J-S48044-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M.-F., a/k/a 

A.M.-F., a Minor Adjudicated Child 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

APPEAL OF: A.M., Natural Mother No. 292 WDA 2016 

Appeal from the Order entered February 1, 2016, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, 

Domestic Relations, at No.: 64 of 2015 

BEFORE: BOWES, DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 16, 2016 

 

 A.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the permanency review Order, issued in 

response to a request by the Erie County Office of Children and Youth 

(“OCY”), changing the permanency goal for her daughter, A.M.-F. (“Child”) 

(born in October 2014), to adoption, pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6301, et seq. (“the Act”). We affirm. 

 The juvenile court set forth the factual background and procedural 

history of this appeal in its March 11, 2016 Opinion (regarding Mother), which 

we incorporate herein. See Juvenile Court Opinion (Mother), 3/11/16, at 1-5. 

On February 25, 2016, Mother timely filed a 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). In response, the juvenile court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) Opinion. 

On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review: 
J-S48044-16 

- 2 - 

1. Did the Juvenile Court commit an abuse of discretion and/or 

error of law when it determined that the concurrent placement 

goal of reunification/adoption was no longer feasible[;] dispensed 

with the concurrent placement goal of reunification, after only ten 

months[;] and directed [OCY] to provide no further services 

and[/]or visitation to [Mother]? 

2. Did the Juvenile Court commit an abuse of discretion and/or 

error of law when it failed to acknowledge that [OCY] had failed to 

conduct an appropriate individualized analysis of the family 

support services needed by [Mother] and acted solely on its 

assumptions about [Mother’s] disability? 

3. Did the Juvenile Court commit an abuse of discretion and/or 

error of law when it failed to acknowledge that the lack of 

progress and “minimal compliance” made by [Mother] were the 

direct result of her disability and that [Mother] should have been 

offered specialized services by [OCY,] which would have permitted 

her to demonstrate and/or acquire appropriate parenting skills? 

Mother’s Brief at 5.1 

 We first note our standard of review: 

When we review a [juvenile] court’s order to change the 

placement goal for a dependent child to adoption, our standard is 

abuse of discretion. In order to conclude that the [juvenile] court 

abused its discretion, we must determine that the court’s 

judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not 

apply the law, or that the court’s action was a result of partiality, 

prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the record. We are bound 

by the [juvenile] court’s findings of fact that have support in the 

record. The [juvenile] court, not the appellate court, is charged 

with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witnesses 

and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these 

responsibilities, the [juvenile] court is free to believe all, part, or 

none of the evidence. When the [juvenile] court’s findings are 

supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm even if 

the record could also support an opposite result. 

In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 532-33 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). 

 

1

 Mother stated her issues somewhat differently in her Concise Statement; 

nevertheless, we find the issues preserved for review. 
J-S48044-16 

- 3 - 

 When considering a petition for goal change for a dependent child under 

the Act, the juvenile 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. 

Id. at 533 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)). Moreover, “in matters of 

placement for a dependent child, the [juvenile] court must be guided by the 

best interests of the child--not those of his or her parents.” In re A.K., 936 

A.2d at 533. 

 Additionally, Section 6351(f.1) of the Act requires the juvenile court to 

make a determination regarding the child’s placement goal: 

(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: 

* * * 

(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. 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f.1)(2). Section 6351(f) sets forth several matters that 

a juvenile court shall determine at a permanency hearing, including, inter 

alia, “(9) [whether] the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 

22 months ....” Id. § 6351(f)(9). Upon finding that the fifteen-month
J-S48044-16 

- 4 - 

prerequisite is satisfied, the juvenile court must determine “whether the 

county agency has filed ... a petition to terminate parental rights and to 

identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified family to adopt the child ....” 

Id.2 

 We will address Mother’s issues simultaneously, as they are related. 

Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by changing 

Child’s permanency goal to adoption where (1) Child had been in placement 

for only ten months, which is “far short of the 15[-]month statutory 

guidepost”; (2) OCY failed to develop and implement a treatment plan 

tailored to Mother’s significant cognitive limitations and special needs; and (3) 

the juvenile court did not consider the protections that Mother was entitled to 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101, et 

seq., as a disabled person who should have been provided an individualized 

 

2

 Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained the significance of section 

6351(f)(9) as follows: “the statutory language ensures that termination 

petitions are timely filed. Specifically, if a child has been in custody for 15 of 

the last 22 months, the court must inquire as to whether a termination 

petition has been filed, absent the listed exceptions of subsections (i)-(iii), 

including whether the parents have been provided necessary services.” In re 

D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 674 (Pa. 2014); see also id. at 674-75 (stating that 

“[r]equiring a court to inquire whether an agency has filed for termination 

promotes timely permanency for children rather than subjecting them to 

foster care drift[,]” i.e., where children languish in the foster care system

while their parents unsuccessfully attempt to regain custody). Additionally, 

our Supreme Court has stated that section 6351(f)(9) does not establish a 

litmus test that requires a juvenile court to alter the course of reunification 

due simply to the amount of time a child has been in placement. In re 

R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). 
J-S48044-16 

- 5 - 

treatment plan that “might assist her in overcoming her disability.” See

Mother’s Brief at 8, 9-14. 

