J-A06028-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: U.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : :
APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER :
: : : : No. 2617 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP-
52-DP-0000023-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : :
APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER :
: : : : No. 2618 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP-
52-DP-0000024-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : :
APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER :
: : : : No. 2619 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP-
52-DP-0000025-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
J-A06028-25
: :
APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER :
: : : : No. 2620 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP-
52-DP-0000026-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : :
APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER :
: : : : No. 2621 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP-
52-DP-0000027-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2025
Appellant, K.V. (“Mother”) appeals from the September 5, 2024 order
that changed the permanency goal of her five children, thirteen-year-old U.G.,
eleven-year-old A.G., nine-year-old N.G., seven-year-old S.G., and five-year-
old S.G. (collectively, “Children”), from Reunification to Adoption. 1 Upon
review, we affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Children’s father is not a party to this appeal.
3
J-A06028-25
We glean the following procedural and factual history from the trial
court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and the certified record. Mother and S.G.
(“Father”) are parents to Children but are currently separated. In August
2021, the Pike County Children and Youth Services (the “Agency”) obtained
emergency custody of Children and placed then in foster care due to concerns
over Mother’s unstable mental health and parents’ inadequate housing. In
December of 2021, after Father secured adequate housing, the court
determined that Father was ready, willing, and able to care for Children,
ordered Children to be placed in Father’s care, and terminated court-
supervision. At the time, Mother was only minimally compliant with court-
ordered services.
After the trial court dismissed supervision, Father returned Children to
Mother’s care. In March 2023, the Agency once again obtained emergency
custody of Children and placed them together in a potentially pre-adoptive
foster home. Since Children have been in placement, Mother has failed to
comply with court-ordered objectives and failed to make any progress towards
reunification. On September 4, 2025, after a hearing, the court found that
Mother failed to comply with recommended mental health treatment, failed to
participate in a parenting capacity evaluation, failed to attend parenting
classes, failed to consistently attend visitation, did not currently have
adequate housing after she was recently evicted, and that a goal change to
Adoption would be in Children’s best interest. On September 5, 2025, the
4
J-A06028-25
Court ordered the Agency to change Children’s permanency goals from
Reunification to Adoption.
Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with
Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Mother raises a sole issue for our review: “Whether the trial court erred
as a matter of law in changing the goal from return home to parent or guardian
to adoption.” Mother’s Br. at 11.
We review a trial court’s decision to change a child’s permanency goal
to Adoption for an abuse of discretion. In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa.
2010). In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, this
Court “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.”
Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d 22, 25 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). Our
standard of review in dependency cases requires this 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.” R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190.
This Court is “not in a position to make the close calls based on fact-specific
determinations.” Id. Rather, “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.” Id. Notably, even if this Court “would have made a
5
J-A06028-25
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.
The overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act, which governs goal change
requests, is “[t]o preserve the unity of the family whenever possible or to
provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family
cannot be maintained.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1). At each dependency review
hearing, the trial court must consider, inter alia, the continuing necessity for
and appropriateness of the child’s placement, the extent of compliance with
the permanency plan, the extent of progress made toward alleviating the
circumstances which necessitated the child’s placement, the appropriateness
and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child, the likely date the
goal might be achieved, and the child’s safety. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f). The
focus of goal change proceedings, like all dependency 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.” H.J., 206 A.3d at
25. “The parent’s rights are secondary in a goal change proceeding.” In re
R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
The Agency has the burden to show that a goal change would serve the
child’s best interests. Id. If reunification with the child’s parent or guardian
is not in the child’s best interest, the trial court may determine that Adoption
is the appropriate permanency goal. H.J., 206 A.3d at 25; 42 Pa.C.S. §
6351(f.1)(2). Notably, “Adoption may not be an appropriate permanency goal
6
J-A06028-25
if severing an existent parent-child bond would have a detrimental effect on a
child.” H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. Further, “[b]ecause the focus is on the child’s
best interests, a goal change to [A]doption might be appropriate, even when
a parent substantially complies with a reunification plan.” R.M.G., 997 A.2d
at 347.
