J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1013 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-04-DP-0000012-2020, 

Juvenile No.35-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.H., JR.

APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1014 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-04-DP-0000011-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.H., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: S.L., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1052 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): Docket No. CP-04-DP-0000012-2020, 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 2 -

FID# 04-FN-000004-2010, Juvenile No. 35-2020

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.H., JR., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: S.L., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1053 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered August 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): cp-04-dp-0000011-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: JANUARY 25, 2022

M.H. (“Father”) and S.L. (“Mother”) (“Parent” or “Parents”) appeal from 

the orders, entered on August 4, 2021, changing the permanency placement 

goal for the parties’ two dependent children, M.H., Jr. (born in March of 2019) 

and A.H. (born in February of 2020) (“Child” or “Children”) from reunification 

to adoption.1 Following our review, we affirm. 

In March of 2020, the Children were deemed dependent and were placed 

in non-kinship foster care where they have remained during the entire 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Both Parents filed appeals from the separate orders issued by the trial court 

as to each Child. The trial court issued a single Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion on 

September 28, 2021, setting forth an extensive discussion of the facts and 

procedure involved in this case and directing its discussion at issues raised by 

both Father and Mother. Therefore, because this single opinion relates to both 

Parents, we have consolidated Father’s and Mother’s appeals for purposes of 

appellate review. 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 3 -

pendency of this matter. Permanency review hearings were held on June 11, 

2020, October 21, 2020, January 7, 2021, January 11, 2021, April 5, 2021, 

and August 2, 2021. The Beaver County Children and Youth Services Agency 

(“Agency”) requested that a change of goal to adoption be considered by the 

trial court at the August 2nd permanency review hearing. The resulting orders 

changing the goals for Children are at the heart of this appeal. 

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court summarized its findings 

of fact as follows:

The [c]ourt acknowledged that a crossroads was reached in this 

case and in the lives of the Children. At times when the Parents 

were found to be improving their condition, they shortly regressed 

and relapsed. The relapses and regressions were only part of the 

problems. The other aspect of that conduct was that the [P]arents 

did not seriously avail themselves to the treatment offered to 

them even though it was made clear to them by the [c]ourt that 

addiction was treated as an illness, which if disclosed properly, 

could be properly treated. 

[] Father chose to utilize O.A.R.S. for his therapy, his counseling 

and to obtain his Suboxone. However, even though he was to be 

receiving Suboxone for his treatment, he did not test positive for 

that substance on the day of the [h]earing. 

Father has a twelve (12) year history of drug abuse[,] yet he 

chose to participate in therapy that did not fully address his 

addiction. Father has not committed to fully addressing his 

addiction issue and ... the limited therapies/counseling that he 

does receive is of minimal benefit and is a necessary precondition 

to Father[’s] receiving his Suboxone. 

Father was still not serious about addressing his addiction issue. 

A specific finding was made that Father had his Suboxone out and

near the face of M.H., Jr., when Father was sitting on the couch 

with the minor. 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 4 -

The [c]ourt found that Father specifically relapsed in May of 

2021[,] and he continued to exhibit a lack of real commitment to 

learning to treat his addiction. The [c]ourt concluded that the 

once[-]a[-]month therapy, [and] sporadic A.A./N.A. meetings[,]

were not comprehensive enough to deal with the scope of Father’s 

addiction. The [c]ourt also found that Father knew that Mother 

was also in active addiction and[] that Mother knew that Father 

was in active addiction. However, neither Parent reported the 

addiction issues to anyone so that proper treatment could be

obtained or that a safety plan could be put in place if the [P]arents 

were using. The Parents were found to be using drugs during 

times that they were visiting with the Children and that the 

Children were at risk of being improperly attended to during the 

visits in which the Parents were actively using. 

Mother was in an inpatient facility for twenty-eight (28) days and

during that time, Father did not call the Foster Family at all. He

showed no concern for the care or well-being of the Children 

during this twenty-eight (28) day period. 

Both Mother and Father had no supports in place to whom they 

could go during times that they were using and the Children were 

to be in their custody. Further, the Parents showed no willingness 

or ability to inform others of the times that they were using so 

that other supports could attend to the Children during those 

times. 

With regard to Mother, the [c]ourt found that Mother was using 

drugs prior to the time that she began her inpatient therapy. She 

was using those drugs without disclosing it to the Agency or any 

other party that could have provided support or care. Further, 

Father was aware that Mother was using and Father told nobody 

of her serious and active addiction. 

Mother missed numerous drug screens and refused to take 

scheduled drug screens. All of the screens that she refused to 

take and those screens for which she failed to show up for were 

deemed to be positive responses. 

