J-S29015-16 

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.P., A MINOR 

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.P., A MINOR 

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.P., A MINOR 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

APPEAL OF: J.P. 

No. 1806 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Orders September 29, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County 

Domestic Relations at No(s): 

CP-11-DP35-2013, 11 FN 25-2013 

CP-11-DP36-2013, 11 FN-25-2013 

CP-11-DP37-2013, 11 FN-25-2013 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 03, 2016

 J.P. (“Father”) appeals from the orders entered September 30, 2015, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, which changed the 

placement goals of his minor daughters, S.P.1, S.P.2, and K.P. (collectively, 

“the Children”), to adoption.1 After careful review, we affirm. 

 S.P.1 was born in July of 2009. S.P.2 and K.P. are twins, and were 

born in September of 2011. On August 8, 2013, Cambria County Children 

and Youth Services (“CYS”) filed dependency petitions, in which it averred 

that Father and Mother lacked parenting skills, suffered from mental health 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The biological mother of the Children is A.P. (“Mother”). Mother consented 

to the change of the Children’s placement goals. She did not file a separate 

appeal from the goal change orders, nor did she file a brief in the instant 

appeal. 
J-S29015-16 

- 2 - 

issues, were failing to comply with the recommendations of service 

providers, and engaged in domestic violence. The Children were placed in 

foster care on August 30, 2013, and adjudicated dependent by orders 

entered September 19, 2013. 

The trial court held a goal change hearing on August 3, 2015, and 

September 3, 2015, during which the court heard the testimony of 

psychologists, Carmella Walker, Ph.D., and Dennis Kashurba; Independent 

Family Services employees, Sarah Bantley, Arlene McNeel, Casey Long, and 

Sharon Kistemaker; CYS caseworker, Kara Thomas; licensed professional 

counselor, Tessa Sawyer; parenting instructor, Martha Faust; therapist, 

Lindsay Sossong; Father’s brother, J.P.; and Father. Following the hearing, 

on September 30, 2015, the trial court entered its orders changing the 

Children’s placement goals to adoption. Father timely filed a notice of 

appeal on October 28, 2015. Father subsequently filed an amended notice 

of appeal on November 2, 2015, which included a concise statement of 

errors complained of on appeal.2

____________________________________________ 

2

 We note that it was improper for Father to file a single notice of appeal 

from all three goal change orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note (“Where, 

however, one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one 

docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal 

must be filed.”). However, because Father’s notice of appeal was timely 

filed, we will not quash his appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 902 (“Failure of an 

appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal 

does not affect the validity of the appeal....”) 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-S29015-16 

- 3 - 

Father now raises the following issues for our review. 

 [1.] Did the [trial] court fail to properly apply the appropriate 

legal standards in the analysis to determine a change in 

placement goal? 

[2.] Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion in finding a change 

in placement goals was appropriate? 

Father’s brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization and suggested answers 

omitted). 

 We consider these issues mindful of our well-settled standard of 

review. 

[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an 

appellate court to accept the 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. Accordingly, we 

review for an abuse of discretion. 

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). 

Pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.] § 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, 

when considering a petition for a goal change for a dependent 

child, the juvenile court is to consider, inter alia: (1) the 

continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement; 

(2) the extent of compliance with the family service plan; (3) the 

extent of progress made towards alleviating the circumstances 

which necessitated the original placement; (4) the 

appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

Additionally, Father violated Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) by failing to file his 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal at the same time as his 

initial notice of appeal. We have accepted the concise statement attached to 

Father’s amended notice of appeal pursuant to In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 

745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that a mother’s failure to comply 

strictly with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) did not warrant waiver of her claims, as 

there was no prejudice to any party). 
J-S29015-16 

- 4 - 

the children; (5) a likely date by which the goal for the child 

might be achieved; (6) the child’s safety; and (7) whether the 

child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last 

twenty-two months. The best interests of the child, and not the 

interests of the parent, must guide the trial court. As this Court 

has held, 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.

In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088-89 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted). 

 Instantly, the trial court found that Father has made minimal progress 

in addressing the circumstances which resulted in the Children’s removal 

from his care, and that he will not be able to remedy these circumstances in 

the foreseeable future. Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/2015, at 9. The court 

emphasized that Father has mental health issues which require ongoing 

treatment, and intellectual limitations which prevent him from developing 

appropriate parenting skills. Id. at 15. The court observed that the 

Children have been in foster care for an extended period of time, and that it 

would not be in the Children’s best interest to remain in foster care when it 

is unlikely that Father will ever be able to act as their parent. Id. at 16-18. 

