; submit any and all 

clearances requested; and complete any and all paperwork and 

documentation in a timely manner. Id.

Ms. Bass characterized Father’s present compliance with the 

permanency plan as minimal. N.T., 2/23/16, at 25. Father had four visits 

with Child between the permanency review hearing in September of 2015 

and the hearing on February 23, 2016. Id. He brought Paternal 

Grandmother to one of the visits despite clear instruction not to bring 

anyone to the visits. Id. Father’s communication with CYS was conflicting, 

and he would provide inconsistent information to team members, as well. 

Id. Father was not open and forthcoming about his extensive criminal 

history. Id. He missed all planned visits since November of 2015 except for 

the Christmas visit in December of 2015. Id. Father contacted CYS and 

requested that all visits stop because he would be busy with doctors’ 

appointments, and was anticipating transportation problems. Id. The state 

of Maryland, Ann Arundel County Department of Social Services, denied 

Father’s ICPC application on December 28, 2015, citing Father’s multiple 
J-S60015-16

- 20 -

arrests and convictions, including a history of misdemeanors, and several 

charges including assault. Id. at 25-26. Father also had three criminal 

charges resulting from two incidents, the dispositions of which were pending 

at the time of the hearing. Id. After an ICPC home study, the state of 

Maryland denied the ICPC because of Father’s criminal history. Id. at 28.

Ms. Bass described Father’s compliance with his permanency plan 

objectives as follows: June 2014, none; September 2014, none, aggravated 

circumstances, no reunification necessary; November 2014, none; 

February 2015, none; March 2015, moderate (because he was asked only to

take a paternity test); July 2015, Father to increase his visitation (and 

Mother’s visits suspended to allow Father untainted visitation time); 

September 2015, moderate; February 23, 2016, none. N.T., 2/23/16, at 

28-29.

Ms. Bass characterized Father’s present compliance as none, because 

the basis of any reunification is honesty, and Father had been dishonest; 

Father’s ICPC application had been denied, so there could not be any 

placement in Maryland; Father’s attendance at visits had been sporadic since 

October of 2015; and Father had requested that the visits stop. N.T., 

2/23/16, at 29. Mother’s ICPC application was also denied by the state of 

New Jersey in September of 2015. Id. Thus, at the time of the hearing, 

CYS was unable to place Child in the home of either parent. Id.
J-S60015-16

- 21 -

CYS made efforts toward finalizing Child’s permanency plan including: 

providing emergency protective custody, shelter care, and ongoing foster 

care. N.T., 2/23/16, at 30. CYS also conducted DNA testing for Child on 

February 3, 2014; successfully maintained Child in one consistent, stable 

home throughout his placement; provided early intervention services and 

successful medical intervention to stabilize Child’s health. Id. CYS also 

sought, and was granted, a finding of aggravated circumstances against 

Father in September of 2014, and DNA testing for Father on December 30, 

2014. Id. In March of 2015, CYS sought a goal change for Child, which the 

trial court denied. Id. CYS then began reunification efforts with Father in 

April of 2015. Id. CYS began therapy with Child, and then Father, and 

continued their therapy jointly. Id. CYS completed the two ICPC 

applications, both of which were denied. Id. CYS provided supervised 

visitation with Mother, then suspended that visitation to allow Father’s 

reunification to proceed. Id. CYS provided supervised visitation and 

therapy for Child and Father. Id. CYS completed Child’s profile in 

November of 2014. Id. CYS had discussions with Foster Parents regarding 

their intention to adopt Child and their willingness to include the biological 

family members in Child’s life. Id. CYS identified additional kin and sent 

letters inquiring about their interests in Child, and had discussions with some 

of those family members. Id. CYS also completed a home study regarding 

Maternal Grandfather. Id.
J-S60015-16

- 22 -

Maternal Grandfather expressed an interest in being a resource for 

Child, and Maternal Grandfather cooperated with a home study. N.T., 

2/23/16, at 31-32. As a result of the home study, Maternal Grandfather was 

approved as a resource. Id. at 32-33. However, the ongoing caseworker 

and supervisor for Child making the placement decision did not recommend 

Maternal Grandfather for kinship placement. Id. at 33. Their main concerns 

regarding Maternal Grandfather were that he continued to be not only 

supportive of, but also aligned with, Mother, often not in Child’s best 

interest. Id. Maternal Grandfather has a long history of minimizing, 

denying, and making excuses for Mother and her sister, Maternal Aunt, who 

continues to live close to Maternal Grandfather’s home. Id. Maternal 

Grandfather responded to questioning with answers, such as “I don’t ask 

questions, I just roll with it.” Id. His responses suggested an inability to 

demonstrate protective capacities, which concerned CYS. Id. at 33-34. 

