Court Opinion

ID: 9389970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:07:49.505969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.841569
License: Public Domain

J-A08028-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: C.W., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: C.G., MOTHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1273 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered September 27, 2022
                  In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
              Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000200-2021

    IN THE INTEREST OF: N.S., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: C.G., MOTHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1274 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered September 27, 2022
                  In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
              Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000201-2021

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                             FILED: APRIL 26, 2023

        C.G. (“Mother”) appeals from the orders changing the permanency goals

for C.W., born in February 2009, and N.S., born in March 2019 (collectively,

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08028-23

“Children”), from concurrent goals of reunification and adoption to adoption.1

We affirm.

        The trial court has thoroughly summarized the factual and procedural

history of this appeal, see Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 1-7, and we

highlight the following points from the record. In September 2021, the Erie

County Office of Child and Youth (“the Agency”) received reports that Mother

choked her eldest child, N.A., during a domestic dispute and had left C.W.

alone with N.S.’s father, a “Megan’s Law” offender. Application for Emergency

Protective Order, 9/10/21, at 1-2 (unnumbered).2 The trial court issued an

emergency order granting the Agency temporary protective physical and legal

custody of Children and N.A. Thereafter, the Agency applied for shelter care

orders for Children and N.A., and filed petitions to adjudicate Children

dependent.       The Agency’s dependency petitions recited the history of

Children’s emergency removal from Mother’s care and alleged that Mother had

been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, panic attacks, and anxiety, but was not

receiving treatment for those conditions. See e.g. Dependency Petition, No.

200-2021, 9/14/21, at 3-4. The Agency further noted that Mother had refused

____________________________________________

1   This Court consolidated these appeals sua sponte.

2The emergency order and the dependency proceedings included the removal
of N.A. from Mother’s care The Agency did not seek goal change to adoption
as to N.A., who was seventeen at the time, and he is not a party to these
appeals. However, the trial court weighed evidence concerning Mother’s
parenting of N.A. when changing Children’s goals to adoption.

                                           -2-
J-A08028-23

to cooperate and had a criminal history, including a pending charge for

harassment. See id. at 4-5.3

       Mother stipulated to the reports leading to the emergency removal of

Children and the allegations in the dependency petitions. 4           See Trial Court

Opinion, 11/28/22 at 2. The trial court granted the applications for shelter

care, and in September 2021, the court adjudicated Children dependent. See

Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition, 9/29/21, at 1-2. The trial

court set goals for reunification of the family.             See id. at 2.   Mother’s

permanency plan required her to: obtain and maintain a safe and stable living

environment; actively participate in a parenting program and demonstrate an

ability to meet Children’s needs; undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation and

follow all recommendations, refrain from using drugs and submit to random

drug    testing;    participate     in   a     psychiatric   evaluation   and   follow

recommendations; and sign releases for information. See id. at 3.5

       Following a permanency review hearing in December 2021, the trial

court found that Mother was not compliant with her permanency plan and had

made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances that necessitated

Children’s placement. See e.g. Permanency Review Order, No. 200-2021,
____________________________________________

3 The trial court appointed counsel for Mother and a guardian ad litem (“GAL”)
for Children. The GAL supports the goal changes to adoption.

4 The parties’ stipulation included minor amendments to the dependency
petitions which do not affect our disposition of this appeal.

5  Children’s fathers participated only minimally in the dependency
proceedings, and they have not appealed or participated in these appeals.

                                             -3-
J-A08028-23

12/7/21, at 1.      In January 2022, police took Mother into custody for new

criminal matters including driving under the influence, possession of a

controlled substance, simple assault, criminal mischief, and other offenses.

See Court Summary Addendum, 12/2/21, at 1. In March 2022, following a

permanency hearing, the trial court found that Mother was in prison and not

compliant with her permanency plan goals, and had made no progress toward

reunification. See e.g. Permanency Review Order, No. 200-2021, 3/29/22,

at 1. The court added a concurrent goal of adoption.6 See e.g. id. at 2.

       Following the March 2022 permanency review, N.A. absconded from his

foster home from March to July 2022, and again from July to September 2022.