This Court has held that placement in a pre-adoptive home should be
completed within 18 months. H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. “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) (citation omitted). “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.” R.M.G., 997 A.2d at 347 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
As an initial matter, Mother’s argument section is substantially
underdeveloped. To support her claims, Mother merely provides boilerplate
law regarding permanency review hearings by citing Section 6351(f) of the
Juvenile Act, which lists the “[m]atters to be determined at a permanency
hearing.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f). Under each subsection, Mother simply gives
her opinion about what the trial court’s finding should be without any citation
to the record or relevant authority. As such, Mother fails to apply the facts of
this case to the law that she provides to assert any actual trial court error with
regards to the dispositions for Mother’s five Children.
7
J-A06028-25
It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be
developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P
2119(a)-(c). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure [] state unequivocally that
each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis
of pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.
Super. 2020) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing
requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument
requirements for appellate briefs). “When issues are not properly raised and
developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific
issues for review[,] a [c]ourt will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch
Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(citation omitted). It is not the role of this Court to develop an appellant’s
argument where the brief provides mere cursory legal discussion.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa. 2009). This Court “will
not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an
appellant.” In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Because Mother fails to apply the law to the facts of this case in a
meaningful and coherent manner with citation to the record as required by
our Rules of Appellate Procedure and case law, we find that her issue is
waived.
Even if this Court did not find Mother’s issue to be waived, we discern
no trial court error. After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the applicable
law, and the trial court’s opinions, we conclude that there is no merit to the
8
J-A06028-25
issue that Mother has raised on appeal. In its Rule 1925(a) opinions, the trial
court made factual findings that support changing Children’s permanency
goals to Adoption, and those findings are supported in the record. 2
Accordingly, even if we did not find waiver we would affirm on the basis of the
trial court’s October 21, 2024 opinions. Id. at 1-4 (finding that Children have
been in care for seventeen months, Mother has made minimal compliance
towards her goals, the three oldest Children wish to be adopted, Children are
healthy and thriving in their foster home placement, Children cannot be safely
returned to Mother’s care in the foreseeable future, and a goal change to
Adoption is in Children’s best interest).
All parties are instructed to attach a copy of the October 21, 2024 trial
court opinions to all future filings.
Order affirmed.
Date: 4/30/2025
____________________________________________
2 The trial court issued a substantially similar Rule 1925(a) opinion with regards to each individual child. Our citation to the trial court opinion refers universally to the opinion issued for each child.
Circulated 04/21/2025 12:31 PR sr ;
C
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION
DIVISION
In The Of:
The Interest Of; U• UG a GIM aminor, CP-52-DP-23-2021 €P-52-DP-23-2021
APPEAL OF K.V., Mother 2617 2617 EDA 2024
2024
OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA RULE
RULE OF
OE
APPELL_ATE PROCEDURE APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
AND NOW, this • V !V day of October 2024, after thorough thorough review of the record
in in the above- captioned hatter, above-captioned matter, we we continue to
to stand by our decision and respectfully request request
that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed
(filed on September 5,
2024) which changes the goal in in this matter from reunification with aaconcurrent goal of
adoption to adoption alone, alone. We believe that the Order, which was issued in the appropriate
standardized form, adequately adequately states our factual findings and legal conclusions.
conclusions. We
respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure No. 1925(a). In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters
Complained of on on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we would like to add the following:
Contrary to Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the
record in this matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was in the
best interest of the subject child.
child. This child and her four siblings have been involved with
our dependency court since August August 2021. The undersigned undersigned has been the dependency judge
presiding over this family throughout throughout.
Mother and Father are separated.
separated. In August
August 2021, the child and her siblings were
removed from Mother and placed in foster care. At the first permanency review hearing
held on or December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the
Page 1of 4
•j•
removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate housing housing for this child and her four
siblings. As such, the subject child and her siblings siblings were placed
placed in Father's physical custody physical custody
and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021. It is significant significant to
to
P ,
0
note that white while supervision was terminated because of Father being custody, being able to take custody,
Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency permanency plan
plan and had made minimal minimal
progress progress to alleviate alleviate the
the circumstances necessitating placement during necessitating placement during that that review period.
period
At some At some point after Court point after supervision was Court supervision was terminated, terminated Father's actions resulted Father's actions resulted in in the
the
children ending up back in Mother's physical physical care.
This child was back in our Dependency Dependency Court as aaresult of the Agency Agency filing
filing aa
Petition for Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted.
granted. The Agency
Agency
followed up with the filing of aa Dependency Petition. On May 25, 2023, May 25, 2023, following
following aa
dependency hearing, the dependency hearing, subject child the subject child and
and her
her four siblings were
four siblings determined to were determined to be
be dependent
dependent
children. Our determination that this child was children. appealed by was dependent was appealed by Mother and
affirmed by the Superior Court.
