J-S34010-23

2023 PA Super 245

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.C., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: G.C., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 487 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered March 31, 2023

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

No(s): CP-02-DP00001169-2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: November 29, 2023

G.C. (Father)1 appeals from the dependency order,2 entered in the Court 

of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, changing the placement goal of K.C. 

____________________________________________

1 Mother has written a letter “join[ing Father]’s brief insofar as [she] agree[s] 

that the trial court acted prematurely in changing [Child’s p]ermanency [g]oal 

to ‘Subsidized Permanent Legal Custodianship.’” Mother’s Juvenile Court 

Project Letter, 8/1/23. 

2 Generally, orders changing a placement goal are considered final. See In 

re H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.3d 908 (Pa. 2003) (order granting status change final 

when entered). However, we are aware that the trial court highlighted the 

importance of the parties reaching an agreement regarding visitation and that 

“[o]nce the follow-up meeting [to determine visitation] has occurred, the 

[c]ourt believes it is possible for PLC to be promptly finalized so that [Child]’s 

case [can] be closed. Permanency Review Order, 3/28/23, at 2 (emphasis 

added). Despite the fact that this language may imply that the goal change 

order is not final for appeal purposes, we note that when permanent legal 

custodianship is granted, visitation issues are no longer within the purview of 

the juvenile court division. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. at § 6351(a)(2.1) (“The court 

shall refer issues related to support and continuing visitation by the parent to 

the section of the court of common pleas that regularly determines support 

and visitation.”). Thus, we conclude that the instant appeal is taken from a 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S34010-23

- 2 -

(Child) (born 10/2017) from reunification to permanent legal custodianship

(PLC) – non-relative.

3

 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a)(2.1).

4

 After careful review, 

we affirm.

On September 30, 2019, Child was diagnosed with failure to thrive, 

requiring, among other things, that Parents implement a structured feeding 

plan, provide meals in a highchair, offer small portions of food at each meal, 

and limit distractions while eating. Child’s weight had dropped below the third 

percentile for children her age and gender. In early October 2019, Child was 

____________________________________________

final order changing Child’s permanency goal. See also Trial Court 

Supplemental Opinion, 10/27/23, at 6 (court designating instant order final 

where PLC arrangements in Allegheny County “do not lend themselves to 

simultaneous entry of the goal change order and the PLC order”).

3 See 2019 Pa. HB 856, Chapter 31 (Family Finding and Kinship Care), § 3102 

(Definitions) (defining “Permanent legal custodian” as “[a] person to whom 

legal custody of the child has been given by order of a court pursuant to 42 

Pa.C.S.[A.] § 6351(a)(2.1)”).

4 Section 6351(a)(2.1) provides, if a child is found to be dependent, the court 

may make the following order of disposition “best suited to the safety, 

protection, and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child:

(2.1) Subject to conditions and limitations as the court prescribes, 

transfer permanent legal custody to an individual resident in or 

outside this Commonwealth, including any relative, who, after 

study by the probation officer or other person or agency 

designated by the court, is found by the court to be qualified to 

receive and care for the child. A court order under this paragraph 

may set forth the temporary visitation rights of the parents. The 

court shall refer issues related to support and continuing visitation 

by the parent to the section of the court of common pleas that 

regularly determines support and visitation.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a)(2.1).
J-S34010-23

- 3 -

admitted to the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) to address her weight 

loss issues. On October 16, 2019, Child was gaining weight in CHP as a result 

of being put on a feeding plan; however, hospital staff noted the Child had an 

oral aversion resulting from behavioral issues. See Stipulations in No. CP02-AP-0008-22, 7/14/22, at 7(h). CHP agreed to allow Parents and Child to 

move to a “nesting room” in CHP where Parents would be responsible for 

feeding Child for the week. While there, Child would be weighed daily. 

Parents met with hospital staff on November 13, 2019, to review the family’s 

progress and determine a discharge plan. Child was discharged to return 

home with Parents, with the condition that they return for regular weight 

checks at CHP.