See Court Summary Addendum, 9/26/22, at 21.           During that time, N.A.

reportedly committed an assault and a retail theft.    See id.    Mother was

released from prison in July 2022, and when the Agency questioned her about

N.A.’s whereabouts and her contacts with him, she gave vague responses and

stated that she was not responsible for turning N.A. into the police. See id.;

see also N.T., 9/23/22, at 12. In August 2022, Mother reported that she

convinced N.A. to turn himself in to authorities for pending delinquency

matters. See Court Summary Addendum, 9/26/22, at 22. Police took N.A.

into custody. See id.

____________________________________________

6 The record indicates that the Agency discussed the process of concurrent
planning with Mother and told her that it would pursue adoption rather than
reunification if she failed to remedy the reasons for the dependency
adjudications. See Court Summary Addendum, 3/29/22, at 17; see also
N.T., 9/23/22, at 32.

                                           -4-
J-A08028-23

       In August 2022, the Agency filed petitions to change Children’s goals to

adoption due to Mother’s lack of compliance and her failure to address the

circumstances that necessitated their placement.       The trial court held a

hearing at which an Agency caseworker, Kaitlyn Patton (“Patton”), and Mother

testified. Patton, during questioning by the Agency’s counsel, agreed that the

goal change to adoption was necessary due to Mother’s failure to alleviate the

circumstances of Children’s placement and Children’s need for permanency.

See N.T., 9/23/22, at 9-10. Mother testified that she had taken steps to meet

her permanency plan in the two months following her release from prison;

however, she conceded that she had not done enough for Children and asked

the court to give her more time. See id. at 23-29, 31. Additionally, C.W.,

who stated that she preferred to remain in her current placement. N.S. did

not attend the hearing.7

       On September 27, 2022, the trial court determined that Mother had

been minimally compliant with her permanency plan and was making minimal

progress toward alleviating the circumstances that necessitated Children’s

placement. The trial court concluded that the Children’s concurrent goals for

reunification and adoption were not appropriate or feasible, and ordered goal

changes to adoption.          Mother appealed and contemporaneously filed a

____________________________________________

7 At the time of hearing, C.W. was in a residential facility, and N.S. was in
kinship care with his father’s side of the family. See N.T., 9/23/22, at 9. The
trial court heard testimony from N.A, who stated he preferred to live with
Mother.

                                           -5-
J-A08028-23

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The trial court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.8

       Mother raises the following issue for our review:

       Whether the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion
       and/or error of law when it determined that the concurrent
       permanency goal of reunification was no longer feasible and
       changed the goal to adoption?

Mother’s Brief at 4.

       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). 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., 909 A.2d at 822-23

(internal citations and quotations omitted).

____________________________________________

8 During the pendency of these appeals, the Agency filed petitions to terminate
Mother’s parental rights to Children. However, the current record contains no
indication of the status of the termination of parental rights proceedings. We
note that a goal change and termination of parental rights are distinct matters
that result in separate appealable orders. An agency may change a goal
without seeking a termination of parental rights and may seek the termination
of parental rights without changing a goal to adoption. See In re Adoption
of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017, 1027-28 (Pa. 2006); see also In Interest of M.B.,
674 A.2d 702, 704-05 (Pa. Super. 1996).

                                           -6-
J-A08028-23

      Our scope of review is of the broadest possible nature, and this Court

will ensure that the record represents a comprehensive inquiry and that the

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

In re K.J., 27 A.3d 236, 241 (Pa. Super. 2011). This Court affords great

deference to the trial court’s findings of facts that are supported by the record.

See Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. If the record supports the trial court’s

findings, this Court will affirm, even if the record could also support an

opposite result. See id.

      When reviewing the trial court’s goal change order, we are mindful that

the focus of all dependency proceedings, including goal change proceedings,

is on the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child and that the best

interest of the child must take precedence over all other considerations. See

id. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f), the trial court must consider numerous

factors, including the appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement

goal for the child at each permanency review hearing.         See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 6351(f)(4). If the trial court determines that reunification with a parent is

not in a child’s best interest, the court may change the child’s goal to adoption.