The The child and her child and her four
four siblings
siblings have
have now
now been
been in care for
in care for seventeen consecutive seventeen consecutive
months. Placement continues to be necessary and appropriate months. appropriate with no foreseeable date by by
which which the goal of reunification be achieved.
reunification can be achieved. This This child stated that she fccls that shc feels safe in
in her
her
current foster home where her four siblings are also placed.
placed. This child is clear that she does
not want to return to Mother's care. This child appears to the Court to be be thriving
thriving since the
the
removal from removal from Mother's care. The Mother's care. goal change The goal change allows
allows the
the Agency
Agency to
to focus on permanency
focus on permanency
child.
for this child
At our November 16, I6, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Hearing, Mother was found to be
minimally compliant with the permanence plan and to have made no progress progress toward
Page 2of 4 Page2of4 alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At our March 6, 2024
Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance with the plan and
to have made no progress toward toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated
placement. placement. At the September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, we
again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan and to have made no progress progress
toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.
Mother has ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address.
Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation. The
portion of the parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr.
Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding regarding Mother's ability to parent parent and her mental
health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and her siblings health. siblings were
removed from Mother in March 2023.
2023, The
The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother
ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing housing for this child.
child. The Agency
Agency offered Mother
services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail avail.
Mother had supervised telephone contact with this child together together with the child's
sisters (the three oldest and only female children) which had to be stopped because Mother
refused to engage in conversation with the child and would strictly strictly read the Bible to her.
Attempts to redirect Mother's telephone conversations failed.
failed. The child was having
emotionally and behavioral issues following the telephone calls.
calls. Based upon the evidence
presented we discontinued Mother's separate telephone conversations with the three oldest
and altered it to supervised telephone children and telephone conversations between Mother and all five of
the children together. Mother's willingness to participate in supervised visitation as
I arranged by the Agency had been inconsistent and limited and concerns during the limited
Page 3of 4
visitations which she has engaged engaged were testified to throughout throughout the permanency permanency review
hearings. hearings
Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency plan plan
and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement. Mother has not expressed
a a willingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan or to alleviate the
circumstances necessitating necessitating placement in the placement in the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future. The goal goal of reunification
appropriate or reasonably is no longer appropriate feasible. 1 reasonably feasible.'
Based on our in-camera interviews with the child and her siblings, our observations
of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, the child and her siblings cannot be safely returned retumed
to Mother in the foreseeable future. The Agency Agency has made reasonable efforts to work toward
reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.
Mother.
We prioritized the safety, permanency and well-being of this child in in granting the
goal change goal change to adoption.
adoption. We maintain that our decision was made in the best interest of this
child. Based upon upon the record, we believe the goal goal change
change was appropriate,
appropriate, and we
Order.
respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order
BY THE COURT:
I:
...±#_th ION. KE iON, KELLY Y A. GAUGHAN, Jr. ', GAUGHAN,J 7 '!
·-·
e
e
9
cc: John Martin, Esq., for for Mother/Appellant
Mother/Appellant p Christian Weed, Esq., for Father for Father
Nicholas McIntyre, Nicholas Mcintyre, Esq., Esq., for Pike County Children Pike County Children && Youth Youth
Mark Moulton, Moulton, Esq., Guardian ad Esq., Guardian ad litem litem
Court Administration Court Administration C,
I We We note note that that Father failed to
Father failed to appear
appear for
for the goal change
the goal change hearing
hearing and
and has
has not appealed the
not appealed same. Father the same. Father does
does
not have not suitable housing have suitable for the housing for the child
child and has shown
and has shown no
no intention of
of obtaining
obtaining the same.
the same
Page 4of 4 Page4of4
r"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF
PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA
JUVENILE DIVISION
DIVISION
a The In The Interest Interest Of.
Of:
NA• N. Gt, GIB, a aminor, CP-52-DP-24-2021 €P-52-DP-24-2021
APPEAL APPEAL OF OF K.V., K.V., Mother
Mother 2618 EDA 2024
OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF PENNSYLVANIA_RULE
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
AND AND NOW, NOW, this '
,,,,..-
a` 51' day
day of October 2024, after after thorough
thorough review
review of
of the record
record
in the above-captioned in above-captioned matter, we continue to stand by our decision and respectfully request
that the Superior Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed
(filed on September 5S,
5,
2024) 2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with a which changes a concurrent goal of
adoption adoption to adoption alone. We believe that the adoption alone the Order, which was was issued in
in the appropriate
standardized form, form, adequately
adequately states our factual findings and legal conclusions. We
respectfully refer the Superior respectfully Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure No. 1925(a).
