Court Opinion

ID: 9400874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:11:08.797223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.634135
License: Public Domain

J-A10041-23

                          2023 PA Super 100

 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.B., A MINOR    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
 APPEAL OF: MONROE COUNTY             :
 CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES          :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :   No. 3020 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-48-DP-0000048-2019

 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.B., A MINOR    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
 APPEAL OF: MONROE COUNTY             :
 CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES          :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :   No. 3021 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-48-DP-0000049-2019

 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.B., A MINOR    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
 APPEAL OF: MONROE COUNTY             :
 CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES          :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :   No. 3022 EDA 2022

            Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-48-DP-0000050-2019
J-A10041-23

    IN THE INTEREST OF: J.B., A MINOR          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: MONROE COUNTY                   :
    CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES                :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 3023 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Juvenile Division at
                        No(s): CP-48-DP-0000051-2019

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                                FILED JUNE 9, 2023

        Monroe County Children and Youth Services (“the Agency”) appeals

from the juvenile court’s orders dated October 12, 2022, and entered October

25, 2022, denying the Agency’s request to change the permanency goals of

J.B. (IV), born in July 2019; J.B. (II), born in December 2012; J.B. (I), born

in April 2010; and J.B. (III), born in September 2018 (collectively, “the

Children”), from reunification to adoption.1        After review, we reverse and

remand.

        The subject family became known to the Agency in July 2019, when

K.L., the mother of J.B. (II), J.B. (III), and J.B. (IV), tested positive for

____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 As an order granting or denying a goal change in a dependency proceeding
is appealable, this matter is properly before this Court. See In re H.S.W.C.-
B., 575 Pa. 473, 478, 836 A.2d 908, 911 (2003).

                                           -2-
J-A10041-23

oxycodone at the birth of J.B. (IV). See Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), 3/28/22,

at 8. The Agency obtained emergency protective custody of the Children on

September 10, 2019, after the arrest of J.B. (“Father”), the father of all four

of the children, and K.L. on drug-related and weapons-related charges.2,         3

N.T., 10/12/22, at 54, 59; N.T., 3/28/22, at 8-9. At the time, L.G., the mother

of J.B. (I), was also incarcerated on unrelated assault charges in New York.4

N.T., 10/12/22, at 52; N.T., 3/28/22, at 16-17. The court transferred legal

and physical custody of the Children to the Agency, and the Agency placed

the Children in foster care. See Shelter Care Orders, 9/13/19; see also N.T.,

3/28/22, at 9, 12, 25.

____________________________________________

2 The family additionally had an extensive history of referrals with child
services in New York and a history of domestic violence. See Petitioner’s
Exhibit 4, 3/28/22 (NY Office of Children and Family Services Documentation).

3  K.L. and Father were charged with, inter alia, multiple counts of
manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, as
well as criminal conspiracy; receiving stolen property; multiple counts of
endangering the welfare of a child; multiple counts of possession of a
prohibited firearm; possession of a firearm with the manufacturer number
altered; altering/obliterating the mark or identification of a firearm and
conspiracy related thereto; and multiple counts of possession of a controlled
substance and use of drug paraphernalia. See Petitioner’s Exhibits 5 & 6,
10/12/22 (Criminal Dockets). K.L. and Father additionally faced drug-related
charges in New York. See Petitioner’s Exhibits 38 & 39, 3/28/22 (Criminal
Charges).
      Notably, the initial Agency caseworker, Monique Henry, related drug and
weapons concerns, as well as housing concerns. See N.T., 3/28/22, at 8-9,
20.

4For clarity, we refer to K.L. and L.G. by their initials hereinafter. We refer to
Father, K.L., and L.G. collectively as “Parents.”

                                           -3-
J-A10041-23

      The court adjudicated the Children dependent on September 25, 2019,

and maintained the Agency’s legal and physical custody and the Children’s

placement in foster care. The court further established permanency goals of

reunification with concurrent goals of adoption as to the Children. See Orders

of Adjudication and Disposition, 9/25/19.        Thereafter, the Agency created

Child Permanency Plans setting forth goals aimed at reunification, including

that Parents, inter alia: (1) resolve pending criminal issues; (2) establish and

maintain appropriate housing; (3) maintain financial stability; (4) maintain a

healthy and loving relationship with the child(ren); and (5) maintain

communication with the Agency. Father and K.L. were additionally required

to live a drug-free and sober lifestyle.    See Petitioner’s Exhibits 3 & 45,

3/28/22 (Child Permanency Plans); see also Petitioner’s Exhibits 30, 31, &

36 (letters to Parents regarding their goals).

