J-S17016-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.R., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: L.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1706 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered May 24, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at 

No(s): CP-51-DP-0002636-2016

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED MARCH 16, 2018

L.W. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s permanency review order,

in this underlying dependency proceeding, denying Mother’s requests for a 

lawyer, more visitation with her minor son, S.R., and the opportunity to sign 

consents. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

1

On December 2, 2016, the court found, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that child was dependent, removed S.R. from Mother’s home and 

gave legal custody of S.R. to the Philadelphia Department of Human Services 

(“DHS”). Child was placed in kinship care, with a goal of reunification. On 

May 24, 2017, the court held a regularly-scheduled permanency review 

hearing. At the hearing, the trial court found that Mother had not been 

____________________________________________

1 Because we dismiss the appeal as moot, we need not discuss the 

appealability of the instant permanency review order. See In re H.S.W.C.-

B, 836 A.2d 908, 909 (Pa. 2003) (order granting or denying a goal change, 

even if it maintains the status quo, is appealable).
J-S17016-18

- 2 -

cooperative with the Master and DHS, by refusing to grant them access to her 

home for a safety inspection and to sign releases or consents. The court 

ordered that Mother permit DHS into her home by June 3, 3017, and 

scheduled the next permanency review hearing for August 8, 2018.

Mother filed a timely appeal from the court’s May permanency order. 

In her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Mother states:

I feel as though I was not given a fair chance to speak in regards 

to my case which occurred on 5-24-17 in courtroom 4A. I was 

never asked to sign a consent form from CUA[.] [T]hey only asked 

me where I was attending. Ms. Wright and Mr. Hall only asked 

where I was going not to sign any forms. In regards to my CUA 

coming to my house they have only not come to my house one 

time since my case started over a year ago and they only did not 

see her the months of April due to miscommunication and my 

phone being on the fritzs [sic]. Also my son has only attended 

one family session out of the 5 that were scheduled. In addition 

no one has stated for the record that my son wants to come home 

and I want him home. As of visitations with my son they have not 

occurred and CUA or Mr. King has not given me a reason why. 

My son and daughter wants [sic] to see each other but that has 

not occurred, and CUA are [sic] not helping in the matter. I am 

also requesting new counsel. Mr. King is not helping in no way 

and the only time I see or talk to him is in the courtroom. I 

can[]not get no help from him in regards to my case and I would 

like to see if I can get someone new to oversee my case.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 

5/30/17.

On February 20, 2018, S.R.’s counsel notified our Court that she would 

not be filing a brief on behalf of Child and that “Counsel for Appellant has 

conceded in his brief that all issues have been resolved and are therefore 

moot.” Letter of Defender Association of Philadelphia, 2/20/18. Additionally, 
J-S17016-18

- 3 -

in Mother’s brief, counsel acknowledges that all issues on appeal are moot as 

Mother’s attorney has been replaced, all consents have been signed, and 

Mother is receiving visits. Appellant’s Brief, at 3-4. Thus, we dismiss the 

appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/16/18