1925(a). In further response In response to the Concise Statement of the Matters
Complained of on Complained on Appeal Appeal filed
filed by
by the
the Appellant,
Appellant, we like to we would Like following:
to add the following
Contrary Contrary to Appellant's Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the record in this matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was in the record in
best interest of the subject best subject child. This child and her four siblings have been involved with
dependency court since August our dependency August 2021.
2021. The undersigned
undersigned has been the dependency judge
presiding presiding over this family throughout.
Mother and Father are separated. In August 2021, are separated. 2021. the child and her siblings were were
removed removed from Mother and placed care. At the first permanency review hearing placed in foster care.
held held on or December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the
Page 1of 4
removal, removal, demonstrated that that he
he had secured appropriate appropriate housing for this and her four this child and
siblings. As siblings. As such, such, the subject
subject child and her siblings were placed in Father's physical custody
I and Court supervision and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021 2021. It is significant to
I note that while supervision was while supervision was terminated terminated because
because of Father
Father being
being able to take custody,
Mother only minimally Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan and had made minimal
progress progress to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement during that period.
that review period.
At At some some point supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in point after Court supervision in the
children ending children ending up back in up back in Mother's
Mother's physical care.
physical care
This This child
child was
was back
back our Dependency
Dependency Court as aaresult result of the
the Agency filing aaPetition
for for Emergency 9, 2023 which was granted.
Emergency Shelter Care on March 9,2023 granted. The Agency followed up
with the filing with the of a filing of aDependency
Dependency Petition.
Petition. On May
May 25, 2023, following
25,2023, following a
a dependency hearing,
hearing,
the subject child and her four siblings were determined to be dependent children. the subject children. Our
determination determination that this child was dependent was appealed by Mother and affirmed by the
Superior Court Superior Court.
The child and The and her
her four
four siblings
siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive
months. months. Placement Placement continues to be necessary necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable date by
which the which goal of the goal of reunification can be reunification can be achieved.
achieved. This child
child feels safe
safe in
in her current foster
home home where her four where her siblings are also placed.
four siblings placed. This This child does not
not wish
wish to
to be returned to
to
Mother. Mother. This appears to the Court to be thriving since the removal from Mother's care.
This child appears
The goal The change allows the goal change the Agency Agency to focus on
on permanency
permanency for this
this child.
child
At our At our November
November 16,
16, 2023
2023 Permanency
Permanency Review
Review Hearing,
Hearing, Mother was found Mother was found to
to be
minimally minimally compliant compliant with the permanency permanency plan
plan and to have made no progress toward
alleviating the alleviating the circumstances circumstances which
which necessitated
necessitated placement.
placement. At our March
At our 6, 2024
March 6, 2024
Page 2of 4
Permanency Hearing, Mother was Permanency Review Hearing, was found to not be be in compliance with the plan and
to have made no progress progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated
placement. placement. At the September September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, we
again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan and to have made no progress again
toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.
placement
Mother has ongoing, ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address address.
Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation, evaluation. The
The
portion of the parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr. portion Dr
Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental
health. health. Further, Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and her siblings were
removed from Mother in March 2023. The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother
ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing for this child. The Agency offered Mother ejected.
services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail.
Mother had supervised supervised telephone contact with this child together with the child's
sisters (the (the three oldest and only female children) which had to be stopped because Mother
refused to engage engage in conversation with the child and would strictly read the Bible to her.
