Court Opinion

ID: 9890826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 16:09:26.056442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:30.660649
License: Public Domain

J-S29016-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: L.T., A MINOR            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: C.T., FATHER                      :       No. 681 MDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Order Entered April 6, 2023
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
              Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000108-2022

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:                              FILED: OCTOBER 16, 2023

       Appellant, C.T. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the York

County Court of Common Pleas, which changed the permanency goal for L.T.

(“Child”) from reunification to adoption, following the motion of the York

County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) for a combined

placement review and dispositional review hearing. We affirm.

       The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follow.

On March 17, 2022, six-week-old Child was admitted to the emergency room

at Hershey Medical Center, where doctors discovered “a broken femur and rib

fractures on both the right and left sides that were in various stages of

healing.” (Dependency Petition, filed 5/17/22, at 2). M.H. (“Mother”) and

Father reported that they were the only caregivers for Child since his birth,

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29016-23

they denied dropping Child, and they could not explain how Child sustained

the injuries. The responding caseworker noted, however, that Mother “was

holding the child in an odd, non-comforting manner, i.e., away from her body

with both hands out in front of her.” (Id. at 3). CYF subsequently received a

child protective services referral alleging physical abuse.

      In April 2022, “police obtained a copy of an incident report involving

physical abuse of Father’s other child [from a different mother] by Father,”

although no criminal charges were filed in that case. (Id.) On April 27, 2022,

in an interview with police and a CYF caseworker, Father explained that he

has “severe depression and anxiety with auditory hallucinations that recently

progressed to include visual hallucinations.” (Id.) Father admitted that on

one occasion he “couldn’t get out of his head,” and he grabbed Child “in the

rib area” and put him on his chest. (Id.) Father also indicated that he held

Child like a “suitcase,” grabbing Child by the arm and leg such that “the other

side of the body [was] kind of dangling.” (N.T. Hearing, 6/1/22, at 52). Due

to his hallucinations, Father could not recall how much force he used.

      CYF filed an application for emergency protective custody on May 13,

2022, which the court granted that same day. On May 17, 2022, CYF filed a

dependency petition.      CYF subsequently filed a motion for finding of

aggravated circumstances, arguing that Child suffered physical abuse

resulting in serious bodily injury. The court adjudicated Child dependent on

June 1, 2022. On October 20, 2022, the court found clear and convincing

                                      -2-
J-S29016-23

evidence to establish that aggravated circumstances existed as to Mother and

Father.

       Thereafter, the court received a neuropsychological evaluation of Father

from Dr. Amy M. Swope, Ph. D., a licensed psychologist and certified clinical

neuropsychologist.1      In her report, Dr. Swope indicated that Father has a

history of major depressive disorder, and he has experienced auditory and

visual hallucination since the age of five.      (See CYF Exhibit 2, submitted

11/30/22, at 2).      Dr. Swope diagnosed Father with Post-Traumatic Stress

Disorder. Dr. Swope noted that Father has a history of angry outbursts. Dr.

Swope detailed Father’s extensive history of trauma, including abuse he

suffered as a child and several attempts at suicide. (Id. at 3).

       Dr. Swope concluded that while Father is intelligent and committed to

regaining custody of Child, he struggles with his history of trauma.

Additionally, Father has “a scant system of social supports, interpersonal

dysfunction, a low frustration tolerance, poor coping skills, difficulty with

anger management, poor decision-making, and a marked lack of insight and

awareness.” (Id. at 6). Based on her observations, Dr. Swope recommended

that Father undergo an autism evaluation, obtain a psychiatrist, and continue

with counseling through Catholic Charities.

       On April 4, 2023, CYF filed a motion for a combined placement review

____________________________________________

1 Dr. Swope conducted the evaluation on September 17, 2022, and the court

received the report at a status review hearing on November 30, 2022.

