J-S73030-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF P.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: J.G., NATURAL FATHER No. 799 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order April 28, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000176 of 2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2016
J.G. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on April 28, 2016, in
the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, changing the goal from
reunification to adoption1 for P.E. (“Child”), the minor child of Father.2 On
appeal, Father claims the trial court erred in dispensing with the concurrent
goal of reunification where the Erie County Office of Children and Youth
(“Agency”) did not offer reasonable services to achieve that goal. After
careful review, we affirm.
P.E. was born in September 2014 and adjudicated dependent at the
age of three weeks. The Agency became involved because the mother had a
history of drug and mental health issues and was unable to meet the infant’s
____________________________________________
1 A change of a placement goal is a final, appealable order. In the Interest of H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. 2003). 2 With respect to the natural mother of P.E., the goal was also changed to adoption. She has not appealed that order. J-S73030-16
basic needs. At the time of the dependency adjudication, Father’s paternity
had not yet been determined, but the Agency was aware of his status as a
Tier III Megan’s Law offender.3
On October 22, 2014, the court held a dispositional hearing,
established a goal of reunification and scheduled a 90-day review hearing.
On November 3, 2014, the Agency filed a motion averring that it had
received paternity test results identifying J.G. as the biological father of
Child; the Agency sought a finding of aggravated circumstances based on
Father’s 2004 convictions4 and an order suspending Father’s visitation. The
court held a hearing on December 3, 2014. Following the hearing, the court
granted the Agency’s motion for aggravated circumstances and denied its
motion to suspend visitation. The court also ordered supervised visitation
once a week, maintained the goal of reunification and ordered the Agency to
implement a service plan for Father, including a psychological and
psychosexual evaluation. See Order, 12/18/15.
Thereafter, in July 2015, the court again declined to grant the
Agency’s petition for change of goal. During this time, the Agency worked
3 Father had entered a plea of no contest to Corruption of Minors (M1), Criminal Attempt/Indecent Assault (Person Less Than 16 Years) (M2), Statutory Sexual Assault (F2) and Aggravated Indecent Assault (F2), involving a 15-year-old victim. 4 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(3)(ii) and (iii).
-2- J-S73030-16
with Father to implement a court-ordered treatment plan so that Father
could improve his parenting skills.5
The record shows that Father did make progress in some areas, but
struggled or failed in those he chose not to engage in (i.e, Project First Step,
a program for improving parenting skills). He failed to submit clean
urinalysis screens on nine occasions. Further, the Agency also noted that
Father’s behavior was inconsistent, at times manic and lacking in impulse
control. The Agency also noted that Father continued to place his needs and
desires above the Child’s needs, preventing Father from ensuring Child’s
safety and wellbeing.
In January 2016, the Agency recommended a change of goal to
adoption and sought to cease its family finding efforts, as an adoptive
resource had been identified and had established a relationship with Child.
The court held a permanency hearing on April 20, 2016. On April 28, 2016,
the court entered an order finding that: Father had only minimal compliance
with the permanency plan; the Agency had satisfied the requirements of
Pa.R.J.C.P. 1149 regarding family finding; the child had been in placement
for 15 of the last 22 months (specifically, for 19 months); no further services
5 Despite its finding of aggravated circumstances against Father, the court ordered the Agency to offer Father a treatment plan in order to accomplish reunification. See Order, 7/22/15.
-3- J-S73030-16
be offered to Father; the goal be changed to adoption; and this disposition
was in Child’s best interests.
Father appealed, and he raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it made the express finding that the Agency made reasonable efforts to finalize the child’s permanency plan (including reunification services) where the court had ordered the Agency to provide and pay for an independent psychiatric evaluation and the Agency failed to provide that evaluation/treatment?
2. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it determined that the concurrent permanency goal of reunification/adoption was no longer feasible, dispensed with the goal of reunification, and directed the Agency to provide no further services and/or visitation to J.G.?
3. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when [it] denied [J.G.’s] request to present the testimony of prospective kinship resource, JE.G [J.G.’s sister]?
4. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it determined that the Agency had satisfied the family finding requirements and when it discontinued further family finding efforts?
Appellant’s Brief, at 6.
On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion
standard of review:
In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine that the court’s judgment was “manifestly unreasonable,” that the court did not apply the law, or that the court’s action was “a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,” as shown by the record. We are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact that have support in the record. The trial court,
-4- J-S73030-16
not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witness and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm, “even if the record could also support the opposite results.”
In the Matter of N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822-23 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal
citations omitted). See also In the Interest of C.J.R., 782 A.2d 568, 569
(Pa. Super. 2001).
We note that issues pertaining to dependent children are controlled by
the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-75; this Act was amended in 1998 to
conform to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”). See In re
A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2011); In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 823
(Pa. Super. 2006).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S73030-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF P.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: J.G., NATURAL FATHER No. 799 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order April 28, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000176 of 2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2016
J.G. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on April 28, 2016, in
the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, changing the goal from
reunification to adoption1 for P.E. (“Child”), the minor child of Father.2 On
appeal, Father claims the trial court erred in dispensing with the concurrent
goal of reunification where the Erie County Office of Children and Youth
(“Agency”) did not offer reasonable services to achieve that goal. After
careful review, we affirm.
P.E. was born in September 2014 and adjudicated dependent at the
age of three weeks. The Agency became involved because the mother had a
history of drug and mental health issues and was unable to meet the infant’s
____________________________________________
1 A change of a placement goal is a final, appealable order. In the Interest of H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d 908, 911 (Pa. 2003). 2 With respect to the natural mother of P.E., the goal was also changed to adoption. She has not appealed that order. J-S73030-16
basic needs. At the time of the dependency adjudication, Father’s paternity
had not yet been determined, but the Agency was aware of his status as a
Tier III Megan’s Law offender.3
On October 22, 2014, the court held a dispositional hearing,
established a goal of reunification and scheduled a 90-day review hearing.
On November 3, 2014, the Agency filed a motion averring that it had
received paternity test results identifying J.G. as the biological father of
Child; the Agency sought a finding of aggravated circumstances based on
Father’s 2004 convictions4 and an order suspending Father’s visitation. The
court held a hearing on December 3, 2014. Following the hearing, the court
granted the Agency’s motion for aggravated circumstances and denied its
motion to suspend visitation. The court also ordered supervised visitation
once a week, maintained the goal of reunification and ordered the Agency to
implement a service plan for Father, including a psychological and
psychosexual evaluation. See Order, 12/18/15.
Thereafter, in July 2015, the court again declined to grant the
Agency’s petition for change of goal. During this time, the Agency worked
3 Father had entered a plea of no contest to Corruption of Minors (M1), Criminal Attempt/Indecent Assault (Person Less Than 16 Years) (M2), Statutory Sexual Assault (F2) and Aggravated Indecent Assault (F2), involving a 15-year-old victim. 4 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302(3)(ii) and (iii).
-2- J-S73030-16
with Father to implement a court-ordered treatment plan so that Father
could improve his parenting skills.5
The record shows that Father did make progress in some areas, but
struggled or failed in those he chose not to engage in (i.e, Project First Step,
a program for improving parenting skills). He failed to submit clean
urinalysis screens on nine occasions. Further, the Agency also noted that
Father’s behavior was inconsistent, at times manic and lacking in impulse
control. The Agency also noted that Father continued to place his needs and
desires above the Child’s needs, preventing Father from ensuring Child’s
safety and wellbeing.
In January 2016, the Agency recommended a change of goal to
adoption and sought to cease its family finding efforts, as an adoptive
resource had been identified and had established a relationship with Child.
The court held a permanency hearing on April 20, 2016. On April 28, 2016,
the court entered an order finding that: Father had only minimal compliance
with the permanency plan; the Agency had satisfied the requirements of
Pa.R.J.C.P. 1149 regarding family finding; the child had been in placement
for 15 of the last 22 months (specifically, for 19 months); no further services
5 Despite its finding of aggravated circumstances against Father, the court ordered the Agency to offer Father a treatment plan in order to accomplish reunification. See Order, 7/22/15.