On November 25, 2019, the Allegheny County Office of Children Youth 

and Families (CYF) filed an application for emergency protective custody of 

Child, who had been readmitted to CHP three days prior. The application

alleged that Child “has been diagnosed with failure to thrive[,] . . . has severe

eating difficulties, and has been hospitalized at C[HP] and/or admitted to the 

Children’s Home previously due to losing weight.” Application for Emergency 

Protective Custody, 11/25/19, at 3. CYS alleged that at the time Child was 

admitted to Children’s Home, Parents were homeless, and that “at this time, 

[Child] cannot safely return to the care of her parents when discharged from 

C[HP].” Id. That same day, the court issued an emergency order for 

protective custody of Child, granting legal custody to CYF. 
J-S34010-23

- 4 -

On November 29, 2019, Child was placed in her current certified foster 

home, provided by Bethany Christian Services, upon discharge from CHP. 

Foster parents, R.H. and L.H., are Child’s permanent legal custodians. Child 

also resides with her foster brothers. Stephanie Pawlowski, Esquire, from Kids 

Voice, was appointed as Child’s guardian ad litem (GAL).5 Child was 

adjudicated dependent on January 15, 2020; Parents were granted supervised 

visits three times a week. Permanency review hearings were held in June 

2020, July 2020, November 2020, and March 2021. After Parents completed 

coached visitation with Justice Works, their visits with Child transitioned to 

unsupervised in March 2021. 

In May 2021, in response to CYF’s motion to have all future visitation 

between Child and Parents supervised, the court ordered Parents have at least 

two supervised visits per week in Parents’ home and that “CYF may increase 

the frequency of the supervised visits if deemed appropriate, based on 

Parents’ consistency and progress[] with the twice-weekly visit.” Order, 

5/25/21. Another permanency hearing was held in July 2021. In October 

2021, Father petitioned to have overnight visits with Child. The court denied 

Father’s petition, without prejudice to review the request at the next 

scheduled permanency review hearing.

At the next permanency hearing, held on November 4, 2021, the court 

found that Child’s placement continued to be necessary and appropriate and 

____________________________________________

5 Parents’ three other children were placed in kinship care with maternal 

grandparents.
J-S34010-23

- 5 -

that both Mother and Father had “moderately” complied with their 

permanency plans, but that the placement goal remained return to parent. At 

that time, Child had been in placement for 15 of the last 22 months. Of 

significance, the permanency review order noted that “[t]he ongoing dynamic 

of Mother relying on Father to provide discipline and redirection continues to 

be observed in the visits.” Order, 11/4/21, at ¶ 9.6 

At a February 2022 permanency hearing, the court found Mother had 

moderately complied with her permanency plan and that Father had not 

complied at all, and, in fact, “remained uninvolved.” Permanency Review 

Order, 2/25/22, at 1. Notably, the court “[found] that Parents have made no 

progress toward reunification over the last review period” and that both 

Mother’s and Father’s failure to respond to outreach from service providers 

has contributed to their delay in receiving vital services. Id. at ¶ 10. 

____________________________________________

6 On January 26, 2022, on a related adoption docket, CYF filed a petition to 

involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights to Child, pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 2101-2938, and to change the permanency goal from reunification to 

adoption. The court held three days of termination hearings in July 2022, 

December 2022, and January 2023. On November 3, 2022, the court granted 

Parents unsupervised visitation with Child for four hours each week. On 

December 6, 2022, the court extended the hours of unsupervised visitation—

from four to eight hours weekly. Child was represented by GAL, Erin 

Krotoszynski, Esquire, at the hearings. On January 26, 2023, the court denied 

CYF’s petition to terminate, concluding that Father had eliminated the 

conditions leading to Child’s placement. The court also denied CYF’s request 

to change the goal to adoption. Because we do not have the adoption docket 

record before us in this dependency case, we are limited to the facts 

surrounding the filing of the termination petition.
J-S34010-23

- 6 -

On June 10, 2022, Father filed another petition to modify his visitation 

schedule, seeking to have the visits occur in his home. The court granted the 

motion, keeping all visits supervised, but permitting “coached visitation” to 

occur in the family home. Order, 6/10/22. On July 8, 2022, however, the 

court granted special relief to CYF by ensuring that Parents’ Thursday visits 

continue to be supervised and occur at the community center near the 

maternal grandparents’ home. See Special Relief Order, 7/8/22. At an 

August 2022 permanency hearing, therapist Bethany Tintsman testified that 

both Father and Mother were making good progress with intensive family 

coaching, that Father “has mastered the skills addressed in Phase 1—focusing 

on child-directed interaction and strengthening bond between parent and 

child)—and that Parents are engaged and equally involved in the sessions. 