                                           -3-
J-S29016-23

and dispositional review hearing. The court conducted the hearing on April 6,

2023, and it summarized the witnesses’ testimony as follows:

        Brittany Sunday testified that she is the family therapist
        working with Mother and Father in this case. The current
        goals for Mother were stabilization of mental health,
        increasing healthy coping skills for stress management with
        a focus on anxiety, improving self-esteem and productive
        communication skills. Mother’s progress towards stabilizing
        her mental health was rated as moderate. The psychiatrist
        Mother saw diagnosed her with social anxiety disorder and
        adjustment disorder with mixed emotion disturbance. The
        psychiatrist recommended that Mother continue working
        with Catholic Charities, including her therapist through
        them, Leanne Meyers, and the psychiatrist prescribed
        Mother medication. The medication Mother was prescribed
        was fifty milligrams of Zoloft, which the psychiatrist, Dr.
        Heinly, hoped would help Mother feel less socially
        uncomfortable, which would enable her to be more
        appropriately assertive and confident in her presentation
        and manner. Mother’s progress towards her other goals was
        also rated, by Ms. Sunday, as moderate.

                                 *    *    *

        Ms. Sunday reported working with Father for the same
        amount of time as she had worked with Mother and that,
        due to their schedules, she usually met with him in the
        community about every other week. Father’s meetings with
        Ms. Sunday had actually decreased over time, which Ms.
        Sunday attributed to their schedules including her need to
        be in court at times. Approximately a month prior to the
        April 6, 2023, hearing, Father was contemplating
        discontinuing services and stopping visits due to it being
        hurtful for him to have to leave [Child] and just kind of
        thinking that he doesn’t have a chance to have reunification
        with [Child].    Following talks with his counsel, Father
        continued to work towards goals to have visits with [Child].

        Ms. Sunday described Father as engaged during session,
        which caused Ms. Sunday to rate Father’s progress towards
        his goals as moderate. Father’s goals are the stabilization
        of his mental health and Father has a psychologist through

                                     -4-
J-S29016-23

          Wellspan Philhaven.      Father’s other goal is productive
          communications styles and Ms. Sunday stated that Father
          communicates appropriately with her. At the time of the
          April 6, 2023 hearing, Father was focused on his upcoming
          criminal court hearing.[2] Asked if she worked with Mother
          and Father in couple’s counseling or co-parenting
          counseling, Ms. Sunday stated that these sessions were
          stopped in October of 2022 when the parents separated.

          David Kasberg testified that he is a family advocate with
          Catholic Charities and that he had been working with Mother
          and Father. Mr. Kasberg usually met with Father twice per
          week. Mr. Kasberg engaged in coach parenting with Father
          and would also utilize the visits to catch up on developments
          in Father’s personal or professional life.        Mr. Kasberg
          testified that visits had improved since the prior court
          hearing. Mr. Kasberg confirmed Ms. Sunday’s testimony
          that, in March, Father had attempted to discontinue visits
          before meeting with his counsel and then continuing the
          visits—the continuation of which Mr. Kasberg described as
          being accommodated. Mr. Kasberg had not observed any
          safety concerns during Father’s visits with [Child].

          Mr. Kasberg supervised Mother’s visitation once per week
          and Ms. Sunday covered the other weekly visitations. These
          visitations occurred at Mother’s residence and were fully
          supervised. Mr. Kasberg indicated that he provided coach
          parenting as needed because Mother had not needed much
          assistance over the course of the review period. Mr.
          Kasberg felt that Mother was fully prepared and generally
          parented from a nurturing and appropriate standpoint. Mr.
          Kasberg did not believe that Mother had missed any visits—
          at least during the review period. Mr. Kasberg opined that
          [Mother’s] progress rated as moderate[;] however, Mr.
          Kasberg also stated that “I can’t say mom has done very
          well with our agency’s services, so I can’t speak to that.”