Attempts Attempts to to redirect
redirect Mother's
Mother's telephone
telephone conversations
conversations failed.
failed. The
The child was
was having
having
emotionally and behavioral issues following emotionally following the telephone telephone calls. Based upon the evidence
presented presented we discontinued Mother's separate telephone conversations with the three oldest
supervised telephone conversations between Mother and all five of children and altered it to supervised
the children together. the children together. Mother's Mother's willingness
willingness to
to participate
participate in
in supervised
supervised visitation
visitation as
arranged by arranged by the Agency Agency had been inconsistent and limited, and concerns about Mother's
Page 3of 4
conduct during conduct during those those limited visits
visits were
were testified
testified to
to throughout
throughout the
the permanency
permanency review
review
hearings. hearings
Mother Mother has shown an ongoing, ongoing, overall lack of compliance compliance with the permanency plan
and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement.
placement. Mother has not expressed
aawillingness ability to bring willingness to or ability bring herself into into compliance with
with the
the plan
plan or to alleviate the
necessitating placement
circumstances necessitating placement in the foreseeable future. The goal of reunification
is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible.
longer appropriate feasible.'1
Based on our in-camera interviews with the child and her siblings, our observations
of Mother, of Mother, and and Mother's
Mother's own testimony,
testimony, the child and her her siblings be safely returned siblings cannot be returned
to Mother to Mother in in the
the foreseeable
foreseeable future.
future. The Agency
Agency has
has made
made reasonable efforts
efforts to
to work toward
reunification but but has not received
received cooperation from from Mother.
Mother
We prioritized safety, permanency prioritized the safety, permanency and well-being of this child in granting the
goal change to goal change to adoption.
adoption. We maintain that We maintain that our
our decision
decision was
was made
made in
in the
the best interest of
best interest of this
this
child. Based child. Based upon upon the record,
record, we believe the goal change was appropriate, and we
respectfully request respectfully that the request that Superior Court the Superior Court affirm affirm our
our Order.
Order.
BY THE COURT.
COURT:
.,
t
HON. KE Y A. GA
-
John Martin,
Martin, Esq., for Mother/Appellant
I
cc: Esq., for Christian Weed, Christian Weed, Esq.,
Esq., for Father
Father
Esq., for
Nicholas McIntyre, Esq., for Pike Children & Youth Pike County Children Youth Mark Moulton, Esq., Guardian ad litemitem VD
Court Administration Court
IWe note that Wenote that Father Father failed
failed to appear
appear for the goal
goal change hearing and has not appealed the same.
same. Father does
not have suitable housing not have suitable housing for for the
the child
child and
and has
has shown
shown no
no intention
intention of
of obtaining
obtaining the
the same.
same
Page 4 of 4
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PIKE PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C)
JUVENILE DIVISION
DIVISION I
Of: :
In The Interest Of At Gt A1100M GIM a aminor, mninor, CP-52-DP-26-20i.1 CP-52-DP-26-2021
APPEAL OF K.V., Mother 2620 EDA 2024
OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE APPELLATEPROCEDURE
PROCEDURE 1925
1925
J\
AND NOW, this x` 3Fay 1 day of October 2024, after thorough review of the record
in the above-captioned above-captioned matter, we continue to stand by by our decision and respectfully request
that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September September 4, 2024
2024 (filed
(filed on September 5,
2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with aaconcurrent goal of
adoption to adoption adoption alone. We believe that the Order, which was issued in adoption alone. in the appropriate
standardized form, adequately states our factual factual findings and legal conclusions. We
respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
No, 1925(a).
Procedure No. In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters
Complained of on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we Complained we would like to add the following:
Contrary to Appellant's Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the the
record record in in this this matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was was in
in the
best interest of the subject child. This child and her four siblings siblings have been involved with
our dependency court since August 2021, 2021. The undersigned has been the dependency judge
presiding over this family throughout throughout.
Mother and Father are separated.
separated. In August 202I, 2021, the child and her siblings were
care. At the first permanency review hearing removed from Mother and placed in foster care.
held on or December December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the
Page 1of 4 Page1or4
4'
removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate housing for this child and her four
siblings. As such, the subject child and her siblings were placed in Father's physical custody siblings. custody
and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021. It is significant to
note that while supervision was was terminated because of Father being able to take custody,
Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan plan and had made minimal
progress to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement
placement during that review period period.
At some point after Court supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in the
children ending up back in Mother's physical care care.
This child was back our Dependency Court as a a result of the Agency filing a a Petition
for Emergency Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted.
granted. The Agency followed up
with the filing filing of aaDependency Dependency Petition. On May 25, 2023, following a 25,2023, a dependency hearing,
the subject child and and her four siblings were determined to be dependent children.
children. Our
by the
determination that this child was dependent was appealed by Mother and affirmed by the
Superior Superior Court.