See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f.1)(2). A goal change to adoption does terminate

parental rights to a child, but “is a step in that direction.” See Interest of

H.J., 206 A.3d at 25.

      This Court recognizes that “[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[,]” and that an agency should complete the

                                      -7-
J-A08028-23

placement process within eighteen months.           Id. (internal citation and

quotations marks omitted). Further, an agency must make reasonable efforts

to return a child to a biological parent. See Interest of T.M.W., 232 A.3d

937, 947 (Pa. Super. 2020). However, when an agency’s reasonable efforts

fail, the agency shall redirect its efforts towards placing the child in an

adoptive home. See N.C., 909 A.2d at 823. Once the trial court sets a goal

to adoption, an agency is no longer required to provide services to a parent.

In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2008).

      In her sole issue in this appeal, Mother claims that the goal changes to

adoption lack adequate support in the record. Mother argues that she was

participating in services and working toward alleviating the circumstances that

led to Children’s placement. Mother adds that after her release from prison,

she obtained employment, achieved stability, and she sought help from the

Agency with employment, housing, drug and alcohol treatment, and was in

the process of obtaining a psychological evaluation. Mother further contends

that the trial court abused its discretion when weighing her conduct as to N.A.,

a non-party to this appeal, as a basis for changing Children’s goals to adoption.

      The trial court, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, explained its decision to

change Children’s goals as follows:

            In the instant matter, the [c]ourt considered all the
      statutorily mandated factors as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)
      in determining the Children’s permanent placement goal. In
      viewing all relevant evidence and testimony throughout the life of
      the dependency case, the [c]ourt found [Mother] had done little if
      anything, on her treatment plan and was unable to demonstrate

                                      -8-
J-A08028-23

     an understanding of the reasons that led to the removal and
     consequently an ability to alleviate them.

            The record reflects that the Children were removed from
     [Mother’s] care on September 10, 2021, due to physical abuse
     perpetrated against at least one of them in the home, domestic
     violence, and concerns with [Mother’s] mental health, erratic
     behaviors, and criminal history. During the first review period,
     [Mother] did not engage in her court-ordered services and tested
     positive for controlled substances. During the second review
     period, [Mother] again made no progress with her treatment plan.
     In fact, she was arrested in three different incidents and was
     incarcerated from February 2022 until July 27, 2022.

            [Mother] was aware upon her release from incarceration
     that she had lost valuable time working on her treatment plan and
     that there was a concurrent goal of adoption for the Children, yet
     she still did not engage in her court-ordered services. She
     essentially did nothing until the date of her review hearing was
     approaching and then she made an eleventh-hour effort, at least
     according to her testimony, with no supporting documentation, to
     schedule her services. Additionally, despite not having a medical
     marijuana card[,] the urinalysis tests [Mother] did attend were all
     positive for marijuana.

            Finally, and perhaps more concerning than [Mother’s]
     complete disregard for her treatment plan is her inability to
     demonstrate she can parent her children when they needed it the
     most. N.A. absconded from placement in May of 2022 and was
     not located until September of 2022. The [c]ourt heard credible
     testimony that [Mother] knew where he was but reported she had
     “enough on her plate[.”] She “didn’t need to turn her child into
     the police.” [Mother’s] refusal to help the Agency locate her
     seventeen (17) year-old son who was essentially homeless during
     the review period, substantially jeopardized his safety and
     wellbeing and clearly demonstrated her inability to parent . . .
     Children. Ultimately[,] the [c]ourt found [Mother’s] testimony, as
     reflected in a review of the record, all over the place and lacking
     in credibility.

           Based on [Mother’s] lack of ability to remedy the
     circumstances that led to the Children’s dependency after one (1)
     year, C.W.’s unwavering desire not to be reunified with [Mother],
     and N.S.’s young age[,] the [c]ourt found that [Mother’s] claims
     of progress and hope for the future were not sufficient reasons for

                                    -9-
J-A08028-23

      the Children’s lives to be put on hold in the hopes [Mother] would
      summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.
      Moreover, it would not be in the best interest of the [C]
            hildren to delay their permanency any longer.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 10-11.

