In the Interest of: J.W., Jr., Appeal of: S.R. ( 2022 )

J-S29017-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.W., JR., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.R., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 509 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 5, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at CP-25-DP-0000206-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
S.R. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order changing the
permanency goal for J.W., Jr. (Child), from reunification to adoption.1
The juvenile court summarized the case history as follows:
[Child] became involved informally with the Erie County
Office of Children and Youth (“the Agency”) at the time of his birth
in August 2020 due to Mother’s lack of stable housing and
Mother’s positive test for marijuana (THC) at the time of [C]hild’s
birth. See Recommendation for Shelter Care, 09/28/2021.
[C]hild also tested positive for THC at birth. Id. Consequently,
the Agency offered Mother ongoing services, but Mother failed to
utilize those services. Regrettably, [C]hild was again exposed to
the Juvenile Dependency system in 2021 due to Mother’s lack of
progress and out of concern for [C]hild. On September 22, 2021,
it was reported to the Agency that [Mother] still did not have
stable housing and was again abusing alcohol and marijuana. See
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1J.W., Sr. (Father) has not been involved in Child’s life and did not appeal the
goal change. See Juvenile Court Opinion, 6/1/22, at 1.
J-S29017-22
Application for Emergency Protective Order, 09/22/2021. …
Mother admitted to having a substance abuse history involving K2
(synthetic marijuana), cocaine, and THC. Id. As indicated above,
Mother used THC during her pregnancy, as [C]hild was born
exposed to THC. Id.
Based on these and other facts, an Emergency Protective
Order was issued by the [juvenile c]ourt on September 22, 2021.
In the Order, the [c]ourt found that removal of [C]hild was
necessary for the welfare and best interest of [C]hild. See
Emergency Protective Order, 09/22/2021. Also, “[d]ue to the
emergency nature of the removal and safety consideration of the
child, any lack of services to prevent removal were reasonable.”
Id. Consequently, [Child] was placed in the temporary protective
physical and legal custody of the Agency and placed in a foster
home as there was no viable family or kinship resource.
Juvenile Court Opinion, 6/1/22, at 2.
On September 24, 2021, the Agency filed a dependency petition alleging
Child was without proper parental care or control. The Agency requested a
finding of aggravated circumstances based on Mother’s “extensive history”
with the Agency, her “minimal progress,” and the involuntary termination of
Mother’s parental rights to four children on November 12, 2019. See id. at
4.
The juvenile court held a dependency hearing on October 22, 2021.
Mother stipulated to the allegations of dependency. Id. at 6. The court
adjudicated Child dependent, and “determined that aggravated circumstances
existed against Mother due to the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental
rights to four (4) of her other children in November 2019.” Id. (citation
omitted). Child’s placement goal was “return to parent or guardian,” i.e.,
reunification, with the “projected date by which the goal for child might be
-2-
J-S29017-22
achieved: uncertain.” Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 10/27/21, at 2.
The court directed Mother to refrain from using drugs and alcohol, submit to
random urinalysis tests, and participate in mental health treatment. Id. The
court scheduled a permanency review hearing for March 30, 2022, “to allow
[Mother] sufficient time to work on the treatment plan and demonstrate
compliance.” Juvenile Court Opinion, 6/1/22, at 7 (citation omitted).
On March 2, 2022, the Agency filed a motion to change Child’s
permanency goal from reunification to adoption. The Agency averred that
Mother “has had no compliance with her Court-ordered treatment plan.”
Motion to Change Permanency Goal, 3/2/22, at 1. The juvenile court held a
hearing on March 30, 2022, at which the Agency presented testimony from
their caseworker, Sandra Tate. Mother (and Father) also testified. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court stated:
[The Agency] could not have been more deferential or
assisting and none of that was taken advantage of by [M]other.
For the best interest of this child and knowing all the reasons
I’ve set forth on this record, the court summary, the other reports,
the responses to the questions provided here, I’m going to change
the goal to adoption.