See Permanency Review Order, 8/3/22, at ¶¶ 8-10.

On March 3, 2023, CYF filed a motion for goal change from reunification 

to permanent legal custodianship. On March 28, 2023, the court held a status 

conference and hearing on CYF’s motion for goal change. At the outset of the 

hearing, the court noted that in making its decision, it “consider[ed] the entire 

record of th[e termination of parental rights] proceeding” as well as “all of the 

[permanency] review hearing orders and findings, all of the decisions on 

motions []—but, basically, in my view, I’m making a determination based on 

the entirety of the record to date.” N.T. Status Conference and Motion for 

Goal Change, 3/28/23, at 5-6. At the time of the goal change hearing, Parents 

had unsupervised visits with Child twice a week—Tuesdays from 4:00 PM-6:00
J-S34010-23

- 7 -

PM and Saturdays from 11:00 AM-5:00 PM—at Parents’ home. Id. at 22. 

Parents and CYF had been discussing starting overnight visits with Child, with 

another planned meeting to discuss the possibility the following month, in 

April.

7

 Id. at 23, 28.

8

 In entering his order, the trial judge made it clear that 

changing the goal to permanent legal custodianship “includes in it the parents’ 

visitation with the child. There will not be an order entered without that being 

covered.” Id. at 49.

Father filed a contemporaneous notice of appeal from the court’s goal 

change order and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2). On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our 

consideration:

(1) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in changing 

the permanency goal to [PLC]?

(2) Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse its 

discretion by not allowing Father to move toward 

reunification prior to the date of the hearing by failing to 

increase visits with the minor child, despite Father having 

consistently shown progress and met his goals set by [CYF]?

(3) Whether the trial court erred in entering such an order 

changing the goal so soon after it made findings supporting 

reunification in the termination proceedings.

____________________________________________

7 Obsessive self-stimulation while at Parents’ home was one of the main 

concerns with permitting Child to have overnight visitation with Parents. Id.

at 24.

8 During the goal change hearing, Father testified that Mother had just been 

diagnosed with stage-4 lung cancer. Id. at 40.
J-S34010-23

- 8 -

(4) Whether the trial court erred in changing the permanency 

goal without any guarantee that a visitation schedule would 

be able to be worked out between the parties.

Father’s Brief, at 6 (renumbered).

It is well settled that “the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6365, 

governs the placement and custody of a dependent child.” See In re N.C., 

[] 909 A.2d 818, 823 (Pa. Super. 2006). The law of this Commonwealth 

empowers a Juvenile Court to make an award of permanent legal custody as

a permanency option for a dependent child. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(a)(2.1). 

“This Court reviews an order regarding a dependent child’s placement goal 

pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard.” See Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d 

22, 25 (Pa. Super. 2019). “In order to conclude that the trial 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.” 

In re N.C., supra at 822-23 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

“When considering a request to modify permanency goals, the trial court 

must focus on the health and safety of the child, which takes precedence over 

all other considerations.” See In re A.H., 763 A.2d 873, 878 (Pa. Super. 

2000). To that end, the trial court must consider,

(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 child[]; (5) a likely date by 

which the goal for the child might be achieved; (6) the 
J-S34010-23

- 9 -

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.

In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088-89 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 

6351(f)). See also Pa.R.J.C.P. 1608(D)(1)(q) (at each permanency review 

hearing, court must consider “whether the visitation schedule for the child 

with the child’s guardian is adequate, unless a finding is made that visitation 

is contrary to the safety or well-being of the child”).

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.[A.] § 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., [] 461 A.2d 1263, 1267 ([Pa. 

Super.] 1983) (citation omitted).