      Following our review, we conclude that the record supports the trial

court’s findings of fact and that its legal conclusions are sound.   Following

Children’s removal and adjudications of dependency, Mother’s permanency

plan required, inter alia, her (1) maintenance of a safe and stable living

environment; (2) active participation in a parenting program and a

demonstration of her ability to meet Children’s needs; (3) submission to drug

tests to ensure she refrained from substance abuse; and (4) participation in a

psychiatric evaluation.

      Mother does not dispute the ample evidence that she was not compliant

with her permanency plan for the three months from the adjudications of

dependency until her imprisonment in January 2022. The trial court further

heard testimony that following her release from prison in July 2022, Mother

became more receptive to contact with the Agency and was consistent with

visitations.   See N.T., 9/23/22, at 5, 15.   However, as to Mother’s living

arrangements, Mother was not at home for either a scheduled and an

unannounced home visit, and Patton, the Agency caseworker, was not able to

inspect Mother’s home after Mother’s release from prison. See id. at 5-6.

      Regarding parenting, Patton attempted to refer Mother to a parenting

program following Mother’s release from prison, but one program refused to

admit her due to her prior unsuccessful participation; Patton made a second

                                    - 10 -
J-A08028-23

referral, but that program had not contacted Mother before the hearing. See

id. at 6-7. Patton also testified about N.A.’s troubled history during this case

and his flight from foster care; Mother, Patton noted, provided little assistance

after N.A. ran away despite indications that Mother had contact with N.A., and

Patton recalled that Mother stated, “[S]he had enough on her plate to turn

her own child over into the police[,]” and did not believe it was “her

responsibility to turn in [N.A.]” See id. at 12.

       Patton testified that Mother reported attending an anger management

program and drug and alcohol programs; Mother, however, did not provide

any documentation of her attendance and only provided Patton with a

certificate of her completion of a prison drug and alcohol program the day

before the hearing.9       See id. at 7.       As to Mother’s requirement that she

address her drug and alcohol issues, Mother has not passed a drug test since

being released from prison.10

       Concerning Mother’s mental health requirements, Patton testified that

Mother did not appear for a scheduled intake appointment, despite Patton’s

warnings that Mother needed to act immediately after her release from prison

____________________________________________

9We note that Patton testified that Mother did not give her documentation of
her employment; however, Patton also noted that she did not ask for that
documentation. See N.T., 9/23/22, at 18.

10 Mother did not consistently appear for drug tests, and when she did, she
tested positive for marijuana use despite only having an expired medical
marijuana card. She also tested positive once for Suboxone, for which, she
testified, she had a prescription; however, she did not provide documentation
of the prescription and only showed Patton the prescription bottle and label.

                                          - 11 -
J-A08028-23

because programs and resources often have waitlists. See id. at 8-9. Mother

then attended an intake appointment ten days before the hearing but could

only schedule a psychiatric evaluation to take place after the hearing. See

id.

      The foregoing record demonstrates that Mother failed to complete her

permanency plan goals for more than one year. The trial court appropriately

concluded that Mother has failed to demonstrate an ability to safely parent

Children and lacked an appropriate insight into her parenting skills as

evidenced by her responses to N.A.’s flight from foster care. The trial court’s

determination that reunification, even as a concurrent goal, was not

appropriate or feasible has support in the record and was reasonable. See 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)(4), (f.1)(2). To the extent Mother claims that she made

recent progress, we decline her invitation to reweigh the evidence or disturb

the trial court’s conclusion that neither Mother’s minimal compliance

immediately before the goal changes, nor her hopes that she could “summon

the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting” in the future, outweigh

Children’s needs for permanency. Trial Court Opinion, 11/28/22, at 10-11;

accord Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d at 25, 27.

      Thus, we conclude that Mother’s arguments fail to establish an abuse of

discretion in the trial court’s decision to change Children’s goals to adoption,

and we affirm the goal change orders. See id.

      Orders affirmed.

                                     - 12 -
J-A08028-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2023

                          - 13 -