Court Opinion

ID: 9394503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 17:07:20.407603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.514699
License: Public Domain

J-A11041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.B.,A MINOR      :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                       :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: C.B., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1397 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered October 27, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Civil Division at No(s):
                        CP-33-DP-0000061-2014

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.B., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: C.B., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1398 WDA 2022

            Appeal from the Order Entered October 27, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Criminal Division at
                    No(s): CP-33-DP-0000062-2014

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.B., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: C.B., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1399 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered October 27, 2022
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County Civil Division at No(s):
                        CP-33-DP-0000063-2014
J-A11041-23

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                          FILED: May 15, 2023

        C.B. (Father) appeals1 from the permanency review orders entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County (trial court) that changed the

permanency goal for Cu.B. (age 14; d.o.b. January 2008), Ca.B (age 12;

d.o.b. April 2010) and Ch.B. (age 10; d.o.b. August 2012) (collectively, the

Children) to adoption, with legal custody remaining with the Jefferson County

Children and Youth Services Agency (CYS) and physical custody remaining

with their current placements, with a review in six months.2 He argues that

the trial court erred in changing the permanency goal where the record reflects

he is in full compliance with the permanency plan and that he had made

moderate progress in alleviating the circumstances that necessitated the

original placement. We affirm.

        This case has a long and complicated history, with the Children being

adjudicated dependent several times, returning to Mother or Father’s custody

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 C.F. (Mother) did not appear at the goal change hearing and has not
appealed from the court’s order.

2At the time of the hearing, Cu.B. was placed at the Group Home at Pathways
Adolescent Center. Ca.B. and Ch.B. were in kinship care.

                                           -2-
J-A11041-23

for a period and then being adjudicated dependent again.      We include the

following pertinent details we glean from our review of the record.

                                               I.

                                               A.

        Mother and Father had been separated for nine years at the time of the

subject permanency review hearing. (See CYS Exhibit 13, Dr. Allen H. Ryen

Bonding Assessment, 9/14/22, at 5).3 Mother has a paramour, C.F., who lives

with her. The Children were most recently adjudicated dependent on three

separate dates: Cu.B. on June 25, 2020; Ca.B. on July 23, 2021; and Ch.B.

on April 21, 2022.

        CYS became involved with the Children’s family in April 2008. (Between

that time and when the Children were adjudicated dependent for the third

time in July 2014, CYS had received ten referrals about the family, including

physical abuse by Father and lack of medical care for the Children.        On

December 17, 2014, the court issued permanency review orders directing that

legal custody remained with CYS and physical custody would be with Father.

On March 26, 2015, the court terminated court supervision and the Children

remained with Father.

____________________________________________

3   Dr. Ryen’s report is erroneously dated 2021.

                                           -3-
J-A11041-23

       The next activity occurred on March 4, 2020, when the court granted an

order for emergency protective custody of Ch.B. and Ca.B. due to allegations

of Cu.B.’s sexual misconduct against Ca.B. and other children in the home.4

On March 31, 2020, the court adjudicated Ca.B. and Ch.B. dependent,

ordering that they remain in foster care. The court ordered Mother and Father

to obtain mental health and drug and alcohol evaluations. Father was ordered

to participate in an anger management program.

       On May 1, 2020, the court granted CYS’s request to have Ca.B. and

Ch.B. returned to Mother over Father’s objection.

                                               B.

       On June 26, 2020, CYS filed a dependency petition for Cu.B. in which it

alleged that it had concerns about chronic lice, mental health issues, domestic

violence, home conditions and sexually acting out. CYS had received a report

of Cu.B. attempting to rape Ca.B.              Ca.B. and Ch.B. were removed from

Mother’s home again. Cu.B was adjudicated dependent and was placed at

Harborcreek Youth Residential Treatment Facility.

       On April 30, 2021, Father was ordered to attend the FIT program

through Project Point of Light and have no contact with Cu.B. On June 7,

2022, Cu.B. was moved from Harborcreek Youth to a foster home. On August

____________________________________________

4It appears there were a total of six children in the home. Only three are the
subject of this matter.

                                           -4-
J-A11041-23

29, 2022, due to the foster parents’ request, the court ordered that Cu.B. be

moved to Pathways Adolescent Center. Cu.B. has continued to be dependent

since the June 26, 2020 adjudication.

                                               C.