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

In Pennsylvania, a juvenile court may award permanent legal 

custody to a child’s caretaker pursuant to [s]ection 6351(a)(2.1) 

of the Juvenile Act. This is an arrangement whereby a juvenile 

court discontinues court intervention[,] as well as supervision by 

a county agency, and awards custody of a dependent child, on a 

permanent basis, to a custodian. Parental rights are not 

terminated. See In re H.V., [] 37 A.3d 588, 589 ([Pa. Super.]

2012).

* * *

A trial court may consider permanent legal custody, upon the filing 

of a petition by a county children and youth agency that alleges 

the dependent child’s current placement is not safe, and the 

physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child would best be 

served if subsidized permanent legal custodianship (SPLC) were 

granted. See In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 983-[]84, [(Pa. Super.
J-S34010-23

- 10 -

2008)]. Upon receipt of this petition, the court must conduct a 

hearing and make specific findings focusing on the best interests 

of the child. See id. In order for the court to declare the 

custodian a “permanent legal custodian[,]” the court must find 

that neither reunification nor adoption is best suited to the child’s 

safety, protection[,] and physical, mental[,] and moral welfare. 

See id.; see also 42 Pa.C[.]S[.]A[.] § 6351(f.1).

In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973, 977-78 (Pa. Super. 2013). See also In re K.T., 

296 A.3d 1085, 1116 n.33 (Pa. 2023) (“PLC is a permanency goal when 

neither reunification nor adoption is best suited for the child, 42 Pa.C.S.[A.]

§6351(f.1)(3). For example, a court may grant PLC when a caregiver accepts 

legal responsibility [for] a child[,] but is unwilling or unable to adopt.”).

In In re S.H., supra, our Court held that “neither the Juvenile Act nor 

the Adoption and Safe Families [A]ct of 1997 prohibit[s] a parent from 

petitioning the trial court to regain custody of a child who is the subject of an 

award of permanent legal custody.” Id. at 982. See Office of Children and 

Youth and Families Bulletin 3130-10-02/3140-10-03, at 4 (July 30, 2010) 

(recognizing permanent legal custody is not, in fact, permanent, where 

parents have right to petition court for custody of child); PA Judicial Deskbook, 

Juvenile Law Center, 4th ed. (2004), at 151, 155-56 (acknowledging parents 

who may not be able to rehabilitate themselves within given period of time

may be able to reunify with child following establishment of PLC). To hold 

otherwise would “amount of a de facto termination of [a parent’s] legal and 

primary physical custody rights.” Id. at 979. 

After a comprehensive review of the parties’ briefs, relevant case law 

and statutes, and the certified record on appeal, we conclude that the court 
J-S34010-23

- 11 -

correctly determined that its order changing the goal to PLC was in Child’s 

best interest. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6351(f.1)(3) (based upon determinations 

under subsection 6351(f) and all relevant evidence, court shall consider “[i]f 

and when the child will be placed with a legal custodian in cases where the 

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.”); id. at § 6351(g) (“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.”). Child has been in placement for over three years (more 

than half of her life) and, “[w]hile Parents have made recent progress with the 

implementation of services, there is no evidence that Parents, together, are 

capable of sustaining this progress.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/27/23, at 12. See 

also In re H.V., supra (trial court erred changing goal to PLC where children 

were in placement for three years, but mother alleviated circumstances that 

led to children’s placement, threat of father no longer existed, children wanted 

to be returned to mother and family home, and mother’s home “was [the] 

only home [children] knew for three, seven[,] and nine years since their 

respective” births). 

Although Father has substantially complied with his service plan goals, 

progressed to some periods of unsupervised visits, and shown he is capable 

of parenting Child, the court astutely observed that, without Mother having 
J-S34010-23

- 12 -

the same parenting capability,

9 Father will simply be unable to provide Child 

with the “irreducible minimum requirements,”

10 especially where he is also a 

parent to three other young children. 

