Opinion
J-S07045-17 No. 1548 MDA 2016
03-21-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.C., D.C., AND D.C., Minors APPEAL OF: J.F., Mother
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Orders entered August 22, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Juvenile Division, No(s): CP-38-DP-0000025-2014, CP-38-DP-0000026-2014, CP-38-DP-0000027-2014 BEFORE: BOWES, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
J.F. ("Mother") appeals from the Orders finding aggravating circumstances as to each of Mother's three minor children: D.C., D.C., and D.C. (collectively, "the Children"), and changing each child's permanency plan goal to adoption. We affirm.
Father, whose parental rights were terminated, is not participating in this appeal.
We note that Mother, while pro se, filed only one Notice of Appeal from the trial court's August 22, 2016 change of goal and aggravated circumstances Orders, entered as to each minor child. Pa.R.A.P. 341 provides that where one or more orders resolve issues arising on more than one docket, or relating to more than one judgment, an appellant must file separate notices of appeal from each order or judgment. Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note. Nevertheless, we will address Mother's claims, as this procedural error is not fatal to Mother's appeal. --------
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history underlying the instant appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/16, at 1-3. We adopt the trial court's recitation for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
Mother presents the following claims for our review:
1. Did the [trial c]ourt err in finding that [a]ggravated [c]ircumstances exist as to [each of the Children] and that no additional efforts should be made to reunify the minor [Children] with [their] mother, [J.F.]?Brief for Appellant at 2-3 (issues renumbered and combined for clarity).
2. Did the [trial c]ourt err in ordering a change of [g]oal to [a]doption for [each of the Children]?
Our standard of review for dependency cases is as follows:
[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate 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. Accordingly, we review for an abuse of discretion.In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).
As Mother's claims are related, we will address them together. Mother first claims that the trial court improperly found the existence of aggravating circumstances as to each of the Children. Brief for Appellant at 8. Mother directs our attention to evidence that the Children "have expressed a desire to return to their Mother." Id. Mother states that she has made arrangements to have the same apartment, an apartment approved by the Lebanon County Children and Youth Service ("LCCYS"), following her brief period of incarceration. Id. at 8-9. Mother further asserts that "she has arranged for her job to be available after her release." Id. at 9. Mother recognizes that, following her release, her sentence prohibits the Children from residing with her during her term of probation. Id. However, Mother points out that she could still visit the Children, and resume full parental care following the conclusion of her sentence. Id. Mother further argues that she and the LCCYS caseworker both testified that Mother had complied with all goals and requirements imposed by LCCYS. Id. at 10.
In her second claim, Mother challenges the trial court's finding that it is in the Children's best interest to change their permanency goal to adoption. Id. at 8. Mother claims that her own testimony, and that of Elizabeth Getch ("Getch"), an LCCYS caseworker, established that the Children have expressed a desire to return to Mother, and that her parenting skills have improved. Id. at 8, 10. Mother asserts that she has made arrangements to have the same apartment after she is released from prison, and that her apartment previously was approved for the Children by LCCYS. Id. at 8-9. Mother contends that her actual period of incarceration, following her appeal, will be very brief, and that it is not in the best interest of the Children to be separated into different homes, "when she will be able to care for them all." Id. at 9. Mother asserts that while she cannot live with the Children during her period of probation, she may still visit with them. Id. Finally, Mother argues that she has complied with all of her goals set by CYS. Id. at 10.
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother's claims and concluded that they lack merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/16, at 4-5. We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm on this basis as to Mother's claims. See id. We additionally observe the following.
Although Mother directs our attention to the progress that she has made, our review of the record discloses additional evidence that supports the trial court's change of goal to adoption. Our review discloses that in 2006, LCCYS received a referral from the Berks County Children & Youth Agency ("BCCYA") regarding Mother and Father's two older children. N.T., 8/4/14, at 10. BCCYA had removed these two children based upon inappropriate physical discipline by Father, the fact that they were not fed properly, and that they were being left in their room with very little light. Id. at 11. The Berks County dependency matter terminated in May 2006. Id.
Mother and Father subsequently moved from Berks County to Lebanon County. Id. In 2011, LCCYS reopened its dependency case as to the Children, upon receiving allegations of Father's abuse of T.S., a minor cousin living at the home. Id. at 12-13. T.S. subsequently was removed from the home. Id. at 14. During that same time period, LCCYS received a report about Mother's 10-year-old son having received a black eye. Id. at 15. LCCYS additionally had received reports from the school of Mother's ten- year-old son that he was not being fed properly. Id. at 25-26. The caseworker testified that
[t]here were reports that the 10-year-old was having dried feces coming out of his pants. There were also reports on the 6-year-old ... coming to school dirty and also having dried feces on him. But it wasn't as severe as the 10-year-old. This was prior to the 10-year-old being at grandma's house.Id. at 26. The 10-year-old son was removed from the home and placed with his grandmother. Id.
The record reflects that on May 30, 2014, LCCYS received a report regarding a bruise on the arm of another child. Id. at 15. When LCCYS personnel went to the home, they discovered feces all over the Children's bedroom, with "runny poop on the floor, on the mattresses, on the walls, [and] on the [C]hildren's playsets." Id. at 16. The Children were found to be "filthy," smelling of urine and having feces on them. Id. at 16, 20. There also was a lock on the outside of the bedroom door. Id. at 18, 21. A wooden door separated the Children's bedroom from the next room. Id. at 18. "A lot of the boards had been broken out of that [door]." Id.
In August 2016, LCCYS presented evidence that the Children have been in foster care for 27 months. N.T., 8/22/16, at 15. CYS caseworker Getch testified that Mother was sentenced on July 20, 2016, and is prohibited from residing with the Children for a portion of her sentence, even if she is paroled. Id. at 27, 28. Getch testified that Mother's involvement with LCCYS was for the same conduct that took place in Berks County in 2004, with a different child. Id. at 30-31. In Berks County, Mother's children were returned to her care because she "had improvement, that she went through a parenting class, and that she was able to care for them and provide them protection." Id. at 31-32. Notwithstanding that improvement, LCCYS became involved with the family in 2011 for the same conduct. Id . at 32.
Getch also explained that at the Lebanon County Correctional Facility, the Children (ages eight, five and four years old) could only visit with Mother by talking on a telephone, while separated from her by glass. Id. at 38-39. Any visits would take place during visiting hours, while other inmates had visitation. Id. at 39. According to Getch, LCCYS recommended that if the goal is not changed, visits with Mother should take place only with the agreement of the Children's therapist. Id. at 38-39. Finally, Getch testified that each child was doing well in foster placement, and that each foster family is willing to be an adoptive resource. Id. at 39-44, 47-50.
Our review discloses that the record supports the trial court's change of goal to adoption as to the Children, and that the goal change is in each child's best interests. See In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 825 (Pa. Super. 2006) (affirming a trial court's change of goal to adoption, and concluding that notwithstanding the mother's substantial progress toward completing her permanency plan, the record supported the trial court's factual findings that the mother's parenting skills and judgment regarding her children's well- being remained problematic). We therefore affirm the Orders of the trial court.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/21/2017
Image materials not available for display.