 In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the juvenile court aptly discussed the 

applicable law in addressing Mother’s claims, and determined that (1) her 

claims did not establish any abuse of discretion; (2) the conditions that led to 

the placement of Child would not or could not be remedied by Mother, even if 

OCY were to provide her with further services; and (3) continued, indefinite 

placement is contrary to Child’s best interests. See Juvenile Court Opinion 

(Mother), 3/11/16, at 5-8. The juvenile court’s reasoning and determination 

is supported by the law and the record, and we thus affirm on this basis with 

regard to Mother’s issues on appeal. See id. Accordingly, we discern no 

abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, and affirm its Order changing Child’s 

permanency goal to adoption. 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/16/2016 
1 

1 Father has also appealed the termination order. That appeal is docketed at 340 WDA 2016. The issues he raised 

are addressed in a separate opinion. 

On March 25, 2015, the child was adjudicated dependent. The Appellant stipulated to the facts 

"instruction regarding feedings and hygienic needs for the child." Court Summary, 7/6/15, p. l. 

Appellant failed to "demonstrate a basic understanding of the child's needs" and required regular 

significant cognitive limitations that prevented her from parenting the child safely. Specifically, 

In March 2015, the child was removed from the Appellant's care because of Appellant's 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS 

portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

have been given for her to receive continued treatment and for OCY to comply with various 

child had only been in care for ten and a half months. Appellant alleges additional time should 

goal of reunification/adoption was no longer feasible and changed the goal to adoption after the 

committed an abuse of discretion/error of law when it determined the concurrent permanency 

Appellant's primary issue raised on appeal is as follows: that the Juvenile Court 

... 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

Court affirm the order. 

convincing evidence and is in the best interest of the child. It is therefore requested the Superior 

record supports the finding the change of goal to adoption was established by clear and 

contending this court erred in several respects when it eliminated reunification as a goal.' The 

adoption for the child, A.F. The mother of A.F .• •••••••· now challenges the order 

On January 29, 2016, an order was entered in a dependency case changing the goal to 

1925(a) OPINION (APPEAL OF MOTHER) 

A minor adjudicated dependent 

IN THE INTEREST OF: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

NO. 64 of 2015 

L 23 IT YE Illlll 7377 JC, 

4. u.«. l 

.•-""'""'"' ........... ~a/~a 

Circulated 07/28/2016 12:33 PM
2 

still relied heavily on the assistance of agency staff during visitation and continued to require 

minimal progress. The caseworker stated that though Appellant made an effort at meetings, she 

Workers pointed to Appellant's limited ability to retain information as the cause of her 

assistance of others. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 10121/15, p.8-9. 

program at her school. The Appellant was still unable to meet her own needs without the 

developing parenting skills with Healthy Families of America and the life and parenting skills 

though the Appellant had been compliant with her treatment, she made only minimal progress in 

A second review hearing was held on October 21, 2015. The caseworker testified that 

Order, 7/8/15, p. 2. 

remain in foster care. The goal of reunification remained unchanged. Permanency Review 

Court Summary, 716/15, p.6, 7. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the child 

with an indicated perpetrator of sexual abuse and had been for some time before the hearing. 

she did not return to avai I herself of those services. At the time of this hearing, Appellant resided 

through Erie County Care Management, and, while she did appear to be assessed for services, 

Appellant was also instructed to work with a developmental disabilities coordinator 

Summary, 7/6115, p.S, 7. 

regular prompting during visits with her daughter to care for her and interact with her. Court 

understanding of the skills she was learning while visiting with her child. Appellant required 

Initiative, and a parenting program at her high school. However, she demonstrated minimal 

Appellant was participating in services with Healthy Families of America, the Motherhood 

A permanency review hearing followed on July 6, 2015. At the time of this hearing, 

place on April 22, 2015. 

underlying the basis for adjudication. Court Summary, 716115, p.1. A dispositional hearing took 
3 

redirection on implementing "basic skills such as feeding and holding techniques." She 

frequently did not or refused to give the child the proper amount of formula, despite guidance 

given to help her. It was unclear whether Appellant's inability to feed the child properly was due 

to an inability to read the formula container. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 10/21115, 

p. 32-33. 

