Opinion
J-S48045-16 No. 340 WDA 2016
08-22-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M.-F., a/k/a A.M.-F., a Minor Adjudicated Child APPEAL OF: S.F., Natural Father
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order entered February 1, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Domestic Relations, at No.: 64 of 2015 BEFORE: BOWES, DUBOW and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
S.F. ("Father") appeals from the permanency review Order, issued in response to a request by the Erie County Office of Children and Youth ("OCY"), changing the permanency goal for his daughter, A.M.-F. ("Child") (born in October 2014), to adoption, pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301, et seq. ("the Act"). We affirm.
The juvenile court set forth the factual background and procedural history of this appeal in its March 11, 2016 Opinion (regarding Father), which we incorporate herein. See Juvenile Court Opinion (Father), 3/11/16, at 2-6. On February 17, 2016, Father timely filed a Notice of Appeal, along with a Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The juvenile court then issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion.
On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the Juvenile Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it made the findings/conclusions that [OCY] had established a basis to change the goal to [a]doption when it found that there had been minimal compliance with the permanency plan[?]Father's Brief at 5 (capitalization omitted).
2. Whether the Juvenile Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it made the findings/conclusions that [OCY] had established that [] Father failed to remedy the conditions that led to the placement of ... [C]hild[?]
3. Whether the Juvenile Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it determined that [] [F]ather did not comply with services and the court [O]rder[?]
4. Whether the Juvenile Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it concluded that appropriate and necessary services were provided to [] [F]ather[?]
5. Whether the Juvenile Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law by failing to consider the entire record in the case, when prior permanency review hearings reflected that Father was in compliance[?]
Father stated his issues somewhat differently in his Concise Statement; nevertheless, we find the issues preserved for review.
We first note our standard of review:
When we review a [juvenile] court's order to change the placement goal for a dependent child to adoption, our standard is abuse of discretion. In order to conclude that the [juvenile] 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 [juvenile] court's findings of fact that have support in the record. The [juvenile] court, not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the [juvenile] court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When the [juvenile] court's
findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm even if the record could also support an opposite result.In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528, 532-33 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
When considering a petition for goal change for a dependent child under the Act, the juvenile court considers
the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement; the extent of compliance with the service plan developed for the child; the extent of progress made towards alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement; the appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child; and, a likely date by which the goal for the child might be achieved.Id. at 533 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)). Moreover, "in matters of placement for a dependent child, the [juvenile] court must be guided by the best interests of the child--not those of his or her parents." In re A.K., 936 A.2d at 533.
Additionally, Section 6351(f.1) of the Act requires the juvenile court to make a determination regarding the child's placement goal:
(f.1) Additional determination.— Based upon the determinations made under subsection (f) and all relevant evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall determine one of the following:
* * *
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f.1)(2).(2) If and when the child will be placed for adoption, and the county agency will file for termination of parental rights in cases where return to the child's parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.
We will address Father's issues simultaneously, as they are related. Father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion by changing Child's permanency goal to adoption where (1) the evidence established that Father previously showed some compliance with his permanency plan; (2) Father remedied the conditions that led to Child's placement (namely, the concerns related to his epilepsy); and (3) OCY failed to provide Father with adequate and appropriate services. See Father's Brief at 8-13.
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the juvenile court aptly discussed the applicable law in addressing Father's claims, and determined that (1) his claims did not establish any abuse of discretion; (2) Father had failed to take appropriate action to remedy the conditions that led to the placement of Child; (3) OCY, in fact, provided Father adequate services, but he declined to utilize those services; and (4) continued, indefinite placement is contrary to Child's best interests. See Juvenile Court Opinion (Father), 3/11/16, at 7-10. The juvenile court's reasoning and determination is supported by the law and the record, and we thus affirm on this basis with regard to Father's issues on appeal. See id. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, and affirm its Order changing Child's permanency goal to adoption.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/22/2016
Image materials not available for display.