In the Interest of: M.S. & B.J.S. Appeal of: J.S. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-S73031-14
    J-S73032-14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN THE INTEREST OF:    M.S. & B.J.S., :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    Minors,                               :               PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: J.S., Mother,              :             No. 1288 MDA 2014
    Appeal from the Order entered on June 30, 2014
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
    Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-36-DP-0000095-2012;
    CP-36-CP-0000196-2012
    IN THE INTEREST OF:    M.S. & B.J.S., :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    Minors,                               :               PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: R.S., Father,              :             No. 1289 MDA 2014
    Appeal from the Order entered on June 30, 2014
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
    Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-36-DP-0000095-2012;
    CP-36-CP-0000196-2012
    BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT and MUSMANNO, JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUSMANNO, J.:                FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2015
    These consolidated appeals are before us after remand to the trial
    court. See In the Interest of J.R., a Minor, M.S., a Minor, and B.J.S., a
    Minor, 
    93 A.3d 506
     (Pa. Super. 2013) (unpublished memorandum).          We
    remand for further proceedings.
    On two separate occasions, both J.S. (“Mother”) and R.S. (“Father”)
    physically abused a child, who is not a subject of the instant appeals. The
    prior panel in this case affirmed the trial court’s Order adjudicating the
    J-S73031-14
    J-S73032-14
    abused child, as well as her two minor half-siblings, M.S. and B.J.S.
    (hereinafter “the subject children”), as dependent. Id. at 7-10. However,
    the   panel   vacated   the   trial   court’s   Orders   finding   that   aggravated
    circumstances existed upon which to cease reunification services. Id. at 10-
    14.   The panel remanded the matter for a determination as to whether
    reunification between the subject children and Mother and Father is
    necessary or appropriate. Id. at 14.
    Following hearings on the remanded issue and a permanency review
    hearing, the trial court entered Dispositional Orders on June 30, 2014,
    approving a plan that did not provide for reunification, and maintaining the
    goal for the subject children as adoption.        Mother and Father timely filed
    separate Notices of Appeal from the Dispositional Orders. Mother and Father
    argue that the trial court erred in refusing to order a permanency plan for
    reunification.   Mother also argues that the trial court erred in finding that
    she abused the subject children.
    Importantly, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court did not
    cite to, or provide an analysis of, the factors under section 6351(f) and (f.1)
    of the Juvenile Act, which a trial court must consider at a permanency
    review hearing.     See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f) (providing that “[a]t each
    permanency hearing, a court shall determine all of the [enumerated factors
    in subsection (f)] ….” (emphasis added)); id. § 6351(f.1) (listing the
    alternatives available to the juvenile court for the permanent placement of a
    -2-
    J-S73031-14
    J-S73032-14
    dependent child); see also In re R.J.T., 
    9 A.3d 1179
    , 1186, 1187 n.10 (Pa.
    2010) (setting forth the factors and observing that a trial court is obligated
    to consider them at a permanency review hearing); see also id. at 1198
    (Orie Melvin, J., dissenting) (opining that “[n]owhere in its opinion did the
    trial court either acknowledge its duty pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f) …
    nor did it explain its evaluation of the considerations enumerated therein.
    The Superior Court was responsible for ensuring that the record represented
    a comprehensive inquiry, and that the trial court applied appropriate legal
    principles.”).
    We hereby order that the case be remanded for the trial court to set
    forth its consideration of the evidence concerning the factors in 42 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 6351(f) and (f.1), in an opinion to be filed with this Court within sixty days
    of the filing of this Order. Panel jurisdiction retained.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 2/19/2015
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1288 MDA 2014

Filed Date: 2/19/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021