The agency worker opined that at no point in the foreseeable future would Appellant be 

able to successfully and safely parent the child without assistance. Permanency Review Hearing 

Transcript, 10/21/15, p.8-9. Any other programs offered might have benefitted the Appellant 

for life skills purposes, but would not have benefited her with respect to reunification with her 

child. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 10/21115, p.14. 

Appellant continued to live with a perpetrator of sexual abuse. She also failed to follow 

through with treatment by Erie County Care Management. At the conclusion of the hearing, the 

court ordered a concurrent goal of adoption be added to the plan. Permanency Review Hearing 

Transcript, 10/21 /15, p. 8; See also Court Summary, 10/21 I 15, p. 5, 6. 

A third review hearing took place on January 25, 2016. All court summaries and 

attachments were admitted into evidence without objection. OCY requested the goal be changed 

to adoption. 

The testimony of agency case workers showed the Appellant had been receiving services 

before her child was born through the parenting program at her school and from the Erie Family 

Center as early as May and October, 2014. A case was not open with OCY at the time these 

services began, but was opened shortly after the birth of the child based on a referral by the 

worker at the Erie Family Center. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 1125116, p. 7-8. 
4 

Though the caseworkers worked with Appellant for over a year and a half, they testified 

she made no progress and was in no better position to parent the child in January. Giving her 

additional time will not change the circumstances. Even when visitation was shortened to thirty 

minutes due to Appellant's school schedule, Appellant still lost focus and needed constant 

redirection regarding proper interaction and safety of the child. Permanency Review Hearing 

Transcript, 1/25/ 16, p.12. She needed frequent instruction on feeding and how to appropriately 

interact with the infant. She could not remember how to care for the child between visits. This 

was attributed to Appellant's severe cognitive limitations. According to Appellant's educational 

records, she has an IQ of 55, and while she made progress with personal life skills through 

school, still she was unable to independently care for herself and had not progressed at all with 

regard to her parenting skills. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 1/26116, p. 33, 37,51. 

Because of the amount of time the child had been in placement, her need for permanency 

and stability, and Appellant's inability to remedy any of the conditions that led to her placement, 

the agency's request to change the goal to adoption was granted. A written order was entered 

Both the caseworker from the Erie Family Center and the caseworker from Appellant's 

school program shared similar concerns regarding Appellant's ability to parent and were often 

present together at visitation between Appellant and child. Permanency Review Hearing 

Transcript, 1 /25116, p. 29. They were primarily concerned with Appellant's ability to remember 

to feed the baby, feed the baby the proper amount of formula, and remember to pay attention to 

the child. Services were focused to address those concerns. Appellant once more continued to 

reside with an indicated perpetrator of abuse. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 1125/16, 

p.8, 29. 
5 

When reviewing an appeal from a decree changing a permanency goal, an appellate court 

accepts the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the lower court if they are supported 

by the record. In re R.J. T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). An abuse of discretion standard is used 

by the appellate court. 

An abuse of discretion is not found if the lower court's judgment was reasonable, the 

court applied the law, and the court's action was not a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill 

will. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error oflaw, or insufficient evidentiary support for the 

lower court's decision, the decree must stand. In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2007). In 

a change of goal proceeding, the lower court must focus on the child's best interests, and not the 

interests of the parents. Id. The Agency has the burden of proving the change in goal would be in 

the child's best interests. In re MB., 674 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa.Super. 1996). 

DISCUSSION 

The Juvenile Act generally requires the Office of Children and Youth ("OCY") to request 

a goal change when the child has been in placement for fifteen out of twenty-two months. 42 

Pa.C.S. §6351 (f)(9). The Appellant primarily asserts the court committed abuse of discretion 

and/or error of law when it ordered the goal changed to adoption after the child had been in care 

for ten and one half months and did not require OCY to consider any ADA mandates regarding 

treatment. 

January 29, 2016. Services to both parents were terminated. The child was placed in a preadoptive home. Permanency Review Order, 1/29/16, p.2. 