       On July 31, 2020, the court entered permanency review orders finding

Mother and Father were moderately compliant with their permanency plans

and ordering that the current placement plans were for Ca.B. and Ch.B. to

remain with Mother, with a concurrent plan of adoption.5 Father was ordered

to have no contact with Ca.B and Ch.B. The court also ordered him to obtain

a drug and alcohol and mental health evaluation, attend an anger

management program and participate in the FIT program.           Mother was

ordered to obtain a mental health evaluation.        The permanency plans

remained the same for the remainder of the case with Father vacillating

between being noncompliant, minimally, moderately and substantially

compliant. Mother’s level of compliance varied from minimally to moderately

compliant.

____________________________________________

5 The comment to Rule 1608, permanency hearing, provides, in pertinent part
that, “[e]very child should have a concurrent plan, which is a secondary plan
to be pursued if the primary permanency plan for the child cannot be achieved.
… Because of time requirements, the concurrent plan is to be in place so that
permanency may be achieved in a timely manner.” Pa. Juv. Ct. Rule 1608,
Cmt.

                                           -5-
J-A11041-23

     On October 30, 2020, the court entered permanency review orders

terminating its supervision of Ca.B and Ch.B. because they were living with

Mother since the court’s July 30, 2020 order and no longer dependent.

                                      D.

     On July 16, 2021, the court granted CYS’s application for emergency

protective custody of Ca.B. because he had been acting out aggressively and

acting sexually inappropriately.   CYS requested he be evaluated at Dubois

Penn Highlands. On July 26, 2021, the court adjudicated Ca.B. dependent

and ordered that he remain at Dubois Penn Highlands and, at his discharge,

be placed in a group home. Ca.B. has remained dependent since July 16,

2021, moving from Dubois Penn Highlands to Pathways Adolescent Center,

then George Junior Republic group home, and finally into foster care with

B.J.C. and W.C.

     The July 26, 2021 order also directed that Father was to have no contact

with Ca.B. In addition to the continuing goals for Mother and Father, Mother’s

paramour, F.C., was ordered to participate in an anger management program.

     On September 30, 2021, the trial court granted Father’s motion to

resume contact with Ca.B. at the discretion of his therapist. In the January

28, 2022, April 21, 2022 and July 25, 2022 permanency review orders, the

court ordered that all contact between Father and both Cu.B. and Ca.B. be

conducted based on the recommendation of their respective therapists. No

recommendation was ever made.

                                     -6-
J-A11041-23

     Ca.B. has remained dependent since July 26, 2021.

                                 -7-
J-A11041-23

                                      E.

      On April 5, 2022, CYS filed a dependency petition for Ch.B. Since the

court’s May 1, 2020 order, Ch.B. had lived with Mother and Mother’s

paramour, F.C., and had visitation with Father every other weekend. CYS was

concerned about Mother’s medical neglect of Ch.B. and about F.C.’s treatment

of her. CYS requested that Ch.B. be placed with Father.

      The court adjudicated her dependent on April 21, 2022, and placed her

in kinship care with L.C. Thereafter, she was briefly in foster care and on June

27, 2022, Ch.B. was placed in kinship care with B.J.C. and W.C.

      Ch.B.’s goal was reunification with her parent or guardian. Mother was

offered supervised visitation, with Father continuing weekend visitation from

Friday to Sunday.

      In June 2022, CYS received a new CPS report regarding Father and

requested that there be no contact between the Children and Father until a

full investigation could be completed. The court granted the order the same

day. Ultimately, the report was unfounded.

      Ch.B. has been dependent since April 21, 2022.

                                      F.

      On October 4, 2022, CYS filed petitions for a permanency hearing to

change the Children’s goals to adoption.     On October 13, 2022, the court

suspended Mother’s contact with the Children because of her failure to contact

                                     -8-
J-A11041-23

Cu.B. since August 2022 and the fact that the Children all experienced

behavioral issues after contact with her.

        The permanency review hearing on the CYS petitions occurred on

October 26, 2022.

                                               II.

        CYS casework supervisor Rebecca Sallack; Kyle Straub; Ca.B.’s foster

mother, L.K.; and Ch.B.’s foster mother B.J.C. testified on behalf of CYS.

Father and Nate Davis of Pathways Adolescent Center testified on Father’s

behalf.

                                               A.

        Rebecca Sallack testified that CYS has provided numerous services for

the family over the life of the case trying to help them fix problems within the

home and with the Children to keep the Children safe and bonded with their

parents. She described Father’s progress toward his goals as moderate. He

has completed nurturing parenting and anger management classes and

successfully completed drug and alcohol and mental health evaluations. He

has an extensive drug history6 but had drug and alcohol services and was still

attending Narcotics Anonymous classes at the time of the hearing. At the

time of the permanency review hearing, Father had not had any contact with

the Children since June/July 2022. In August, Father asked Ms. Sallack about

____________________________________________

6   Father was briefly incarcerated from August 27, 2020, until March 1, 2021.

                                           -9-
J-A11041-23

contact with the Children and she advised that he text her if he did not hear

from her because of her schedule. He did not do so until two months later,

on the Monday before the October goal change hearing, and at that time he

was reminded that the standing order was that contact with Cu.B. and Ca.B.

had to be at the recommendation of their therapists, and that they would wait

until the hearing as far as Ch.B. since it just was a week away.