In order for the court to have granted the current goal change, CYF was 

required to “prove that reunification or adoption is not best suited to [C]hild’s 

safety, protection[,] and physical, mental[,] and moral welfare.” In re S.H., 

supra at 979-80. The record bears out that Child continues to have significant 

emotional, behavioral, and medical needs that require constant supervision 

and close monitoring. Child’s foster family has created a loving and stable 

environment for Child to ensure that she is properly monitored and supervised 

so that she is properly fed and is safe in their home. In re M.T., 101 A.3d 

1163, 1175 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding court should consider bond between 

child and parents, foster parents, and siblings when deciding whether to 

change goal). Moreover, as evidenced by the court’s denial of CYF’s petition 

to terminate Father’s parental rights to Child, see supra at n.6, the parentchild bond here is so strong that it would not be in Child’s best interest to 

sever same. See PA Judicial Deskbook, Juvenile Law Center, 4th ed. (2004), 

____________________________________________

9 Mother has made minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances that 

led to Child’s placement.

10 In re J.W., 578 A.2d 952, 958 (Pa. Super. 1990) (“Essential parental care 

. . . denotes certain irreducible minimum requirements to which all children 

are entitled from their parents, including adequate housing, clothing, food[,] 

love, and supervision.”) (emphasis added).
J-S34010-23

- 13 -

at 155-56 (PLC appropriate permanency option where child has bond with 

parent that precludes termination of parental rights). 

Here, the trial judge, who was well-acquainted with the parties, combed 

through the voluminous evidence in the parties’ Juvenile and Family Division 

matters and determined that it was in Child’s best interest to change the 

“permanency goal [to] legal custody [so] that she [can] absolutely continue 

her important and positive relationship with her parents and her siblings[.]” 

N.T. Status Conference and Motion for Goal Change, 3/28/23, at 14. See In 

re K.J., 27 A.3d 236 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“It is this Court’s responsibility to 

ensure that the record represents a comprehensive inquiry and that the 

hearing judge has applied the appropriate legal principles to that record.”).

Noting the highly deferential standard we afford to a dependency court, 

we reiterate that:

we are not in a position to make the close calls based on factspecific determinations. Not only are our trial judges observing 

the parties during the hearing, but usually, as in this case, 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 success of the current 

permanency plan. Even if an appellate court would have 

[reached] 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.

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

decision for any jurist, the trial judge commendably balanced the best 
J-S34010-23

- 14 -

interests of Child, which included her need for permanency and stability met 

by Foster Parents, with the importance of her maintaining a relationship with 

Father.

11

 Because the court’s findings are supported by the record, we affirm. 

In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1089 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations and quotation 

marks omitted) (“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 his second and fourth issues, which we address together, Father 

contends that the court erred by not permitting him to “move toward 

reunification prior to the date of the [goal change] hearing, by failing to 

increase visits with [C]hild[.]” Father’s Brief, at 6. He also claims that the 

court erred when it changed the goal to PLC “without any guarantee that a 

visitation schedule would be able to be worked out between the parties.” Id.

Despite Father’s preference that he have overnight, unsupervised visits 

with Child, the record shows that since May 2021, Father’s visits have 

progressed to not only being unsupervised, but also are now held in his home. 

Additionally, we remind Father that the use of the term “[PLC] does not confer 

or divest parents of any substantive rights but[,] rather[,] addresses the 

proper venue for visitation and support matters following the grant of a 

permanent legal custody arrangement.” In re S.H., 71 A.3d at 979 (emphasis 

added). Father may continue to seek overnight visits or increased 

____________________________________________

11 We remind Father that he is not precluded from petitioning the trial court 

to regain custody Child. See In re S.H., supra at 982. 
J-S34010-23

- 15 -

unsupervised visitation with Child, albeit through family court and not juvenile 

court. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5324, 5338. 

Finally, Father argues that the trial court erred by “changing the goal so 

soon after it made findings supporting reunification in the termination 

proceedings.” Father’s Brief, at 6. First, we note that the court’s decision to 

deny termination did not support reunification, rather it acknowledged that 

CYF did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that changing the goal 

to adoption was in Child’s best interests. Moreover, as the court acknowledges 

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, “the Juvenile Act does not impose any time 

restriction on courts as to when they may next consider a goal change 

following the denial of a [termination of parental rights] petition.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/27/23, at 16. Rather the Juvenile Act mandates that a court 

consider the appropriateness of the permanency goal at each scheduled 

permanency review hearing. 

Order affirmed.

DATE: 11/29/2023