N.T., 3/30/22, at 62.
On April 5, 2022, the court entered an order changing Child’s goal to
adoption. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)
concise statement. Mother raises the following issue:
WHETHER THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AND/OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DETERMINED
-3-
J-S29017-22
THAT THE PERMANENCY GOAL OF REUNIFICATION WAS NO
LONGER FEASIBLE AND CHANGED THE GOAL DIRECTLY TO
ADOPTION?
Mother’s Brief at 3.
We review an order regarding a placement goal of a dependent child for
an abuse of discretion. In re B.S., 861 A.2d 974, 976 (Pa. Super. 2004). To
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we “must determine that
the court’s judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not
apply the law, or that the court’s action was a result of partiality, prejudice,
bias or ill will, as shown by the record.” In re N.C. 909 A.2d 818, 822-23
(Pa. Super. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In
addition, we are bound by the facts as found by the trial court if they are
supported by the record. In re K.J., 27 A.3d 236, 241 (Pa. Super. 2011). It
is the responsibility of the trial court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses
and resolve any conflicts in testimony. In re N.C., supra at 823. Therefore,
“the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the
evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). If the court’s findings are supported by
competent evidence, this Court will affirm, “even if the record could also
support an opposite result.” In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 506
(Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
The focus of all dependency proceedings, including goal change
proceedings, is on the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child; the
child’s best interest must take precedence over all other considerations. In
-4-
J-S29017-22
re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 534 (Pa. Super. 2007). At the dependency review
hearing, the trial court must consider, inter alia, the continuing necessity for
and appropriateness of the child’s placement, and the appropriateness and
feasibility of the child’s current placement goal. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)(1),
(4). If reunification is not in the child’s best interest, the court may determine
that adoption is the appropriate permanency goal. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
6351(f.1)(2). “This Court has held that the placement process should be
completed within 18 months.” In re N.C., supra at 823 (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.” In
re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Instantly, Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by
changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption, “without implementing the
customary intermediate goal of reunification concurrent with adoption.”
Mother’s Brief at 6. Mother provides little support for this argument, and
improperly views the evidence in her favor. See Mother’s Brief at 8-11.
Mother concedes she “did not follow through” with drug and alcohol treatment,
but claims “the record clearly indicates an acknowledgement of need of
services coupled with a ready willingness to reengage.” Id. at 9. She also
acknowledges she “did not follow through with services” for mental health
treatment, but emphasizes that “the record indicates a willingness to
reengage.” Id. Likewise, Mother admits she “has not yet participated in an
-5-
J-S29017-22
approved parenting program” and “has been unable to find appropriate
housing,” but claims the juvenile court erred in viewing her actions as “not
worthy of additional time.” Id. at 10. Mother disregards the juvenile court’s
authority. See, e.g., In re N.C. 909 A.2d at 823 (“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 contrast, Child’s guardian ad litem argues the goal change to adoption
is in Child’s best interest, and “supported in fact and in law.” Appellee Brief
at 9 (“Despite a finding of aggravated circumstances, Mother was given the
chance and provided [with] resources … but chose not to [participate] and
was found to be totally non-compliant.”).
The Agency has not filed a brief, but advised this Court of its agreement
with the juvenile court’s “well-reasoned” opinion. Letter, 7/20/22. In its
opinion, the juvenile court stated it had considered “the entire facts and
circumstances of this matter, including Mother’s lengthy ten (10) year history
with the Agency,” in determining that the goal change to adoption was “best
suited to the safety, protection and … welfare of the child.” Juvenile Court
Opinion, 6/1/22, at 23 (citation omitted). The court explained,
reasonable efforts were made by the Agency to finalize [Child’s]
permanency plans. ... Crucially, the [c]ourt found [Mother] has
not been compliant with the permanency plan, and had not made
any progress toward alleviating the circumstances which
necessitated [Child’s] original placement. In fact, Mother’s history
indicates that the same reasons which resulted in her parental
rights being terminated for four (4) children in November 2019
still exist in the current dependency matter. Specifically, there
-6-
J-S29017-22
are ongoing concerns with [Mother’s] mental health (including
bipolar disorder, cannabis-related disorder, major depressive
[disorder] with severe psychotic features, mood disorder, and
anxiety), drug use, unstable housing, and parenting skills,
including her ability to keep [Child] safe. …
Mother’s non-compliance includes her failure to not follow
through with her mental health treatment as evidenced by her
discharge from Stairways Behavioral Health for excessive
nonattendance. Mother presents with very serious mental health
diagnoses including: Bipolar disorder, Cannabis Related Disorder,
Cocaine Related Disorder, Major Depressive/Single
Episode/Severe with Psychotic Features [disorder], Episodic Mood
Disorders, and Anxiety.