      K.L. was released on bail on October 8, 2019. Father was extradited to

New York in February 2020 and released on bail on February 24, 2020. After

his release, he resumed living with K.L., as he had prior to their arrests. The

Agency received referrals relating to abuse and/or neglect of the Children by

Parents, in March and April 2020, which were deemed valid.           See N.T.,

3/28/22, at 50, 52-53.      Additionally, Ms. Amoroso confirmed reports of

domestic violence committed by Father, as well as continuing drug concerns.

                                     -4-
J-A10041-23

See N.T., 10/12/22, at 76; see also N.T., 3/28/22, at 53.5             L.G. was

ultimately released in April 2020. Father then subsequently surrendered to

authorities in New York on February 3, 2022, and he remained incarcerated in

New York.

       J.B. (II), J.B. (III), and J.B. (IV) have been in foster care since

September 2019, and they have been placed together in the same foster home

since January 2020.6 J.B. (I), who had additionally been placed in that home

since January 2020, was moved to another foster home in May 2022, after an

incident with the foster father. See N.T., 10/12/22, at 11, 29, 38-39, 42-46,

61-62; see also N.T., 3/28/22, at 43. However, both foster homes are pre-

adoptive resources for the Children. See N.T., 10/12/22, at 63-64.

       Throughout the ensuing dependency proceedings, the court maintained

the Agency’s legal and physical custody and the Children’s placement in foster

care, as well as permanency goals. The Agency filed petitions for goal changes

from reunification to adoption as to the Children on November 13, 2020, which

the court denied on December 14, 2020. See Permanency Review Orders,

12/23/20.

____________________________________________

5J.B. (II) similarly testified that Father hit her, J.B. (I), and her mother. See
N.T., 10/12/22, at 34.
6J.B. (III) and J.B. (IV) were placed together in this home prior to January
2020. N.T., 3/28/22, at 43.

                                           -5-
J-A10041-23

       Approximately eight months later, the Agency again filed petitions for

goal changes on July 16, 2021. The court conducted hearings on March 28,

2022, and October 12, 2022.             Parents were all represented by counsel.

Likewise, the Children were represented by a guardian ad litem Brandie

Belanger, Esquire.7

       At the March 28, 2022, hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of

caseworkers, Monique Henry8 and Jamie Amoroso. Father was incarcerated

at the time of the hearing and, consequently, he was not present. Both L.G.

and K.L. were present.9

       During the October 12, 2022, hearing, the court interviewed J.B. (I),

then 12 years old, and J.B. (II), then nine years old, in camera, with counsel

present. The Agency then continued with its presentation of the testimony of

Ms. Amoroso. L.G. also testified on her own behalf via telephone. K.L. was

____________________________________________

7 Attorney Belanger argued in favor of a goal change to adoption with a
concurrent goal of reunification. See N.T., 10/12/22, at 131-33. She
additionally submitted a brief to this Court, wherein Attorney Belanger argues
that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the Agency’s goal
change petitions.

8 Ms. Henry was the initial caseworker until the case was transferred to the
placement unit on October 7, 2019. See N.T., 3/28/22, at 7, 22, 25.

9The notes of testimony suggest that K.L. arrived late to the proceeding. See
N.T., 3/28/22, at 32; see also N.T., 10/12/22, at 39.

                                           -6-
J-A10041-23

present but did not testify on her own behalf. Father remained incarcerated

and again was not present and did not present any evidence.10

       By orders dated October 12, 2022, and entered October 25, 2022, the

juvenile court denied the Agency’s request to change the Children’s

permanency goals from reunification to adoption.11 Thereafter, on November

23, 2022, the Agency filed timely notices of appeal, along with concise

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

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b), which this Court consolidated sua sponte on December

20, 2022.

       On appeal, the Agency raises the following issue for our review, “Did the

[juvenile] court abuse its discretion by refusing to change the goal for the four

minor children from [reunification] to adoption?”     The Agency’s Brief at iv

(unnecessary capitalization omitted).

____________________________________________

10 The Agency further proffered a great number of exhibits at both hearings.
The court admitted Petitioner’s Exhibit Nos. 1 through 13, 16 through 22, 24,
25, 27 through 33, and 35 through 63 from March 28, 2022. The court
likewise admitted Petitioner’s Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10 from October 12,
2022. Additionally, K.L. submitted and the court admitted K.L.’s Exhibit No.
1. N.T., 10/12/22, at 98.