                                       *       *   *

____________________________________________

2 As discussed infra, the Commonwealth brought criminal charges against
Father for causing Child’s injuries.

                                           -5-
J-S29016-23

         [CYF] caseworker, Sarah White, testified that she had
         written a report to the court and that there were no updates
         in the interim. Ms. White testified that [CYF] recommended
         that [Child] be placed in the custody of [a maternal cousin],
         and that legal custody be retained through [CYF]. Ms. White
         testified that the [maternal cousin] only lived about ten to
         fifteen minutes from the, then, current resource family;
         though, the [maternal cousin lives] across the state line in
         Maryland. [CYF] continued to recommend that the goal be
         changed to adoption due to the updated protective capacity
         assessment that was completed by [Dr. Lisa Janetta].

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 6/6/23, at 3-12) (internal record citations and most

quotation marks omitted). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court changed

Child’s permanency goal from reunification to adoption.      On May 5, 2023,

Father timely filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors.

      Father now raises three issues for our review:

         Whether the juvenile court erred as a matter of law and/or
         abused its discretion by changing the court ordered goal
         despite the testimony of regular and consistent progress
         made by the parents.

         Whether the juvenile court erred as a matter of law and/or
         abused its discretion by changing the court ordered goal
         from reunification to adoption when the minor child has only
         been adjudicated for less than twelve (12) months at the
         time of the order.

         Whether the juvenile court erred as a matter of law and/or
         abused its discretion when it changed the court ordered goal
         from reunification to adoption without clear and convincing
         evidence that a change of goal would serve the best
         interests of the child.

(Father’s Brief at 4).

      Father’s issues are related, and we address them together.          Father

suggests that his “goal fairly early in the underlying dependency matter was

                                     -6-
J-S29016-23

for Mother to be able to successfully reunify with the minor child.” (Id. at 9).

To the extent that the trial court focused on Father’s desire to reunite with

Child, Father states: “Just because Father believed that Mother should reunify

did not mean that Father believed he needed any extensive form of custody.”

(Id.) Father emphasizes that Mother has made moderate progress towards

all goals outlined in her family service plan, and she has substantially complied

with all recommendations from CYF.          Father contends that the service

providers involved with this case have not asserted that Mother is incapable

of parenting Child or that there were safety concerns during Mother or Father’s

visits with Child. Further, Father argues that there is a strong bond between

Mother and Child, and Mother is much closer to reunification than where she

was at the start of this case.    Father concludes that the court abused its

discretion when it changed the goal to adoption, and CFY did not produce clear

and convincing evidence that a goal change is in Child’s best interests. We

disagree.

      On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion

standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006).

         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

                                      -7-
J-S29016-23

         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.

Id. at 822–23 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

      The Juvenile Act controls the disposition of dependent children. In re

R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1217 (Pa.Super. 2008).         Section 6351 provides in

relevant part:

         § 6351. Disposition of dependent child

                                  *    *    *

         (f)     Matters to be determined at permanency
         hearing.—At each permanency hearing, a court shall
         determine all of the following:

            (1) The continuing necessity for and appropriateness
            of the placement.

            (2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of
            compliance with the permanency plan developed for the
            child.

            (3) The extent of progress made toward alleviating the
            circumstances  which    necessitated   the    original
            placement.

            (4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the current
            placement goal for the child.

            (5) The likely date by which the placement goal for the
            child might be achieved.

            (5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize
            the permanency plan in effect.

            (6)   Whether the child is safe.

                                  *    *    *

                                      -8-
J-S29016-23

          (9) If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of
          the last 22 months or the court has determined that
          aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable
          efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the
          child from the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or to
          preserve and reunify the family need not be made or
          continue to be made, whether the county agency has
          filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental
          rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a
          qualified family to adopt the child unless:

          (i)   the child is being cared for by a relative best
          suited to the physical, mental and moral welfare of
          the child;

          (ii)  the    county     agency  has     documented        a
          compelling reason for determining that filing a petition to
          terminate parental rights would not serve the needs and
          welfare of the child; or

          (iii) the child’s family has not been provided with
          necessary services to achieve the safe return to the
          child’s parent, guardian or custodian within the time
          frames set forth in the permanency plan.