Next, there are continued concerns about [Mother’s] ability
to keep [C]hild safe, as illustrated by her unstable living situation.
Mother was residing with a man (Mr. Brewington), who she was
involved in a domestic dispute with, and in a residence where she
has no legal standing. Mother is not on the lease and the property
is exclusively owned by Mr. Brewington. In other words, Mother
could be evicted at any time from this residence without legal
recourse or claim to stay. Additionally, the Agency had also
determined that Mr. Brewington’s home is not safe for [C]hild.
Mother also had several no-show positive test results and was
receiving no drug and alcohol treatment despite her diagnoses of
Cocaine Use Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder.
Consequently, the circumstances which necessitated the
placement of [C]hild, including [Mother’s in]ability to safely parent
[]; her unstable housing; concerns about her mental health; and
concerns about her drug and alcohol use, have not been
alleviated. [Mother] remains in virtually the same position as she
was in September 2021, when [Child] was first removed and
adjudicated dependent. The history of Mother’s involvement with
the Agency would actually suggest Mother remains in the same
position as she was back in 2012 when she first became involved
with the Agency with her four (4) children resulting in the
involuntary termination of her parental rights. … [Mother]
throughout her history makes promises that she will
comply but then fails. Mother, although well intended, has
failed to support her statements by actions and comply with the
[c]ourt’s plan. Mother admitted she was “selfish” and [therefore],
the child is left without proper parental care. The [c]ourt finds
-7-
J-S29017-22
Mother’s excuse for non-compliance that she was being “selfish”
to be wholly unacceptable and unpersuasive regarding her
“renewed” intention to adequately parent [Child] …
The collective evidence presented indicates [C]hild is in
desperate need of permanency and stability. … The Agency’s
caseworker, Ms. Tate, received a resource family report from the
foster family saying [Child] has established a bond with their
family. The foster home has greatly impacted [Child’s] quality of
life. While in Mother’s care, [Child] was diagnosed with high lead
levels which have since decreased since being in his foster home.
Also while with Mother, [Child] was three (3) immunizations
behind on his yearly shots due to several missed doctor
appointments. Since being placed in foster care, [Child] is up to
date on all his immunizations. The foster home is meeting the
[C]hild’s needs and providing him with a safe, stable, and loving
home environment.
In consideration of the evidence and testimony presented,
the [c]ourt found the Agency had met its burden in demonstrating
that a goal change to adoption is in [C]hild’s best interest.
[C]hild’s physical and emotional needs are being treated and met.
[Mother] has failed to “alleviate the circumstances which
necessitated the original placement” and has demonstrated, at
most, minimal compliance with treatment plans designed to
effectuate reunification. Mother’s lack of any meaningful or even
marginal compliance, unfortunately, exposes the harsh reality
that Mother is ill-equipped to safely parent [C]hild.
Juvenile Court Opinion, 6/1/22, at 23-25 (citations omitted).
Our review reveals ample support in the record for the juvenile court’s
determination that the Agency’s efforts at reunification have failed, and
a goal of adoption would serve Child’s best interest. Accordingly, the juvenile
court did not abuse its discretion.
Order affirmed.
-8-
J-S29017-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/7/2022
-9-