11 While the guardian ad litem and K.L. both indicate in their briefs that J.B.
(I)’s dependency has since been terminated, this is not reflected in the
certified record. Therefore, as we may only consider that which is in the
certified record, we proceed with appellate review as to J.B. (I). See
Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 6 (Pa.Super. 2006) (en banc).

                                           -7-
J-A10041-23

      Our standard of review concerning a juvenile court’s permanency

determination is abuse of discretion.      In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088

(Pa.Super. 2011). As our Supreme Court has stated,

      [T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an
      appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility
      determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the
      record[] but does not require the appellate court to accept the
      lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Accordingly, we
      review for an abuse of discretion.

In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 26, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).

The Court explained:

      Not only are our trial judges observing the parties during the
      hearing, but usually, as in this case, they have presided over
      several other hearings with the same parties and have a
      longitudinal understanding of the case and the best interests of
      the individual child involved. Thus, we must defer to the trial
      judges who see and hear the parties and can determine the
      credibility to be placed on each witness and, premised thereon,
      gauge the likelihood of the success of the current permanency
      plan. Even if an appellate court would have made a different
      conclusion based on the cold record, we are not in a position to
      reweigh the evidence and the credibility determinations of the trial
      court.

Id. at 27, 9 A.3d at 1190.

      The Juvenile Act governs proceedings to change a child’s permanent

placement goal. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6375. Trial courts must apply the

following analysis in considering a request to modify such goals:

      Placement of and custody issues pertaining to dependent children
      are controlled by the Juvenile Act [42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301–65],
      which was amended in 1998 to conform to the federal Adoption
      and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”). The policy underlying these
      statutes is to prevent children from languishing indefinitely in
      foster care, with its inherent lack of permanency, normalcy, and

                                     -8-
J-A10041-23

      long-term parental commitment. Consistent with this underlying
      policy, the 1998 amendments to the Juvenile Act, as required by
      the ASFA, place 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.

      Pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.A.] § 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, when
      considering a petition for a goal change for a dependent child, the
      juvenile court is to consider, inter alia: (1) the continuing
      necessity for and appropriateness of the placement; (2) the extent
      of compliance with the family service plan; (3) the extent of
      progress made towards alleviating the circumstances which
      necessitated the original placement; (4) the appropriateness and
      feasibility of the current placement goal for the children; (5) a
      likely date by which the goal for the child might be achieved; (6)
      the child’s safety; and (7) whether the child has been in placement
      for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months. The best
      interests of the child, and not the interests of the parent, must
      guide the trial court. . . .

A.B., 19 A.3d at 1088-89 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

      In relation to the significance of the best interest of the child, we also

noted:

      [T]he focus of all dependency proceedings, including change of
      goal proceedings, must be on the safety, permanency and well-
      being of the child. The best interest of the child takes precedence
      over all other considerations, including the conduct and the rights
      of the parent. [W]hile parental progress toward completion of a
      permanency plan is an important factor, it is not to be elevated to
      determinative status, to the exclusion of all other factors.

In the Interest of M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1175 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citing In

re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 534 (Pa.Super. 2007)). Further, there is no minimum

period of time that a child’s goal must be set at reunification before it can be

changed.   See In re M.S., 980 A.2d 612 (Pa.Super. 2009). As indicated, “a

child’s life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will

                                     -9-
J-A10041-23

summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.” In re N.C.,

909 A.2d 818, 824 (Pa.Super. 2006) (quoting In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825

A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa.Super. 2003)).

        The Agency argues the Children have been in care for over three years

and Parents have yet to satisfy all of their goals aimed at reunification despite

the services and efforts of the Agency.            See Agency Brief at 16-18.   The

Agency recognizes K.L.’s pending charges in Pennsylvania, as well as her

guilty plea and sentence of five years’ probation in New York, which requires

her to reside in New York. Id. at 16. As such, the Agency maintains that

K.L. had not resolved her criminal charges and failed to maintain appropriate

housing. Id.

        Further, the Agency contends that housing likewise remained an issue

for L.G., who resided two hours away in New York, and was facing a denial of

an ICPC12 due to her lack of communication with the appropriate entities in

New York.     Id.    The Agency further notes L.G.’s complaints regarding her

current housing and indication of her desire to move. Id. at 16-17. Moreover,

the Agency emphasizes L.G.’s acknowledgment of an eviction notice. Id. at

17.