                                *    *    *

       (f.1)    Additional determination.—Based upon the
       determinations made under subsection (f) and all relevant
       evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall determine
       one of the following:

          (1) If and when the child will be returned to the child’s
          parent, guardian or custodian in cases where the return
          of the child is best suited to the safety, protection and
          physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.

          (2) If and when the child will be placed for adoption,
          and the county agency will file for termination of parental
          rights in cases where return to the child’s parent,
          guardian or custodian is not best suited to the safety,
          protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the
          child.

                                    -9-
J-S29016-23

            (3) If 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.

            (4) If and when the child will be placed with a fit and
            willing relative in cases where return to the child’s
            parent, guardian or custodian, being placed for adoption
            or being placed with a legal custodian is not best suited
            to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral
            welfare of the child.

                                  *     *      *

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f), (f.1).

      “When the child welfare agency has made reasonable efforts to return a

[dependent] 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.” In re N.C., supra at 823.

         [T]he fifteen-to-twenty-two-month timeframe set forth in
         the Juvenile Act is not prerequisite to a goal change, but
         rather is “an aspirational target in which to attain
         permanency.” In the Interest of L.T., 158 A.3d 1266,
         1279 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f.1)(9)).
         While trial courts should not rush to change a child’s
         permanency goal to adoption in circumstances where a
         parent is making progress toward reunification, neither
         should courts persist in attempting to reunite a family when
         further reunification efforts would be futile and/or contrary
         to a child’s best interest.

In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 909 (Pa.Super. 2017).

         Although the agency has the burden to show a goal change
         would serve the child’s best interests, “[s]afety,
         permanency, and well-being of the child must take
         precedence over all other considerations” under Section

                                      - 10 -
J-S29016-23

        6351. In re D.P., 972 A.2d 1221, 1227 (Pa.Super. 2009),
        appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702, 973 A.2d 1007 (2009)
        (emphasis in original); In re S.B., … 943 A.2d 973, 978
        [(Pa.Super. 2008)], appeal denied, 598 Pa. 782, 959 A.2d
        320 (2008). “[T]he parent’s rights are secondary” in a goal
        change proceeding. In re D.P., supra.

        Because the focus is on the child’s best interests, a goal
        change to adoption might be appropriate, even when a
        parent substantially complies with a reunification plan. In
        re N.C., supra at 826-27.         Where a parent’s “skills,
        including [his] judgment with regard to the emotional well-
        being of [his] children, remain problematic[,]” a goal change
        to adoption might be appropriate, regardless of the parent’s
        compliance with a permanency plan. Id. at 825. The
        agency is not required to offer services indefinitely, where a
        parent is unable to properly apply the instruction provided.
        … Thus, even where the parent makes earnest efforts, the
        “court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s
        need for permanence and stability to a parent’s claims of
        progress and hope for the future.” In re Adoption of
        R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa.Super. 2006).

In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa.

648, 12 A.3d 372 (2010).

     Instantly, the trial court found that a goal change to adoption is

appropriate:

        We do not deny that Ms. Sunday and Mr. Kasberg testified
        that the parents had made “moderate” progress. However,
        … even substantial progress does not necessarily dictate
        reunification. Further, both Ms. Sunday and Mr. Kasberg
        admitted that they had not read the expert reports in this
        case.

        First, ten (10) months into the subject dependency action,
        Father still had not progressed to unsupervised visitation,
        nor could any provider, expert or otherwise, provide a date
        by which such progression was or could be reasonably
        foreseeable. Quite on the contrary, all providers opined that
        Father’s visitation would continue to need to be fully

                                    - 11 -
J-S29016-23

       supervised for the foreseeable future. Further, Dr. Swope’s
       report is such that Father will be a risk of harm not only to
       [Child] but to himself for the foreseeable future.