-3- J-S73030-16
be offered to Father; the goal be changed to adoption; and this disposition
was in Child’s best interests.
Father appealed, and he raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it made the express finding that the Agency made reasonable efforts to finalize the child’s permanency plan (including reunification services) where the court had ordered the Agency to provide and pay for an independent psychiatric evaluation and the Agency failed to provide that evaluation/treatment?
2. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it determined that the concurrent permanency goal of reunification/adoption was no longer feasible, dispensed with the goal of reunification, and directed the Agency to provide no further services and/or visitation to J.G.?
3. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when [it] denied [J.G.’s] request to present the testimony of prospective kinship resource, JE.G [J.G.’s sister]?
4. Did the juvenile court commit an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it determined that the Agency had satisfied the family finding requirements and when it discontinued further family finding efforts?
Appellant’s Brief, at 6.
On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion
standard of review:
In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine that the court’s judgment was “manifestly unreasonable,” that the court did not apply the law, or that the court’s action was “a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,” as shown by the record. We are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact that have support in the record. The trial court,
-4- J-S73030-16
not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witness and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm, “even if the record could also support the opposite results.”
In the Matter of N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822-23 (Pa. Super. 2006) (internal
citations omitted). See also In the Interest of C.J.R., 782 A.2d 568, 569
(Pa. Super. 2001).
We note that issues pertaining to dependent children are controlled by
the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-75; this Act was amended in 1998 to
conform to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”). See In re
A.B., 19 A.3d 1084, 1088 (Pa. Super. 2011); In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 823
(Pa. Super. 2006).
ASFA was enacted to combat the problem of foster care drift, where children… are shuttled from one foster home to another, waiting for their parents to demonstrate their ability to care for the children. This drift was the unfortunate byproduct of the system’s focus on reuniting children with their biological parents, even in situations where it was clear that the parents would be unable to parent in any reasonable period of time. Following ASFA, Pennsylvania adopted a dual focus of reunification and adoption, with the goal of finding permanency for children in less than two years, absent compelling reasons.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis
added). As to change of goal proceedings, “the best interests of the child
and not the interests of the parent must guide the trial court, and the
burden is on the child welfare agency involved to prove that a change in goal
-5- J-S73030-16
would be in the child’s best interest.” In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa.
2011) (citations omitted). The safety, permanency, and well-being of the
child must take precedence over all other considerations. In the Matter of
S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2008).
We have thoroughly reviewed the arguments and briefs of the parties
and the record before us, and we have examined closely the trial court’s
resolution of the matter. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that the Agency made reasonable efforts to provide
Father with services necessary to promote reunification, and that Father
failed to make sufficient progress in the treatment plan toward rectifying the
problems necessary to lead to reunification. Upon review, we agree with
the trial court’s determination that “[t]hough he attempted to comply with
the reunification plan in some respects, overall [Father] failed miserably, and
was unable to demonstrate the emotional health and stability necessary to
raise a young child.” Trial Court Opinion, 6/22/16, at 18. As the trial court
indicated, Father’s lack of progress is not necessarily due to his personal
history as a sex offender, but stemmed more from his failure to take
personal responsibility and “his own lack of coherence and insight into his
mental health and substance abuse issues.” Id. Further, the court’s finding
that Father took “liberties to abuse alcohol and marijuana” after Child had
been in placement for a year, is supported by the record; this supports the
court’s determination that additional Agency services would be “pointless.”
Id. at 19. Finally, Child is stable in a pre-adoptive home, and has been in
-6- J-S73030-16
placement for nearly twenty-one months. We agree with the trial court that
a change of goal is necessary and in Child’s best interests, and that allowing
Father to progress “at his own pace” is contrary to Child’s best interests. In
re R.I.S., supra.
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s well-reasoned
opinion, and we direct the parties to attach a copy of that opinion in the
event of further proceedings.
Order affirmed.6
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 11/1/2016
6 We note that the Guardian ad litem has filed a separate brief and joins in the Agency’s position.
-7-