        Finally, the Agency notes Father remained incarcerated.         Therefore,

while he engaged in virtual visitation, he, too, had not resolved the goals of

____________________________________________

12   ICPC refers to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

                                          - 10 -
J-A10041-23

maintaining appropriate housing or financial stability.       Id. at 17.    As the

Children have been dependent for 37 months, in excess of the statutory

requirement, as recognized by the juvenile court, the Agency asserts that the

court ignored the best interests of the Children to establish permanency. Id.

       The Agency avers:

       These children have languish[ed] in foster care for over three
       years. [T]heir parents continue to struggle to achieve their goal
       and objectives while the [C]hildren grow up being cared for by
       others. . . . [A]ll three parents continue to be unable to resolve all
       of the hurdles in their lives[,] whether they be housing, criminal
       cases, financial stability[,] or drug and alcohol concerns.[13]

Id. at 17-18 (footnote added).

       In denying the Agency’s petition for a goal change, the juvenile court

concluded that, although the Children had been adjudicated dependent for 37

months, which exceeded the requirements of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)(9), K.L.

and L.G. had achieved some of the goals outlined in the permanency plan. For

instance, the juvenile court found that, although one of the goals for K.L. was

to resolve any criminal charges pending against her, and her criminal case

____________________________________________

13K.L. asserts the Agency failed to argue in its brief how the juvenile court’s
determination was not supported by the record and failed to cite to the record
as to any factual averments regarding K.L. As such, K.L. contends the Agency
has waived its claims with respect to her. K.L.’s Brief at 6-8. While we note
with disapproval the general inartful nature of the Agency’s brief, in particular
the failure to cite to the record as to K.L. in the argument section, we decline
to find waiver on this basis as the briefing deficiencies do not hamper our
appellate review. We discern the general issues raised and related argument.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (relating to briefing requirements).

                                          - 11 -
J-A10041-23

had not yet proceeded to the sentencing phase, her pending criminal charges

were tied to Father’s criminal case, over which K.L. had no control as it was

dependent on the trial court’s calendar. Juvenile Court Opinion (“J.C.O.”),

12/21/22, at 5, 8-9 (citations to record omitted).     The juvenile court also

noted K.L. and L.G. have met the goal of maintaining a healthy and loving

relationship with the Children. See id. In this regard, the court noted the

testimony of J.B. I and J.B. II revealed a strong bond with K.L. See id. K.L.

has not missed any visits and frequently brought activities to do with the

Children. See id. The trial court further noted J.B. II testified she would like

to see K.L. more times each week. See id.

       While we acknowledge the juvenile court’s conclusion that some strides

had been made by the parents to meet the permanency goals, upon review,

we conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the Agency’s

requested goal changes with respect to the Children.

       For example, as to L.G., mother of J.B. (I), twelve years old at the

conclusion of the hearing, the goals of housing and contact with the Agency

remained unachieved, as confirmed by Ms. Amoroso. N.T., 10/12/22, at 68.

Ms. Amoroso acknowledged that L.G. had acceptable income based upon her

monthly SSI income, as well as Section 8 housing. 14 N.T., 10/12/22, at 53,

____________________________________________

14 L.G., however, testified that she “just recently started working” after being
unemployed for a year. N.T., 10/12/22, at 105. Ms. Amoroso was unaware
of any new employment. Id. at 66.

                                          - 12 -
J-A10041-23

68; see also N.T., 3/28/22, at 101, 144-45. However, L.G. missed some

visitation due to illness and transportation issues, and she was “inconsistent”

with in-person and virtual visitation. N.T., 10/12/22, at 53-54, 66-67.

       Moreover, Ms. Amoroso testified that she recently received notification

of a denial of a second ICPC request to assess L.G.’s home in West Chester

County, New York, due to L.G.’s lack of communication with the appropriate

agencies in New York.15 Id. at 51-52, 65-66; see also Petitioner’s Exhibit 7,

10/12/22 (ICPC email). Although L.G. reported she is currently involved in

the ICPC process and has an appointment scheduled related to the next step

of the process, she shared complaints about the home and expressed her

desire to move.       N.T., 10/12/22, at 101-04 (“I had to call the building

department on my landlady because she has not been…attending to her

responsibilities….I have made several official complaints in regards to my

concerns…that I have never experienced in six years of living here.”). She

additionally reported receipt of an eviction notice, despite questioning its

legality and factual basis, given her Section 8 Housing voucher. Id. at 104

(“I’m also dealing with an eviction notice. However, I don’t owe any rent….I’m

also a Section 8 recipient…So[,] there’s no rent owed, and there’s no judge

that has evicted me….So[,] what she is doing is illegal.”). Ms. Amoroso also

____________________________________________

15A prior ICPC was also denied due to L.G.’s lack of communication. See
Petitioner’s Exhibit 57 (ICPC transmittal memo); see also N.T., 3/28/22, at
96, 99.