       Second, Father still faces pending criminal charges for:
       aggravated assault—victim less than 6 and defendant 18 or
       older (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(8)); endangering welfare of
       children—parent/guardian (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304(a)(1)); and
       simple assault (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2701(a)(1)). Com. v.
       [C.T.], CP-67-CR-0005054-2022, which reflects a pretrial
       conference set for June 19, 2023.

       Last, … time to permanency matters for children. And,
       although we begin with statements about the results of
       Mother’s protective capacity report, also relevant to Father,
       we stated the following towards the conclusion of the April
       6, 2023 hearing:

          Here’s the thing, I’ve read [Mother’s protective
          capacity assessment] too, okay? And, I mean, it—
          while it may not say that she cannot and never will
          [be able to parent], it talks about deep concerns, all
          right? And a bunch of things and recommendation. …
          And we are—I understand it might be ten months into
          this case, but frankly, you know, the child needs
          permanency. He is young, and the sooner that
          happens, the better.

          And, you know, the [parents’] original explanations
          for the extensive nature of these injuries have always
          fallen way short in the court’s view. You know, we
          have—both parents have deep emotional and …
          traumas in their own past. I think Father a lot more
          than Mother. We’ve seen those reports, all right? And
          I just think the process of healing and recovery for
          both Mother and Father is going to be extensive.

          And [Child] has survived extensive trauma, this time.
          Father has a history of, quote unquote, blackout
          episodes, as a result of the extreme abuse that he
          apparently has sustained in his own life.         And
          therefore, you know, is not in control of his own
          behavior and doesn’t even know what he’s doing,
          right? And then Mother has her own extensive trauma

                                  - 12 -
J-S29016-23

            history. And I have no idea when Mother—and I’m
            holding up the report on Mother’s protective capacity,
            would ever be in a position to truly protect her son.

         Without belaboring the point, despite the parents’
         “moderate progress,” the parents’ own uniquely troubled
         pasts and current and ongoing mental health struggles
         caused this court’s overwhelming concern for their ability to
         make sound judgments regarding [Child]’s safety—even at
         their own hands.

         Father’s history of being unable to recall how much force he
         applied during, possibly (since Father cannot or will not
         recall), one of Father’s periods of auditory hallucination
         presents too great a risk to [Child]’s safety when [Child] had
         multiple injuries in various states of healing during his, then,
         extremely short (6 week) lifespan.           The court cannot
         adequately quantify the risk of a father who has, allegedly,
         already injured his son during mental breaks and then
         continues to succumb to periods of despondency vis-à-vis
         that child. Considering the foregoing history of this case,
         should Father experience a period of despondency while
         caring for [Child], who is still extremely young, the risk of a
         catastrophic outcome is, in this court’s view, extremely high
         if not a certainty given Father’s reported history of extreme
         emotional and physical abuse. In light of [Child]’s need for
         permanency, there is simply not enough time for Father to
         address the … threat he poses to [Child]. The simple fact is
         that Father’s judgment regarding [Child]’s safety was too
         problematic for this court to avoid its duty to change the
         goal in order to protect [Child] and to provide him with the
         permanency he needs now and not when Father achieves
         hypothetical progress in his decision-making prowess.

(Trial Court Opinion at 14-17) (emphasis and footnote omitted).

      Our review of the record confirms that sufficient evidence supported the

court’s findings.   See In re N.C., supra.       The court considered Father’s

moderate progress in alleviating the circumstances that necessitated Child’s

placement, as well as the possibility that Mother might someday be able to

                                     - 13 -
J-S29016-23

parent Child. Nevertheless, the testimony and various expert reports led the

court to determine that prioritizing permanency in Child’s life best served his

interests. See In re J.D.H., supra; In re R.M.G., supra. We cannot say

that the court abused its discretion by choosing not to subordinate Child’s

need for permanence and stability to Father’s requests for additional time to

modify his own behavior, or that of Mother. See In re R.M.G., supra; In re

N.C., supra. Accordingly, we affirm.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 10/16/2023

                                    - 14 -