      Mother’s progress was minimal. The biggest concern with Mother is her

inability to protect the Children from mistreatment by her paramour, F.C., who

is abusive to the Children and has not completed an anger management

program as directed by CYS to enable Mother to be reunited with them.

Despite repeated talks with Mother about the need to get F.C. out of the house

to achieve reunification, she is unwilling to do so. CYS was also concerned

that she was not able to supervise more than one child at a time. At the time

of the permanency review hearing, Mother was not participating in any court-

ordered services.    Previously, she participated in some outpatient therapy,

family therapy and psychiatric services, and she completed nurturing

parenting classes.

      Ms. Sallack detailed the history with each of the Children, adding some

detail and context to the foregoing procedural facts.

                                      1.

      At the time of the goal change hearing, Cu.B. was 14 years old and had

been in care for 28 months. The evaluation from Harborcreek Youth showed

                                    - 10 -
J-A11041-23

that Cu.B. had an extensive history of multiple hospitalizations, participated

in a partial hospitalization program and was involved in family-based mental

health on two occasions.     Due to Cu.B.’s continued struggles regulating

emotions and reaching treatment goals, Harborcreek Youth recommended

that Cu.B. remain in residential treatment where he actively participates in his

therapy.    He is receiving intervention to enable him to identify his

inappropriate sexual harming behaviors towards his siblings and to learn skills

to reduce future risk of these behaviors. Mother’s contact with Cu.B. did not

start until September 2020, and her participation in his family therapy

thereafter was inconsistent. She has not contacted him since August 2022.

      Cu.B.’s only contact with Father in 28 months was two zoom

interactions. After these contacts, Cu.B. would exhibit aggressive behaviors

due to the trauma that was caused. In July 2021, he requested there be no

further contact with Father so that he “could process through his trauma

history,” much of which was caused by Father’s abuse.          (CYS Exhibit 3,

Harborcreek Report, 10/08/21, at 3); (N.T., 10/26/22, at 16). It was because

of this request that the court ordered that contact occur at the direction and

recommendation of Cu.B.’s therapist.

      On June 6, 2022, Cu.B. was discharged from Harborcreek Youth. He

was placed in a foster home on Harborcreek Youth’s recommendation because

of Mother’s continued noncompliance and the fact that her paramour, F.C.,

was still in the home and the Children were afraid of him. While in foster care,

                                     - 11 -
J-A11041-23

Cu.B. had one visit with Mother, after which he egged the foster family’s home,

cut their furniture and fought with the other children in the home.       Soon

thereafter, the foster family requested Cu.B.’s removal. On August 29, 2022,

he was moved to the Pathways Adolescent Center. Ms. Sallack witnessed one

visit between Cu.B. and Mother and said it was “really weird” because neither

spoke. (N.T., at 29). Cu.B. told Ms. Sallack that he was angry with Mother

for always choosing F.C. over the Children.

                                      2.

      At the time of the hearing, 12-year-old Ca.B. had been in care for 15

months, i.e., since July 23, 2021. From the time he was born until he was

placed, there were 34 CYS referrals on the family. He was hospitalized at

Dubois Penn Highlands from June 25, 2021, until July 2, 2021, and again on

July 15, 2021, for mental health/behavioral issues.       He was adjudicated

dependent on July 23, 2021, based on the CYS allegations of him

inappropriately touching his sister, Ch.B., frequent inpatient stays, aggression

toward the family, Mother’s noncompliance with his mental health and him

being inpatient during the adjudication.

      He was placed at Pathways Adolescent Center on July 28, 2021, after

he was discharged from Dubois Penn Highlands. He moved to George Junior

Republic group home for the diagnostic youth residential program from August

18, 2021, until he was placed with a foster family on November 12, 2021.

While at George Junior Republic group home, he had zoom visits with Mother.