Mother was found to utilize family resources to obtain drugs and

Mother continued to attend visits with the Children while she was

under the influence of drugs and that this was a three (3) to four 

(4) times a week occurrence. 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 5 -

It was acknowledged that Mother was treated at an inpatient

rehabilitation facility for twenty-eight (28) days, a portion of which

was used for detox. After Mother was released from inpatient

treatment, she did not follow the discharge instructions which 

required intensive outpatient treatment: Her only follow-up action 

was to attend an evaluation that occurred one (1) week before the

Permanency Review Hearing. For approximately one and one[-

]half (11⁄2) months after her discharge, she took no action to 

follow-up with her discharge instructions. A recent drug screen 

was positive for Suboxone even though it had been more than 

three (3) or four (4) months since Mother received her last 

Suboxone injection. The [c]ourt found incredible Mother’s 

testimony that Suboxone was in her system as a result of the 

March[] 2021 injection and Mother’s reasons for failing to attend 

the intensive outpatient treatment. The [c]ourt found that Mother 

was not serious about her drug and alcohol treatment. Mother 

was aware that she had been through at least two (2)

unsuccessful inpatient treatments, but [she] still did not comply 

with the discharge instructions[,] which required intensive 

outpatient treatment. The [c]ourt found that Mother was not 

committed to her mental health or drug and alcohol treatment and 

that, to the contrary, she was still going through the motions as 

opposed to taking that treatment seriously. The [c]ourt found 

that Father’s trigger for drug use was noted to be boredom and 

that Mother’s trigger was when her mental health was off[;] she 

used drugs to deal with her mental condition. The [c]ourt then 

found that relapses for both Mother and Father were on the

precipice of happening again because of the lack of seriousness 

that each Parent devoted to their treatment endeavors for which 

they failed to make a real and serious commitment. 

The [c]ourt’s finding included its conclusion that the reoccurring 

use of drugs for the Parents was something that the Parents have 

not been able to address and that relapse was a predictable event 

in light of the Parent[s’] failure to commit to treatment. The 

Parents were found incapable of being able to address the safety 

and care of the Children while they were using because of an 

inability to put a safety plan in place in the event that there was 

a relapse. The Parents’ drug use and relapses were found to be a 

repeating cycle that the Parents did not address. 

. . . 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 6 -

The findings [in the August 3, 2021 permanency review order] 

were stated on the record and are incorporated into this decision.

In summary, both Parents recently relapsed at a time when visits 

with the Children were to increase. Each Parent knew that the

other was in active addition and neither Parent notified the Agency 

or another responsible adult so that other accommodations for the

Children could be made when they were using. Father’s main drug

treatment is a once[-]a[-]month therapy session that is required 

for him to receive his Suboxone. Mother went through inpatient 

treatment for twenty-four (24) days beginning May 24, 2021. She 

did not commit to the recommended discharge treatment of 

intensive outpatient treatment and only obtained her evaluation 

on July 26, 2021, one (1) week before the Change of Goal Hearing. 

When ... [M]other was doing her inpatient treatment, Father never

called the Foster Parents to check on the Children. Father has 

never called the Foster Parents to check on the Children. During 

a June visit, Father exposed one Child to a [S]uboxone strip under 

circumstances where he was sitting with the Child and opening a 

[S]uboxone strip at that time. 

The domestic violence between Mother and Father has once again

become more prevalent even during visits with the Children.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 9/28/2021, at 25-29 (footnotes to record omitted). 

The court then explained its reasoning as follows: 

In this case, the court made specific findings that Mother 

and Father were not in compliance with the Family Service Plan, 

as Mother and Father both failed to undergo and comply with their 

drug and alcohol treatment[.] Parents both relapsed

notwithstanding their treatment, the domestic violence between 

Parents was again becoming more prevalent[,] including during 

times when the Parents are visiting with the Children, and Father 

exposed one child to a [S]uboxone strip during one of the visits.

Parents were not making progress. The [c]ourt found that Mother 

and Father both relapsed and have not tried to implement the 

skills taught in their respective drug and alcohol treatment despite 

positive prodding by the [c]ourt and the caseworker. The 

caseworker followed up with the mental health and drug and

alcohol providers and she tried to persuade Parents to engage with 

those providers. In this case, everything was in place for Parents 

to work on the services that the Agency deemed appropriate for 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 7 -

the Children to be returned to Parents. As the trial court found, 

Parents minimally complied with the Service Plan and were 

making merely moderate progress toward alleviating the 

conditions which led to the Children[’s] being removed from the 

care of Parents. The Children have been in foster care for 

seventeen (17) months and Mother is still not cooperating with 

the Agency and Father continues to reside with Mother.