The child and her four siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive
months. Placement continues to be necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable date by
which the goal of reunification can be be achieved. This child feels safe in her current foster
home home where where her her four siblings are also placed.
four siblings placed. This This child
child does not wish
wish to
to be
be reunified
reunified with
Mother. This child appears to the Court to be thriving since the removal from Mother's care care.
The goal change allows the Agency to focus on permanency for this child.
goal change
At our November 16, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to be
minimally minimally compliant with the permanency plan and to have made no progress toward
alleviating alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.
placement. At our March 6, 2024
Page 2of 4
i
Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance compliance with the plan
plan and
to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated
placement. At the September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, Hearing, we
again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan plan and to have made no progress progress
toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.
placement
address.
Mother has ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address
Mother adamantly adamantly refuses to complete complete the court-ordered parental parental fitness evaluation. The The
portion of the parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr.
Dr
Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental parent and
health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and her siblings siblings were
removed from Mother removed from Mother in in March
March 2023.
2023. The
The home
home has since been
has since been foreclosed foreclosed upon
upon and
and Mother
Mother
ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing ejected. housing for this child. The Agency Agency offered Mother
services to address her mental health and housing housing issues to no avail.
Mother had supervised telephone contact with this child together with the child's
sisters (the three oldest and only female children) which had to be stopped stopped because Mother
refused to engage engage in conversation with the child and would strictly strictly read the Bible to her.
her
Attempts to redirect Mother's telephone conversations failed.
failed. The child was having
emotionally and behavioral issues following following the telephone
telephone calls. Based upon upon the evidence
presented we discontinued Mother's separate telephone conversations with the three oldest
children and altered it to supervised telephone telephone conversations between Mother and and all five of
the the children together.
together Mother's willingness to participate in supervised visitation as
arranged by the Agency was inconsistent and limited, and concerns regarding Mother's
Page 3of 4 Page0f4 conduct during those limited visits was testified to throughout throughout the permanency permanency review
hearings.
Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency permanency plan
plan
and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement.
placement. Mother has not expressed expressed
aawillingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan plan or to alleviate the
circumstances necessitating placement in the foreseeable future. goal of reunification future. The goal
is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible.'
Based ased on our in -
camera interviews with the child and her siblings, our observations in-camera
of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, the child and her siblings siblings cannot be safely safely returned
to Mother in the foreseeable future.
future. The Agency has made reasonable efforts to work toward
reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.
from Mother
We prioritized the safety, permanency and well-being of this child in granting granting the
goal goal change change to adoption.
adoption. We
We maintain
maintain that
that our decision was
was made in the
made in the best
best interest
interest of this
this
child. Based upon upon the record, we believe the goal change was appropriate, goal change appropriate, and we
respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order.
BY THE COURT:
HON. KEL Y A. GA dHAN,
cc: John Martin, John Martin, Esq., Esq., for Mother/Appellant for Mother/Appellant
Christian Weed, Esq., for for Father
Nicholas McIntyre, Father
Mcintyre, Esq., for Pike County County Children& Youth
Children Youth
'
Mark Mark Moulton, Esq., Guardian ad Esq., Guardian ad litem litem '-0 Court Administration Court Administration rti
u
we note that Father failed to appear for the goal change hearing and has not appealed We appealed the same.
same. Father does
not have suitable housing for the child and has shown no intention of obtaining the same.
same
Page 4of 4
J
rn r '
r
L
c
. ·,
e
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF . I PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA
JUVENILE DIVISION -
p
'
In The Interest Of: ' - sf ct, a S111WGIM aminor, CP-52-DP-27-2021 C-,• APPEAL OF K.V., Mother 2621 2621 EDA 2024 C.)
OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE APPELLATEPROCEDURE 1925
AND NOW, this ,, O th;e [' day of October 2024, after thorough thorough review of the record
in the above-captioned in above- captioned matter, we continue to stand by our decision and respectfully request
that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed 5, (filed on September S,
2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with a a concurrent goal of
adoption to adoption alone.
alone. We
We believe that the Order, which was issued in the appropriate
standardized form, adequately states our factual factual findings and legal conclusions. We
respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure No.
No, 1925(a).
1925(a). In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters
Complained of on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we would like to add the following:
Contrary to Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the
record in record in this matter matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was was in the
best interest of the subject child.
child. This child and his four siblings have been involved with
our dependency court since August 2021 2021. The undersigned has been the dependency judge
presiding presiding over this family throughout.