                                     - 12 -
J-A11041-23

Ca.B. failed to make any progress after he was discharged.                 CYS

recommended individual therapy with Jenn McDonald and he has been doing

well with talking through some of his trauma. Ca.B.’s anxiety goes up after

visits with Mother, with him confused and fearful due to Mother choosing F.C.

over the Children. She is also inconsistent with her calls, with Ca.B. waiting

for them and then getting very upset when she fails to telephone. After not

having seizures for years, he had two seizures the night before his Child

Advocacy Center (CAC) interview at which he was going to be discussing an

incident that had occurred involving Father. When Mother was told about the

seizures, she texted the foster mother, telling her that she would call Ca.B. to

check on him that night. She never called and has not done so since then.

Because of Ca.B.’s (and Ch.B.’s) struggles after seeing Mother, the court

suspended contact on October 13, 2022.

      Like with Cu.B., Father was restricted from having contact with Ca.B. as

a result of trauma he had inflicted on him. Father’s only contact with him

during the 15 months since he was placed in care on July 23, 2021, was one

letter and an instance where he saw him in court. Upon receiving the letter,

Ca.B. was reluctant to open it, and when he did, he suffered nightmares from

which he would wake up crying and concerned about the safety of his foster

family. He experienced the same nightmares after seeing Father in court.

      Ca.B.’s foster mother, L.K., testified that Mother only called him three

times over 11 months, but that she consistently attended her weekly two-

                                     - 13 -
J-A11041-23

hour visit with him and, if he were sick, she would Facetime with him. Ca.B.

loves going to visits with Mother but when he returns to the foster home he is

very distant and angry for a couple of hours, questioning why Mother will not

leave F.C. for him. He has medication for concentration and sleep that she

has been able to wean him off, but whenever he has to go to court, he must

start on it again because he has nightmares from seeing Father and F.C. He

is doing very well in school, has friends like he never had before and plays

sports. L.K. said that Ca.B. needs something final because he is so worried

all the time about people taking him away from their home and placing him

somewhere else. She added that he loves his parents but he has said he

wants to stay with L.K. and his foster family.

                                      3.

      The youngest child, ten-year-old Ch.B., was adjudicated dependent for

the third time on April 21, 2022, and had been in care for a total of ten months

over the life of the case and six months at the time of the goal change hearing.

The basis for the adjudication included hygiene issues observed at school, her

failure to receive prescribed medication, tardiness at school and concerns that

Mother’s paramour, F.C., was withholding food and mistreating her. Ch.B.

suffered seizures in October 2020 and Mother was to schedule a follow-up

appointment, but she failed to do so. Ch.B. was in kinship care with L.C. since

May 2022 and L.C. took her for follow-up on May 23, 2022. Although briefly

moved to foster care, since June 2022, Ch.B. has been with another kinship

                                     - 14 -
J-A11041-23

care family where she has two half-siblings and one step-sibling. She is in

trauma therapy with Jenn McDonald at Rooted Counseling.

      Ch.B. is on a wait list for anxiety medication, but there has been an

improvement since visitation with Mother stopped.           Ch.B. was having

behavioral issues after her visits with Mother, including urinating, defecating

in her pants and getting aggressive with other children in the kinship home.

If Mother failed to make a scheduled phone call, Ch.B. also got very nasty with

her siblings in the home. After the October 13, 2022 hold was put on Mother’s

visits, the foster parents have not reported any significant behaviors with

Ch.B. and have noticed remarkable changes in her. Since having no contact

with either parent, she is doing well in school.

      Prior to June 2022, Ch.B. visited with Father every other weekend.

However, she suffered incontinence, anger, nightmares and sexualized

behaviors (characterized as digging at her vagina) after visits with him. On

September 14, 2021, licensed psychologist, Dr. Allen H. Ryen, performed a

bonding assessment that included Ch.B., Mother and Father.

      Dr. Ryen noted that Ch.B. “had almost no information to volunteer about

her natural family, either spontaneously or in response to open-ended

questions,” but she did state that she likes her foster home and foster parents,

that she is well taken care of and safe and volunteered that she is “going to

stay there forever.’” (Dr. Ryen Bonding Assessment, §§ 3-5). He observed

that “disruptions of primary and secure emotional attachments have negative

                                     - 15 -
J-A11041-23

implications for child development” and that the maternal bond was “weak

and insecure” because although Ch.B. was comfortable with Mother, “her

feelings were ambivalent and conflicted.”     (Id. at 2, 7); (N.T., at 55, 56).