. . . 

In the instant case, both Parents have recently relapsed. 

Mother continues to refuse to cooperate with the Agency. Mother 

never made any effort to check on the Children while she was in 

inpatient treatment. Father does not and has not ever made any 

effort to check on the Children. Parents continuously refuse to 

submit to random drug screens. 

Parents have not sufficiently engaged in drug and alcohol 

counseling. Father’s minimal attempt to complete drug and 

alcohol treatment is attending a monthly medication management 

appointment, which he is not consistently attending. This is not 

in compliance with the court[-o]rdered drug and alcohol treatment 

and the Family Service Plan requirements. Mother completed 

inpatient drug treatment, but failed to comply with the 

requirement that she attend intensive outpatient treatment upon 

discharge. Mother instead, on the eve of the goal change hearing, 

obtained another independent drug and alcohol evaluation from 

another provider that recommended the same level of treatment 

as her prior discharge from inpatient treatment.

Although Parents have maintained stable housing 

throughout the pendency of this action[, they] are prone to 

domestic violence incidents, which have become more prevalent 

in the past few months, including ... at times when the Parents are 

visiting with the Children.

Id. at 36-37, 38-39. 

Based on these findings, the trial court determined the goal for the 

Children should be changed to adoption. Each Parent filed appeals from the 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 8 -

orders entered by the trial court relating to each Child. Both Parents also filed 

concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. 

Father raises the following issues in his brief to this Court:

1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that the permanency goal 

of the above cases should be from reunification to adoption?

2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that [Father] made minimal 

progress in alleviating the circumstances that necessitated 

placement of the [C]hildren at issue? 

3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in finding that [Father] was 

moderately compliant with the permanency plan? 

Father’s brief at 1. In her brief, Mother raises three issues:

1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion 

when the trial court found a goal change appropriate when 

there was insufficient evidence presented to the [t]rial [c]ourt 

to support the finding that the current placement goal was not 

appropriate and/or feasible. 

2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion 

when the trial court found Mother made minimal progress in 

alleviating the circumstances that necessitated placement. 

3. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and abused its discretion 

when the trial court found Mother was moderately compliant 

with the permanency plan. 

Mother’s brief at 7-8. 

We review issues relating to the changing of the placement goal for 

Children to adoption pursuant to the following:

[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.
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 9 -

In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 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 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).

In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 908 (Pa. Super. 2017). 

Having reviewed the record and the statutory directives governing a 

goal change, we determine that the findings support the conclusion that 

reunification of Children with Parents is not a realistic goal. The court took 

into account the entire history of this case and noted the period of time that 

the Children have been in placement. The court also recognized Mother’s 

mental health issues and both Parents’ drug and alcohol problems, noting that 

despite the services provided and/or offered throughout the history of this 

matter, the Parents have been unable to maintain a safe environment for the 

Children. 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 10 -

Our Supreme Court in R.J.T. discusses why this Court must employ an 

abuse of discretion standard of review when these types of cases are before 

us. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. Noting that appellate courts are not in a position 

to make fact-specific determinations, the Supreme Court stated:

Not only are our trial judges observing the parties during the 

hearing, but usually, ... they have presided over several other 

hearings with the same parties and have a longitudinal 

understanding of the case and the best interests of the individual 

child involved. Thus, we must defer to the trial judges who see 

and hear the parties and can determine the credibility to be placed 

on each witness and, premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of 

the success of the current permanency plan. Even if an appellate 

court would have made a different conclusion based on the cold 

record, we are not in a position to reweigh the evidence and the 

credibility determinations of the trial court. 

Id. 

Both Mother and Father are primarily seeking to have this Court reweigh 

the evidence in a light more favorable to them individually. However, it is 

beyond our purview to disturb the credibility determinations of the trial court 

when the testimony relied upon is supported in the record. The trial court was 

free to conclude that neither Mother nor Father were likely to remedy their

issues in the near future and, thus, the permanency needs of Children dictate 

changing their goal to adoption. The trial court gave reasons for its 

determination that adoption was the appropriate goal for these Children. The 

reasons are based upon the evidence of record. Finally, we are aware that 

the “[s]afety, permanency, and well-being of the child[ren] must take 

precedence over all other considerations, including the rights of the parents.” 
J-S38001-21

J-S38002-21

- 11 -

In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2006) (emphasis in original). The 

goal of adoption will end Children’s languishing in limbo. Accordingly, we 

conclude that the trial court did not err in ordering the change of goal for both 

Children from reunification to adoption. 

Orders affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/25/2022