SBRViCES HAb BEEM - AtLEVIATED. - -
2. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSEDitS DlSCRETION AND/OR COMMiTrEDAN ERROR OF LAW/FA.Ct WHEN It QTJASIIBD THE SUBPOENAS ISStTED BY TSE FATHER to HAVE THi{MiNOR.OLD�R CHILPREN, nr. AND R.P_., AGEb- i2 ANb 9, APPEAR AND TESTIFY IN CAMERA AT"tHE CHANGE OF d6ALHEARING. . - .
3. THE tR1AL count ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND/OR C6MMltTED AN ERROR OF LAw BY FAILING ro APPOlNT AN" ATTORNEY FOR THE MINOR "CHILREN, D.P. AND R.I>.·tN Ti:$ CHANGE OF" GOAL HEARING.
4. THE TRlAL COURT ABUSEb ITS DISCRETION AND/OR COMMITTEDAN ER.ROE OF LAw BY DENYING THE FAtHER'S MOTiON POR SPECIAL RBLieF REQUESTING THA'J; 11-ffi COURT RE-OPEN THE RECpR.b TO APPOINT COUNSEL-FOR TH$ CHILPREN AND HA VE COUNSEL ADVISE - THE- COURT OF THE CHILDiIBN'S WlSHES REGARDING ii-ffi CHANGE OF GOAL
5. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION _AND/OR COM1vIITTED AN ERROR OF LAW BY F AILiNG TO GIVE UNCONTROVERTED tESTI;t\.fONY tHAT THERE WAS A BOND BETWEEN sous OF THE CHILDREN AND THE FATHER.
6. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND I OR COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW BY FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN IN PLACEMENT FOR LESS THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE o CHANGE OF GOAL PETITION WAS FILED, WHEREBY NOi GIVING FATHER SUFFICIENT TIME TO RECTIFY THE CONDITIONS FOR REMOVAL OF CHILDREN ..
7. THE TRIAL COURT.ABUSEDliS orscasno" AND I OR COMMlITBDAN ERRO'� OF LAW WHEN It fAILE.b ro RECOGNIZE THAT Ar THE-MAY .. 23, ·201s REVIEW HEARING, REUNIFICATiON WITH FATHER WAS THE GOAL BY END OF sU.MK1E'.R,:201_8, AND FIVE: (5) WEEKS LATEit°FILEO A MOTION FOR CHANGE OF GOAL to AbOPiION; A DECISlON THA! WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY tfIEEVIDENCE.
8. THE TRIAL COURTABUSEO rrs OISCRETION ANO I OR COMMITTED AN ERROR 6F LAW BY CHANdtNARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing an appeal from a decree changing a permanency goal, an appellate court
accepts the findings of fact and the credibility determinations of the juvenile 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 judgement was reasonable; the court
applied the law, and the court's action was hot a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the lower ,n :. ..,. 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, not the
interests