Ch.B. had “at least some level of secure bonding and dependency” with Father,

but Father’s “long absences from his daughter’s life have had an impact [on]

her current adjustment and well-being[.]” (Dr. Ryen Bonding Assessment, at

7); (N.T., at 57). Dr. Ryen reported that Ch.B. “has experienced a great deal

of instability, neglect, abuse, and trauma in her life,” and that “any problems

she may be experiencing are very much traumatic in origin.”         (Dr. Ryen

Bonding Assessment, at 7). “[Ch.B.] continues to experience nightmares, and

to act out physically and sexually following contact with either of her natural

parents.     These observations have been reported by school and agency

personnel, in addition to the foster parents.”     (Id. at 7-8) (emphasis in

original).    Dr. Ryen noted that Ch.B. “appears to have been sexually

victimized, at least by her older siblings, and perhaps by numerous others.”

(Id. at 8). Ch.B. is decompensating, whether it be from ongoing trauma or

other unidentified family issues. He recommended that this be addressed in

ongoing family therapy at the direction of her primary therapist, although the

source of the trauma might not be sexual in nature because “emotionally

deprived and neglected children are also known to act out sexually in some

circumstances.”    (Id.).   Ultimately, he opined, “it is not in [Ch.B.]’s best

interest to experience whatever stimuli that may be provoking or producing

                                     - 16 -
J-A11041-23

these abreactions, and their ongoing occurrence would argue for restricted

family contacts, or even elimination of such contacts in favor of adoption or

open adoption.”       (Id.).   Although Dr. Ryen considered “a goal change to

adoption to be premature at this point in time,” he added that “stable

permanency options for [Ch.B.] must soon be given primary consideration.”

(Id.).

         Kyle Straub of Core Psychiatric and Psychological Services testified that

he worked with Ch.B. from March 22, 2022, until July 21, 2022. He testified

about her various temperament changes, her fear of F.C. and the fact that she

seems confused and needs stability, whatever decision is made.

         Ch.B.’s foster mother, C.J.B., testified that Ch.B. has lived with her since

June 27, 2022, and that, by that time, visits with Father had already stopped.

She said that Ch.B. is excited for visits with Mother, but when she returns,

she has a lot of anger and will urinate and defecate in her pants and is mean

to the other three children who live in the home and at school, hitting, biting

and arguing with them. Mother attended the weekly two-hour visits with Ch.B.

until they were suspended on October 13, 2022. She also was supposed to

call once a week but had not done so since August 13, 2022, which upset

Ch.B., resulting in her physically abusing other children in the home, even

putting another child in the hospital by slamming a door on his head when

Mother did not call for two weeks. Ch.B. would get angry that Mother “loved

[F.C.] more than she loves me.” (Id. at 120). Since Mother’s visits were

                                        - 17 -
J-A11041-23

suspended, Ch.B. has had none of the behavioral issues, except urinating in

her pants one time when she thought there was going to be a visit with

Mother. C.J.B. said Ch.B. needs stability and the school agrees.

      Ms. Sallack stated that Father has verbalized he is not willing to give up

on Ch.B., and that the interaction between him and Ch.B. is good. However,

she also noted that Father does not see Ch.B.’s reaction after the visits, the

negative behaviors and issues at school, the decline in her mental health or

her urinating accidents. She noted that Father told her that he just wants the

Children “to flourish,” and although he would prefer that to be with him, he

knew that might not happen. (Id. at 59).

      Ultimately, Ms. Sallack opined that even though there might be some

bond with Father, Cu.B. had been in placement for over two years, Ca.B. for

18 months and Ch.B. for a combined total of ten months, and that the level

of trauma they experienced is “not going to be unpacked in months.” (Id.).

There is no bond with Mother because she has “been detached all along.” (Id.

at 60). CYS recommended the Children remain in their current placements

with medical and educational remaining with CYS, a review in six months and

a goal change to adoption.

                                      B.

                                      1.

      Davis, the coordinator of the boys’ program at Pathways Adolescent

Center who worked with Cu.B., testified on Father’s behalf. He stated that he

                                    - 18 -
J-A11041-23

believed it “would not hurt” to have some family involvement. (Id. at 21).

Cu.B. said that one of the things that upsets him is not having family involved,

but he has not expressed in what form he wants that or exactly to whom in

his family he is referring. He enjoys talking with his brother Ca.B. on the

phone and wants “someone to talk to, communicate with.” (Id. at 23-24) He

calls Mother, but she does not pick up the phone, and Smith left weekly

telephone messages for her, but she does not return the calls. There had

been no involvement by either Mother or Father since Cu.B. was placed in

Pathways Adolescent Center on August 29, 2022.

                                      2.