Additionally, during the six months preceding the hearing, CYS made 

consistent, unannounced visits to Maternal Grandfather’s home for drug 

testing, and, on five occasions, Maternal Grandfather stated that he was 

unable to give a sample. Id. at 34. In the week preceding the hearing, 

Maternal Grandfather submitted to CYS drug testing, but had refused to 

submit to the drug testing at the unannounced home visits. Id. Maternal 

Grandfather submitted to drug testing at CYS’s office on occasions that were 

not random. Id. On those occasions, when Maternal Grandfather was at 
J-S60015-16

- 23 -

CYS’s office to drop items off by himself or was with Mother, CYS would ask

to drug test him. Id. In August of 2015, CYS advised Maternal Grandfather 

that he would not be considered as a placement for Child. Id. at 35.

At the time of the hearing, Child’s permanency goal was to return 

home, but CYS did not believe that goal was feasible, and the date when 

returning home could be accomplished was undetermined. N.T., 2/23/16, at 

35. CYS sought a goal change to adoption. Id. Ms. Bass testified that, with 

a goal change to adoption, the goal could be achieved within six months. 

Id. The concurrent permanency plan goal was adoption, and CYS wished for 

the goal to be changed to SPLC. Id. CYS was not seeking a determination 

of aggravated circumstances at the February 23, 2016 hearing. Id. at 36. 

Aggravated circumstances were previously determined to exist as to Father, 

but at the goal change hearing on March 24, 2015, CYS was required to 

make efforts with Father and to place Child in a timely manner. Id.

CYS had not made the necessary steps to finalize permanent 

placement for Child as of the February 23, 2015 hearing. N.T., 2/23/16, at 

37. CYS needed to have the permanency goal changed to adoption with 

termination of parental rights, update the family profile, and finalize the 

process for adoption. Id. Ms. Bass testified that, if the goal were changed 

to adoption, CYS would file petitions for the termination of the parental 

rights of Mother and Father. Id. She stated that Foster Parents were willing 
J-S60015-16

- 24 -

to adopt Child. Id. At the time of the hearing, Child had been in placement 

for twenty-six months. Id.

Ms. Bass testified that CYS recommended that Child remain in the 

temporary legal custody of CYS and in the physical custody of CYS for 

placement in his pre-adoptive foster home. N.T., 2/23/16, at 38-39. She 

stated that CYS had taken sufficient steps to ensure that Foster Parents are 

exercising the “reasonable and prudent parents” standard. Id. at 39. CYS 

has ensured that Child has been provided: regular, ongoing opportunities to 

engage in age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate activities, 

including consulting with Child about opportunities to participate, and 

identifying and addressing any barriers to participation. Id. CYS also 

ensured that: Child’s GAL, Attorney Leatrice Anderson, continued as a 

special education decision-maker for Child; Child’s educational, healthcare, 

and disability needs have been met; Child continues with his “504 plan” in 

school; and Child receives timely “well child” and “sick child” medical 

checkups and follow-up care, and continues in therapy. Id. Moreover, CYS 

ensures that all school records pertaining to Child, including enrollment 

documentation and special education documents, be released to CYS upon 

request. Id. CYS also ensures that visitation between Child and Mother 

occurs at the direction of Child’s treatment team in order to facilitate closure 

visitation. Id. at 40. Additionally, CYS ensures that visitation between Child 
J-S60015-16

- 25 -

and Father occurs at the discretion of Child’s treatment team in order to 

facilitate closure visitation. Id.

Further, CYS sought for the trial court to determine that CYS satisfied 

the requirements regarding family finding, and that family finding no longer 

serves Child’s best interests and should be discontinued. N.T., 2/23/16, at 

40. CYS requested that Child’s permanency goal be changed to adoption, 

his concurrent goal be changed to SPLC, and that CYS be authorized to 

proceed with any and all steps necessary to effectuate this goal in a timely 

manner, with a six-month review. Id. Ms. Bass testified that CYS believed 

that the recommendation was in Child’s best interest, and Mother and Father 

were not in agreement with the recommendation of CYS. Id. She stated 

that Child indicated that he wished to remain with Foster Parents, who he 

called “Mom and Dad.” Id. at 41. She testified that he printed their names, 

M-o-m and D-a-D for her, and his own name, and had a big smile on his 

face. Id.

Upon our careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial 

court’s determinations are supported by the record. The trial court 

considered, inter alia, the continuing necessity for placement, compliance 

with the service plan, and the extent of progress in alleviating the 

circumstances that necessitated placement. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f); In re 

A.K., 936 A.2d at 533. The trial court concluded that changing the 

placement goal from return home to adoption was in Child’s best interests. 
J-S60015-16

- 26 -

42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1); In re K.C., 903 A.2d at 14-15. Mother’s failure to 

comply with CYS recommendations or to make any demonstrable progress 

toward resolving issues which gave rise to placement constituted sufficient 

evidence to support Child’s goal change to adoption. Therefore, we discern 

no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. In Interest of: L.Z., A Minor 

Child, 111 A.3d at 1174. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order 

changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/1/2016