                                          - 13 -
J-A10041-23

recounted ongoing issues concerning L.G.’s communication with the Agency

and, when asked if L.G. stays in contact with her, she replied, “No.” Id. at

52-54, 91.

       Next, as to K.L., mother of J.B. (II), J.B. (III) and J.B. (IV), nine, four,

and three years old at the conclusion of the hearing, respectively, the evidence

revealed that K.L. satisfied the goals of financial stability, maintaining contact

with the Agency, and maintaining a healthy and loving relationship with her

children. Id. at 57, 80-82, 93. Ms. Amoroso also acknowledged that K.L. was

providing urine screens and maintaining a drug-free lifestyle, only testing

positive for marijuana with a valid medical marijuana card. N.T., 10/12/22,

at 58, 83; see also N.T., 3/28/22, at 103, 158, 160; see also Petitioner’s

Exhibit 43 & 58 (urine screen results). However, Ms. Amoroso described a

recent referral from September 2022 where J.B. (II) was reported to have

ingested a gummy from K.L.’s bag and thereafter tested positive for THC.

N.T., 10/12/22, at 50-51, 57.

       Furthermore, Ms. Amoroso acknowledged criminal proceedings in both

New York and Pennsylvania involving K.L.           Ms. Amoroso noted that K.L.

entered a written guilty plea in July 2022 and was awaiting sentencing, as her

case was “tracking” with Father’s as a cooperating witness, in Pennsylvania.16

____________________________________________

16 Ms. Amoroso confirmed K.L. was compliant with parole in New York and
with the conditions of pretrial release in Pennsylvania. Id. at 74, 77.

                                          - 14 -
J-A10041-23

N.T., 10/12/22, at 54-55, 73-74. Further, K.L. pleaded guilty and, in March

2022, was sentenced to five years’ probation in New York. Id. at 55-56, 75-

76.   However, Ms. Amoroso stated that the transfer of K.L.’s probation to

Pennsylvania was denied as her housing was not approved. As such, K.L. was

required to reside in New York and was residing with a family friend at an

address provided by K.L.’s probation officer. Id. at 41-42, 56, 59, 77-78, 80-

81.   Ms. Amoroso testified that, despite inquiry, K.L. did not provide any

information regarding this residence in New York.17 Id. at 56-57, 59, 77, 92-

93.

       Finally, Father had criminal matters pending in Pennsylvania and New

York and remained incarcerated in New York.          Id. at 59-60. Given his

incarceration, Ms. Amoroso acknowledged that Father was unable to attain his

goals of maintaining housing or financial stability. Id. at 60-61, 86.

       Significantly, Ms. Amoroso indicated the Children are happy and doing

well in foster care. She stated, “[J.B. (II), J.B. (III), and J.B. (IV)] have a

significant relationship with their foster parents, and they’re doing extremely

well and wish to remain in the home.” Id. at 61. J.B. (II) described a “very

strong” relationship with her foster parents and indicated that she would “like

to stay in foster care a little bit longer, because I feel like my parents are

____________________________________________

17 When questioned on cross-examination regarding an ICPC, Ms. Amoroso
explained that it would be the parent’s responsibility to request an ICPC and
K.L. never requested one. Id. at 81-82, 92.

                                          - 15 -
J-A10041-23

maturing up a little bit.” Id. at 28, 31. Further, while confirming J.B. (I)’s

desire to reside with his mother, id. at 66, Ms. Amoroso indicated that J.B. (I)

“reports being very happy and content” in his current foster home, id. at 62.

      Based on the foregoing, we hold that the juvenile court abused its

discretion in denying the Agency’s petition for a goal change. After 37 months,

Parents had yet to satisfy their established goals toward reunification. Father

remained incarcerated. While L.G. and K.L. made some progress, housing

remained a significant issue for both women. Furthermore, K.L. remained on

long-term probation in New York and awaited sentencing in Pennsylvania. As

indicated, “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.”

N.C., 909 A.2d at 824. The Children are all in pre-adoptive homes where they

are happy and doing well.      Accordingly, as the Children are entitled to

permanency and stability, the juvenile court erred in failing to recognize it is

in their best interests for their permanency goals to be changed to adoption.

      For the foregoing reasons, we reverse. We remand to the juvenile court

for orders changing the Children’s permanency goals to adoption.

      Orders reversed. Cases remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                     - 16 -
J-A10041-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/9/2023

                          - 17 -