This timely appeal followed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 
6 

There is nothing in the Juvenile Act, case law, or rules of procedure that prevent an 

agency from requesting a goal change sooner than the prescribed fifteen out of twenty-two 

month demarcation, nor is there law in Pennsylvania prohibiting the court from ordering the 

agency to change the permanency goal at any time it is clear reunification is not viable and 

another permanency goal for the child is more appropriate. For example, the Pennsylvania 

Superior Court affirmed several lower court orders changing the permanency goal to adoption at 

the dispositional phase. See In re D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa.Super. 2009); In re MS., 980 A.2d 

612 (Pa.Super. 2009). 

The Superior Court has also held the underlying policy of the Juvenile Act is to curb an 

inappropriate focus on protecting the rights of the parents when there is a risk of subjecting 

children to indefinite foster care or returning them to abusive homes. In re CB., 861 A2d. 287, 

295 (Pa.Super. 2004). Moreover, to accept a party's assertion the courts ought to consider the 

ADA mandates within the purview of the Juvenile Act would "require the trial court" and the 

Superior Court "to ignore the best interests of the child and focus instead on the needs of the 

Mother." In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375, 379 (Pa. Super. 1999). 

Previously, the Superior Court has shown an unwillingness to shift focus from child to 

parent. Id. The safety, permanency, and the well-being of the child must take precedence over 

all other considerations, including the rights of the parents. In re CB., 861 A.2d 287, 29 5 (Pa. 

Super. 2004). "Once a child is adjudicated dependent, the issues of custody and continuation of 

foster care are determined according to the child's best interests." In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375, 379 

(Pa. Super. 1999). 

Even if the Appellant qualified as an individual with a disability under the ADA, the next 

relevant question would become whether OCY "provided her with reasonable acconunodations 
7 

limitations. 

she has been unable to succeed in successfully parenting because of her permanent cognitive 

with her treatment plan, it does not change the extent of her cognitive disabilities, nor the fact 

case is not possible. Though Appellant loves her child and might make every effort to comply 

to adoption after ten and one half months is likewise without merit. It is clear reunification in this 

Appellant's contention this court committed abuse of discretion when it changed the goal 

or with additional programs or services under the ADA is therefore without merit. 

Congress to do so. In re A.P., 728 A.2d 375, 379 (Pa. Super. 1999). The portion of Appellant's 

-Hi"'t 

claim "OCY failed to provide her a "true opportunity" to demonstrate appropriate parenting skills 

to change obligations imposed by unrelated statutes, and does not believe it was the intent of 

in such a way, and the Superior Court has gone as far as to say it will decline extending the ADA 

the focus to the Appellant. In the context of the Juvenile Act, it is improper to change the focus 

especially given her history of failure in similar programs, takes the focus off the child and shifts 

Mandating OCY to provide any additional life-skills centered programs to Appellant, 

Center. 

on parental duties and participates with Healthy Families of America through the Erie Family 

10/21/15, p. 14. Appellant already participates in school-based life skills training with a focus 

focused on parent-child bonding or reunification. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript, 

would be geared towards helping Appellant develop additional life skills that would not be 

workers also explained other available programs through institutions like the Barber Center 

enable Appellant to participate in services with them as any other person would be able to do, the 

persons who are not disabled." Id. Not only has OCY provided all the support available to 

to allow her to participate and receive benefits from services offered on an equal footing with 
8 

cc: Kevin C. Jennings, Esq. (OCY) 

Patricia Ambrose, Esq. (GAL) 

Charles Sacco, Esq. (Attorney for Mother) 

Elizabeth Brew Walbridge, Esq. (Attorney for Father) 

BY THE COURT: 

-RO-~_..~-=-R-T_(jA_~-A-M-i--#--0-A-K-, JR-. __ J. 

affirm the January 29, 2016 Permanency Review Order. 

tA 

Dated this~ day of March, 2016. 

allowing OCY to proceed to adoption. It is therefore respectfully requested the Superior Court 

her best interests. Her interests are best served by eliminating reunification as a goal and 

evidence exists to show that subjecting the child to continued, indefinite placement is contrary to 

child, it is clear her cognitive limitations prevent her from doing so. Clear and convincing 

Though the Appellant has admittedly put forth effort in order to successfully parent her 

CONCLUSION 

the child. It is therefore in the child's best interests the goal be changed to adoption. 

is no way to reasonably expect the Appellant will be able to successfully or independently parent 

will not change the circumstances. Permanency Review Hearing Transcript,1/25/16, p. 2. There 

best interests. Given the Appellant's limited abilities, affording her additional time with services 

the child to continued placement and deny her the safety and stability she deserves is not in her 

were also doubtful a bond had actually been established between Appellant and child. To subject 

the child, and shown how to properly hold, feed, and change the baby at each visit. Workers 

Caseworkers testified several times Appellant needed to be reminded to give attention to