      Father testified on his own behalf.     He stated that he tries to fully

cooperate with CYS to do whatever he has to do to have a relationship with

his Children. He completed the FIT program to learn about what molested

children go through and recognize the signs of molestation.        He took the

parenting class three times. CYS scheduled him for a psychiatric evaluation

for December 1, 2022, that he intended to attend.               Dr. Ryen had

recommended a psychosexual evaluation that Father said he was willing to

attend if CYS could assist with paying for it. He said he does not agree with

the recommendation that contact Ca.B. And Ch.B. be subject to therapists’

opinions because he wanted to be able to talk to, hug and play with them, but

he would do whatever he had to do to start the process of reunification. He

                                     - 19 -
J-A11041-23

testified that he does not believe the Children’s trauma is as bad as others

had testified.

        As to the bonding assessment, he said Dr. Ryen mentioned in the report

that Father painted Ch.B.’s nails, played games and read, things Father

characterized as “normal stuff dad’s do.” (Id. at 131). Father added that

they also do things like color, go to the park and ride bikes and that weekend

visits with Ch.B. began and ended with appropriate affection like a hug or kiss.

Father said things were going very well with CYS until there suddenly was a

CPS report that was unfounded a week later. Since then, Father has not had

contact with the Children, but he wants contact with them in whatever way is

allowed. He acknowledged that their past was not “the best,” and that he is

going through PTSD therapy and would participate in any family therapy,

trauma therapy or whatever was recommended for the Children. He said he

believes it would not be in the Children’s best interest to change the goal to

adoption because they need their parents, even if it starts with a little and

grows from there.

        On October 26, 2022, the trial court determined it was in the Children’s

best interest for their permanency goals to be changed to adoption. Father

timely appealed and filed a statement of errors.7 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).

____________________________________________

7   Our standard of review of this matter is well-settled:

                                          - 20 -
J-A11041-23

                                           III.

                                               A.

       Placement and custody issues are governed by the Juvenile Act, 42

Pa.C.S. § 6301-6365. The policy underlying the Juvenile Act:

       is to prevent children from languishing indefinitely in foster care,
       with its inherent lack of permanency, normalcy, and long-term
       parental commitment. Consistent with this underlying policy, …
       the Juvenile Act … place[s] the focus of dependency proceedings,
       including change of goal proceedings, on the child. Safety,
       permanency, and well-being of the child must take precedence
       over all other considerations, including the rights of the parents.

In re N.C., 909 A.2d at 823 (citation omitted; emphasis in original).

       At a permanency review hearing, a trial court is statutorily required to

consider:

____________________________________________

       When we review a trial 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 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. We are bound by the trial court’s
       findings of fact that have support in the record. The trial 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 trial
       court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When
       the trial 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 N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822-23 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations and quotation
marks omitted).

                                          - 21 -
J-A11041-23

      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. (citation omitted); see 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f). The focus of “goal change

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

best interests of the child must take precedence over all other considerations.”

Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d 22, 25 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). If

reunification with a child’s parent is not in a child’s best interest, the court

may determine that adoption is the appropriate permanency goal. See 42

Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1)(2). “When the child welfare agency has made reasonable

efforts to return a foster child to his or her biological parent, but those efforts

have failed, then the agency must redirect its efforts towards placing the child

in an adoptive home.” Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d at 25 (citation omitted).

“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.”          Id.   “A

placement goal change to adoption does not terminate the parents’ rights;

however it is a step in that direction.” Id. (citation omitted).

                                        B.

      Father concedes that the family history is long and that at the beginning

of the Children’s placement, he was “non-compliant and difficult.” (Father’s

Brief, at 9); (see id. at 8). He also admits that each of the Children has

                                      - 22 -
J-A11041-23

exhibited “signs of past trauma that has hindered reunification efforts.” (Id.

at 9).     He maintains that based on “the circumstances referenced above,

clearly an argument for a goal change is easily supported,” but, “when

considering all factors a court is to consider, the argument [to] maintain[] a

goal of reunification makes sense.”8 (Id.). We disagree.

         In its December 12, 2022 opinion, the trial court explains:

                In light of the credible evidence, the court does not deem
         reunification with Father to be a viable goal for the children either
         now or in the near future. Since January of 2020, his contact with
         Cu.B. has been limited to 2 Zoom visits, and with the exception of
         1 letter, he has not attempted to communicate with Ca.B. outside
         of the courthouse, which means that any efforts toward
         reunification at this point would have to begin with the most
         limited, getting-to-know-you types of activities and progress from
         there. Yet the witnesses and treatment records reflect that Ca.B.
         is demonstrably afraid of Father even now and that both boys’
         past trauma, an undetermined portion of which is attributable to
         Father, would necessitate an extended course of individual and
         family therapy before the court would even consider returning
         them to Father’s custody. That does not comport with the dictates
         of the Juvenile Act or the best interests of the children.