Mother and Father are separated. In In August 2021, this child and his siblings were
removed placed in foster care. removed from Mother and placed care. At the first permanency review hearing
2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the held on or December 7, 202I,
Page 1of 4 4
removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate housing housing for this child and his four
siblings. As such, the subject child and and his siblings
siblings were placed in Father's physical custody physical custody
and Court supervision was was terminated
terminated one day later, 2021. It later, December 8, 2021 It is is significant
significant to
to
note that while supervision was was terminated because of Father being able to take custody, custody,
Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan and had made minimal
progress to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement during that review period.
placement during period
At some point after Court supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in the child
and and his siblings ending up back in in Mother's physical care.
care
This child was back in our Dependency Court as aaresult of the Agency filing aa
Petition for Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted. The Agency
followed up with the filing filing of aa Dependency Petition.
Petition. On May
May 25, 2023, following
following aa
dependency hearing, the subject child and his four siblings were determined to be dependent
children. Our determination that this child was dependent was appealed by Mother and children.
affirmed by Court.
by the Superior Court
The child and his four siblings The siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive
months. Placement continues to be necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable date by by
which the goal of reunification can be achieved. This child is still young and immature.
immature. The
child was not able to offer the Court anything persuasive regarding the goal change, but
based on our observations, the child appears to be healthy and thriving since the removal
from Mother's care. The goal change allows the Agency to focus on permanency for this
child.
At our November 16, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to be
minimally compliant with the permanency plan and to have made no progress toward
Page 2of 4
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At our March 6, 2024
Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance with the plan and
to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated
placement. At the September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, we
again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan and to have made no progress
toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.
placement.
Mother has ongoing, ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address.
Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation. The
portion of the parental portion parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr.
Dr
Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental
health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and his siblings were health.
removed from Mother in March 2023.
2023. The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother
ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing for this child.
child. The Agency offered Mother
services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail avail.
Mother's willingness willingness to participate participate in supervised visitation with this child, as
arranged by arranged by the Agency, Agency, has been inconsistent and limited. Concerns regarding Mother's
conduct with the child during these limited visits was testified to throughout the permanency
review hearings.
Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency plan
and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement. Mother has not expressed and
a a willingness willingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan or to alleviate the
Page 3of 4
I circumstances necessitating placement in the the foreseeable future.
future, The goal of reunification
is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible.'
feasible. ]
Based on Based on our
our in-camera
in-camera interviews
interviews with the
the child
child and
and his
his siblings, our observations siblings, our observations
of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, testimony, the child and his siblings siblings cannot be safely safely returned
to to Mother in future. The Agency in the foreseeable future. Agency has has made reasonable
reasonable efforts
efforts to work
work toward
reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.
Mother
We prioritized
prioritized the safety,
safety, permanency
permanency and well-being of this child in granting the
goal change to adoption.
adoption. We maintain that our decision was made in the best interest of this
child. Based upon the record, we believe the goal change was appropriate, and we
respectfully respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order Order.
BY BY THE COURT:
HON. KE Y A. GA ' I HAN, J,
cc: John Martin, Esq., for Mother/Appellant t .,
Christian Weed, Esq., for Father �·"
i
' '
Melntyrs, Esq.,
Nicholas McIntyre, Esq., for Pike Pike County
County Children
Children & Youth
Youth c Mark Moulton
Moulton,,Esq., Guardian ad liten Court Administration
litem
- %
t
' -
� r -,,
"
IWe we note that Father failed to appear appear for the goal
goal change hearing and has not appealed the same.
same. Father does
not have suitable housing housing for the child and has shown no intention of obtaining the same same.
Page 4of 4
• -
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PIKE
PLEAS OF
PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION
DIVISION
- "' 'g
f
k
In The Interest Of: la stS• G M, aaminor, ts, minor, CP-52-DP-25-2021 APPEAL OF K.V., Mother T'J 2619 EDA 2024
eci
OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE 1925
AND NOW, this `_`J) _ day of October 2024, after thorough V"day thorough review of the record in in the above-captioned matter, we we continue to
to stand by our decision and respectfully request respectfully request
that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed
(filed on September 5,
2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with a goal of a concurrent goal
adoption to adoption alone.
alone. We believe that the Order, which was issued in the appropriate appropriate
standardized form, adequately states our factual findings and legal conclusions. We legal conclusions.
respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure No. 1925(a). In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters
Complained of on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we would like to add the following:
following:
Contrary to Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Appeal, the
record in this matter supports our determination that that the goal change to adoption was was in the
best interest of the subject child.
child. This child and his four siblings siblings have been involved with
our dependency court since August 2021. The undersigned undersigned has been the dependency dependency judge
judge
presiding over this family throughout.
throughout.