In response, Father presents two related arguments, which we address 

together. Father first argues that the trial court erred by failing to make a 

finding that a change in goal would be in the best interest of the Children. 

Father’s brief at 9. In connection with this argument, Father insists, “It is 

beyond logic[]and common sense to believe that the rupture of the 

parent/child bond of affection caused by a change in placement goals and 
J-S29015-16 

- 5 - 

adoption will not adversely impact the three little girls in the instant case.” 

Id. at 9-10. Father next contends that the trial court abused its discretion 

by changing the Children’s goals, because he made progress toward 

alleviating the circumstances which resulted in the Children’s removal from 

his care. Id. at 11-12. 

After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we conclude that 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion. During the goal change hearing, 

CYS caseworker, Kara Thomas, testified that Father has been provided with 

services since June of 2013. N.T., 9/10/2015, at 3. Despite over two years 

of assistance, Ms. Thomas believed that Father has failed to improve his 

parenting skills. Id. at 40-41, 43. Ms. Thomas explained that services 

provided to Father included, inter alia, parenting and home management 

instruction through Independent Family Services. Id. at 3-4, 7-8. Ms. 

Thomas noted that Father personally terminated both of those services. Id.

at 7-8, 16. 

Ms. Thomas further testified concerning Father’s visitation with the 

Children. Father formerly was offered visits with the Children at his home. 

Id. at 24. However, these visits were moved to the CYS office in April of 

2015. Id. At the time of the goal change hearing, Father was engaging in 

weekly visits with the Children for one hour. Id. at 9. Ms. Thomas 

expressed concern that there have been reoccurring safety issues during 

Father’s visits. During many of the visits, the Children “are doing whatever 
J-S29015-16 

- 6 - 

they want as far as standing on the window sill, choking each other, [and] 

wrestling.” Id. at 27. When these safety issues are raised with Father, he 

“absolutely refuses to hear them and does whatever he wants.”3 Id. at 30. 

Ms. Thomas also described an incident which took place during 

Father’s visit with the Children earlier that morning. Id. at 10. During the 

visit, one of the Children poured some of her drink into “a bigger lego ... and 

went to drink it.” Id. A caseworker stopped the child from taking a drink, 

and asked her to put the “bigger lego” into the sink. Id. Upon seeing this, 

Father “asked her who she was and what authority did she have to speak to 

his daughter.”4 Id. at 11. Father demanded that the caseworker be 

removed from the visit. Id. at 12. Father spoke with the CYS supervisor, 

who informed Father that there was no other caseworker available, and 

Father “just verbally continued to escalate.” Id. Father “was yelling very 

loud, he was getting worked up. You could see he was shaking, he was 

nervous. He was mad and wanted to have that caseworker out of there.” 

Id. Ultimately, Father was escorted out of the building by sheriff’s deputies. 

Id. at 13. 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Ms. Thomas acknowledged that Father was showing improvement during 

his visits “up until recently,” and that he had three “very positive” visits with 

the Children following the previous court hearing. N.T., 9/10/2015, at 27. 

4

 Ms. Thomas explained that this was the first time that particular 

caseworker was present during one of Father’s visits. N.T., 9/10/2015, at 

18. 
J-S29015-16 

- 7 - 

Thus, the record supports the decision of the trial court to change the 

Children’s placement goals to adoption. At the time of the goal change 

hearing, the Children had been in foster care for about two years. During 

that time, Father was provided with numerous services to assist him in being 

reunited with the Children. Despite these services, Father remains incapable 

of parenting the Children, and providing them with appropriate supervision. 

Father also shows little hope of improvement, as he continues to be hostile 

toward service providers. Contrary to Father’s arguments on appeal, it is 

clear that the court based its decision on the best interests of the Children. 

Further, while there was evidence presented during the hearing that the 

Children have a generally positive relationship with Father, it was proper for 

the court to conclude that this relationship is outweighed by the Children’s 

need for permanence and stability, and that the Children should not be left 

to languish in foster care indefinitely. 

Accordingly, because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by changing the Children’s placements goals to adoption, we 

affirm the orders of the trial court. 

Orders affirmed. 
J-S29015-16 

- 8 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 5/3/2016