____________________________________________

8 As noted previously, “[w]hen the trial 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 N.C., 909 A.2d at 822-23. Therefore,
Father’s concession that the record supports the goal change argument in
effect concedes that the decision should be affirmed. His argument asks us
to reweigh the evidence, highlighting the evidence of his progress and bond
with Ch.B. and utterly ignoring all the negative testimony about his effect on
the Children. It was within the province of the court to make credibility
determinations and accept all, some or none of the evidence. See id.
Therefore, his argument fails. Moreover, as explained above, our review of
the record supports the court’s decision.

                                          - 23 -
J-A11041-23

           While it may seem less obvious based on a superficial review
     of the record, the goal change was equally appropriate with
     respect to Ch.B.

           Like her brothers, Ch.B. has been subjected to a great deal
     of trauma with uncertain origins. It is true, of course, that the
     Agency was prepared earlier this year to return the girl to Father’s
     custody, and in light of Dr. Ryen’s observations, the Court can
     hardly say that the two do not share a bond. It is equally true,
     however, that Father cannot be excluded as one of the sources of
     his daughter’s trauma. (See CYS Exh. 13 (Ryen Report), pp. 7-
     8). The credible evidence indicates, moreover, that contact with
     Father engenders negative behaviors in Ch.B. that include
     aggression, incontinence, nightmares, and abnormal sexual
     responses, e.g., digging at her vagina. That being the case,
     reunification is not a near-in-time possibility. On the contrary, Dr.
     Ryen’s report suggests that it would take far longer than the
     Juvenile Act prescribes. …

     (See id. at 8). Dr. Ryen goes on to say that a goal change would
     be premature but adds that “stable permanency options for this
     child must soon be given primary consideration.” (Id.) He further
     recommends psychological evaluations for both parents and
     psychosexual evaluations for Father and Mother’s boyfriend,
     thereafter concluding, “The presence of undetected or
     unaddressed personal problems for any of these family members
     may well hold the key for Ch.B.’s future.” (Id.).

            The course of treatment Dr. Ry[e]n recommends clearly
     cannot be completed in a short period of time. Additionally,
     Father’s refusal to believe what the experts and laypersons closest
     to his children report about their trauma and behaviors, combined
     with his belief that he knows best since he is their father, (see
     N.T., 10/26/2022, at 140-41), bodes poorly for the idea that he
     would fully cooperate with a treatment plan best suited to unravel
     and address the causes of the children’s psychological trauma.
     That is not to discount Father’s commendable progress over the
     last 2 years. Once again, however, it is the children’s best
     interests that must be given primary consideration here.

           The Court would add that it has not failed to consider how
     the children might be affected by the goal change. In that regard,
     the testimony and exhibits consistently reflect that all three have
     shown substantial improvements since being removed from

                                    - 24 -
J-A11041-23

       Father’s care and that Ca.B. and Ch.B. notably regress after
       having contact with him. The only one to have demonstrated any
       affection toward Father, moreover, Ch.B.[,] has indicated that she
       wants to stay at her foster home, (see id. at 55-56); has not
       asked about seeing Father even while in transit for visits with
       Mother, (see id. at 74-75); and continues to show distinct
       improvements when he is not around. (See id. generally).
       Meanwhile, Cu.B., though he wants to be part of a family, has
       never indicated a desire to communicate or go home with Father,
       (see id. at 23-24 & 83), while Ca.B. is affirmatively afraid both of
       Father and of being removed from his current foster home. (See
       id. at 112-14). The court is thus satisfied that the children will
       not be adversely affected by its decision, which it respectfully
       submits is substantiated by the record and should be affirmed.

(Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/22, at 1-3) (unnecessary capitalization omitted;

record citation formatting provided).

       We discern no abuse of discretion. CYS has provided numerous services

for the family since 2008. (See N.T., at 4, 9, 38, 53-54, 92); (CYS Exhibit

12, List of Services Provided). While at the time of the hearing Father was in

full compliance with the permanency plan and had made moderate progress

toward    alleviating    the    circumstances      that   necessitated   the   original

placement,9 this only shows part of the picture.

       It can be reasonably inferred from the testimony that Cu.B. and Ca.B.

have no bond with Mother and Father. (See N.T., at 16, 31, 35, 37, 52, 110,

113-16, 137-41). Despite Father’s allegation that he is not permitted to see

____________________________________________

9 Mother had moderate compliance with the permanency plan and had made
minimal progress in alleviating the circumstances necessitating the original
placement where part of the circumstance necessitating the placement was
her paramour, F.C., and she refused to address this.