Mother and Father are separated. In August 2021, this child and his siblings were
removed from Mother and placed in foster care. At the first permanency permanency review hearing hearing
held on or December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent parent at the time of the
Page 1of 4
0
O
removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate appropriate housing
housing for this child and his four and his four
siblings. As such, the subject child and his siblings were placed placed in Father's physical physical custody
custody
and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021. It is significant and significant to
note that while supervision was terminated because of Father being being able to take custody, custody,
permanency plan
Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan and had made minimal
progress to to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement during that review period.
placement during period
At some point after Court supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in the child
and his siblings ending up back in Mother's physical care care.
This child was back in our Dependency Court as aaresult of the Agency Agency filing
filing a
a
Petition for Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted. Agency granted. The Agency
followed up with the filing of a a Dependency Petition. On May May 25,
25, 2023,
2023, following
following aa
dependency hearing, the subject child and his four siblings were determined to be dependent dependent
children. Our determination that this child was dependent was appealed children. appealed by by Mother and
affirmed by the Superior Court.
The child and his four siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive
months. months. Placement Placement continues to appropriate with to be necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable foreseeable date by
by
which the goal of reunification can be achieved. This child is very very active and has difficultly
focusing. The child is still young and immature. focusing. immature. The child was not able to offer the Court
anything persuasive anything persuasive regarding regarding the goal change, the goal change, but
but based on our
based on our observations, observations, the
the child
child
appears to be be healthy and thriving since the removal from Mother's care. The goal goal change
change
allows the Agency to focus on permanency for this child.
child
At our November 16, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to be be
minimally compliant with minimally compliant the permanency with the permanency plan
plan and
and to have made
to have no progress
made no toward
progress toward
Page 2o4 Page2 of 4
I
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.
placement. At our March 6, 2024
Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance with the plan and
to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated
placement. At placement. At the the September 4, 2024
2024 Permanency Review Change Hearing, Review and Goal Change Hearing, we we
again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan plan and to have made no progress progress
toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement placement.
Mother has ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address.
Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation. The
portion portion of the parental parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr.
Dr
Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental
health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and his siblings were health.
removed from Mother in March 2023.
2023. The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother
ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing ejected. housing for this child. The Agency offered Mother
services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail.
Mother's willingness
willingness to participate participate in supervised visitation with this child, as
by the Agency, has been inconsistent and limited. Concerns regarding Mother's arranged by
conduct with the child during these limited visits was testified to throughout the permanency
review hearings.
Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency plan I and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement.
placement. Mother has not expressed
aawillingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan or to alleviate the
Page 3of 4 Page0t4 circumstances necessitating placement in the foreseeable future.
future. The goal of reunification
is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible.
feasible.'1
Based on our in-camera interviews with the child and his siblings, our observations
of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, the child and his siblings cannot be safely returned retumed
to Mother in the foreseeable future.
future. The Agency has made reasonable efforts to work toward
reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.
Mother
We prioritized prioritized the safety, permanency permanency and well-being of this child in in granting the
goal goal change change to adoption.
adoption. We maintain that our decision was made in the best interest of this
child. child. Based Based upon
upon the
the record,
record, we believe the goal we believe goal change change was
was appropriate, and we
appropriate, and we
respectfully respectfully request request that the Superior Court affirm our Order Order.
BY THE COURT:
4.g.%.le.
o.EL'.Gt&i.i. HON. KEL Y A. GA '
HAN, J.
cc: John John Martin, Esq., for Mother/Appellant Martin, Esq., Mother/Appellant Christian Weed, Esq., for Father V- f -i Nicholas Nicholas McIntyre, Esq., for Pike County Children && Youth Mark Moulton, Mari Mouton, Esq., Esq., Guardian ad litem
{item
r,
Court Administration C-)
•t
r
r•
C
'
"17' , r
N
IWe note that Wenote that Father failed to appear appear for the goal change hearing and has not appealed the same. Father does goal change
not have suitable housing hot housing for the child and has shown no intention of obtaining the same same.
Page 4of 4