                                          - 25 -
J-A11041-23

Cu.B. and Ca.B., this is misleading because it is due to the trauma he has

caused them.      He would have been permitted to see them on the

recommendation of their therapists, but because of the trauma and Cu.B. and

Ca.B.’s requests that they not be required to see him, the therapists have not

recommended the contact.       (See N.T., at 24-25, 31); (CYS Exhibit 3,

Harborcreek Report, 10/08/21, at 2-3).

      Additionally, although he was precluded from seeing Ch.B. after the CPS

report in June 2022, when it was unfounded, he made no attempt to see her

until immediately before the October 26, 2022 hearing. (See N.T., at 53).

Although Ch.B. has some bond with Father, she does not ask for him and

expressed her intent to stay with her foster parents forever since they keep

her safe. (See id. at 56-58); (CYS Exhibit 13, Dr. Ryen Bonding Assessment,

at §§ 3-5). Ch.B.’s maternal bond with Mother is “weak and insecure” and,

since not seeing Father since June/July 2022 and Mother since October 13,

2022, her behavior has greatly improved. (CYS Exhibit 13, Dr. Ryen Bonding

Assessment, at 7). Cu.B. and Ca.B. have an angry or nonexistent relationship

with Mother where she refuses to make any changes in her life with F.C. to

allow for reunification and does not maintain consistent contact with them.

(See N.T., at 35-36).

      All of the Children suffer inappropriate behavior, nightmares, bed

wetting and fear after spending time with either parent, resulting in court

orders precluding contact. (See id., at 31, 35-36, 52-53, 60, 72, 76-80, 110-

                                    - 26 -
J-A11041-23

11, 150); (CYS Exhibit 2, Harborcreek Report, 10/17/20); (CYS Exhibit 13,

Dr. Ryen Bonding Assessment, at 7-8); (Order, 10/13/22, at 1).

      Ms. Sallack opined that even though there might be some bond with

Father, Cu.B. had been in placement for over two years, Ca.B. for 18 months

and Ch.B. for a combined total of ten months, and that the level of trauma

they experienced is “not going to be unpacked in months.” (N.T., at 59).

There is no bond with Mother because she has “been detached all along.” (Id.

at 60). As Ms. Sallack stated, CYS was seeking a goal change, not because of

a lack of a bond, but because of the severe behavioral issues that occur after

contact and the fact that the Children have been dealing with stress and

trauma their entire lives. (See id. at 75). CYS recommended the Children

remain in their current placements with medical and educational remaining

with CYS, a review in six months and a goal change to adoption.

      The record reflects that the Children have been in multiple facilities and

foster homes, fear Father and suffer behavioral issues after the interactions

they have had with him and Mother.         Reunification is not an appropriate

placement goal for the Children and it is not in their best interests.

      We note briefly that Father focuses on the facts that the Pathways

Adolescent Center program coordinator Davis testified that he believed family

involvement could be important for Cu.B. because he wanted it. (See Father’s

Brief, at 9). However, a review of the record shows that Davis did not know

to whom Cu.B. was referring, and he just wanted someone to talk to and with

                                     - 27 -
J-A11041-23

whom he could communicate.        Father also notes that at the time of his

assessment, Dr. Ryen stated that a goal change for Ch.B. would be premature

and that there was a loving bond between Father and Ch.B. (See Father’s

Brief, at 10). However, Dr. Ryen also reported that Ch.B. has suffered severe

trauma from a very young age and stated she likes her foster home, and that

her foster parents “take very good care of [her] and keep [her] safe” and she

volunteered, “I am going to stay there forever.” (N.T., at 56). According to

her foster parents and school and agency personnel, after Ch.B. has contact

with either of her parents, she experiences nightmares and acts out physically

and sexually and it is unclear whether this is caused by ongoing trauma, re-

traumatization or other unidentified personal or family dynamics. Until the

cause can be determined through extensive therapy, Dr. Ryen recommended

restricted parental contact or a goal change to adoption in the near future to

provide her with necessary stability. (See id. at 58).

      It was for the trial court to evaluate witness credibility and resolve any

conflicts in the above testimony. What is undisputed is that the Children have

suffered some or all of their trauma due to Father and their behavioral issues

present after contact with either Mother or Father. The Children have been in

and out various homes their whole lives, and it is in their best interest that

they have a stability that cannot be established with a goal of reunification.

Under our standard of review, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s

decision was manifestly unreasonable where its findings of fact are supported

                                    - 28 -
J-A11041-23

by competent evidence of record, even if some evidence could support the

opposite result.    Therefore, we affirm the court’s orders changing the

permanency goal for the Children to adoption.

     Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/15/2023

                                  - 29 -