Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0163-2006 IN THE MATTER OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, VICTORIA ALLISON, BORN 9/20/02 : PENNSYLVANIA PAUL JAMES BEAR, BORN 3/20/05 : MICHAEL U. BEAR, BORN 11/29/06 : NO. CP-21-JV-163-2006 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., February 8, 2008 - On October 10, 2007, a hearing was held regarding the dependency status of the above- named children. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court decided that it was appropriate to change the goal from “return home” to “adoption.” In addition, this Court ordered that supervised visitation with the natural parents would continue for one hour every other week. The parents have filed a timely appeal. In their appeal, they allege that the court erred in (1) changing the goal from reunification to adoption as this would not be in the best interest of the children and the children’s welfare would be best served by returning the children to their biological parents; and in (2) determining that the visitation with the parents shall remain supervised for one hour every other week. This Court will discuss each issue in this opinion. Factual Background This case began in Cumberland County on May 8, 2006, as a result of a referral regarding Paul James Bear, IV, (dob: 3/20/2005), for failure to thrive resulting in at least one hospitalization, and an allegation that the child, Victoria Allison, (dob: 9/20/2002), had been found wandering on the streets in Mechanicsburg without adult supervision. After receiving this information, Cumberland County Children and Youth conducted various home visits and found the home maintained by the parents to be in a deplorable condition with trash, soiled diapers, dirty dishes, rotting food and mold. As a result, the children began their placement as dependent children outside of the parents’ home on June 30, 2006. On July 21, 2006, these two children were placed with the maternal grandparents, Daniel and Sandra Creamer, in Informal Kinship are. On January 26, 2007, the placement was changed to Formal Kinship Foster Care with the Creamers where they remain to this day. Michael U. Bear was born on November 29, 2006, and was placed in Informal Kinship Care with William Baker and Tammy Taylor on December 2, 2006. William Baker is the step- brother of Father, James Allison. On December 7, 2006, a hearing was held before the Master at which the parents, along with the child’s Guardian Ad Litem, agreed to defer determination of dependency in order to assess the progress made by the parents in dealing with perceived psychological problems, their inability to parent, and their inability to maintain a clean and safe home. This recommendation was approved by an Order of Court on December 11, 2006. However, on April 10, 2007, after hearing, unopposed by the parents, the placement was changed to Formal Kinship Foster Care with William Baker and Tammy Taylor. This child has been in the care of these individuals for all but four days of his entire life. While the permanency plan for these parents was quite lengthy including up to 14 individual items, the key problem areas which continue to this day are: (1) maintaining regular contact with the children, (2) participating in medical and counseling needs for the children, (3) maintaining and securing regular sources of income capable of supporting a home with three children, (4) finding suitable housing, (5) maintaining their housing in a clean and habitable manner. A review of this entire record shows that these things have not been done. On July 17, 2007, a hearing was held before the Juvenile Master in which the couple’s continued deficiencies were brought to their attention and they were advised that given the length of time that their children had been in placement a goal change was becoming imminent. On September 24, 2007, having found no significant progress in these key areas, Cumberland County Children and Youth Agency filed petitions for change of goal. A full hearing on the matter was held 2 efore the Court on October 10, 2007. The Guardian Ad Litem and the Court-Appointed Special Advocate recommended that the goal be changed to adoption. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. As of October 10, 2007, the date of the change of goal hearing, Victoria Allison, dob: 9/20/02, and Paul James Bear, dob: 3/20/05, have been in placement for 15 months and 11 days. Michael U. Bear, dob: 11/29/06, has been in placement for 10 months and 8 days. 2. The Court carefully observed the parents during the course of the hearing and both parents showed total lack of affect and an almost unattached demeanor. 3. Father did not testify at the hearing. 4. The parents were evicted from their last home in Mechanicsburg and now live separately. 5. Mother lives in Safe Harbour, a homeless shelter in Carlisle. 6. The parents do not have suitable housing for children and no real expectation of getting any in the near future. 7. Mother has undergone mental health counseling and admits to suffering from depression. 8. These parents are incapable of dealing with the normal everyday responsibilities of life to include being financially stable, keeping a clean home, planning for the future, arranging on their own consistent contact with the children, and arranging for child care. 9. The children are thriving in their current Kinship Foster Care homes. 3 10. Both Foster Care families, being relatives, have indicated that they desire for the children to continue to have contact with their natural parents, and to form sibling bonds between the three children even if they are living in different homes. 11. Both of the Kinship Foster Care families are willing to adopt the children. DISCUSSION A. Change Of Goal From “Return Home” To “Adoption.” In a change of goal proceeding, the law mandates that the court focus on the best interests of the child. In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002). The Court must “determine the goal in accordance with the child’s best interests and not those of his or her parents.” In re J.H., 788 A.2d 1006, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2002). The focus of permanency hearings is on the children’s safety, permanency, and well being and not on a parents’ conduct. In Re: N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa.Super. 2006). The matters to be determined at a permanency hearing have been outlined in the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6351 (f). Appropriate to this case are the following: (1) The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement. (2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of compliance with the permanency plan developed for the child. (3) The extent of progress made toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement. (4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child. (5) The likely date by which the placement goal for the child might be achieved. (5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency plan in effect. (6) Whether the child is safe. 4 (9) If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months or the court has determined that aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or to preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified family to adopt the child unless: (i) the child is being cared for by a relative best suited to the physical, mental and moral welfare of the child; (iii) the child’s family has not been provided with necessary services to achieve the safe return to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian within the time frames set forth in the permanency plan. The Court will review each one of these considerations seriatim. 1. Necessity for and Appropriateness of Placement. The children in question are 5 years, 2 years, and almost 11 months old. Obviously, they cannot care for themselves. The failure of Paul James to thrive resulted in a hospitalization and clearly established that these parents were not providing sufficient nutrition to this child to allow him to gain weight and grow normally. Because of Paul James’ experience, and the continued poor condition of parents’ home at the time of Michael’s birth, it was considered likely that Michael would also be in the same danger. The parents did not vigorously contest this conclusion. Instead they agreed to defer a finding of dependency and place the child with Father’s step-brother. It must be remembered that the parents agreed to the current placements. The foster parents are not strangers. They are relatives who care deeply about the interests of these children. These parents currently have no home. The father, who did not even testify at the goal change hearing, is living with a relative. The mother, who is a college graduate, has not earned sufficient income to allow her to leave the homeless shelter. She has placed herself on a waiting list for a family apartment 5 t the shelter even though she knows that the time she is currently staying at the homeless shelter by herself is counting against her total one year limit for such housing. The necessity of the placement is obvious. The Court further holds that placing these children with loving relatives, where they are thriving, is most appropriate. 2. The Extent of Compliance with Service Plan. The focus of the Court’s inquiry with regard to this consideration was on quality of compliance not quantity. Although the parents have accomplished a few of the lesser tasks, unfortunately for them, there are important qualitative differences between the various goals. For example, signing release forms, keeping the Agency informed of current address and telephone number, meeting with the social worker, discussing and developing alternative permanent plans for children if reunification is not possible, do not in any way equate to the more serious and important goals of (1) actually attending appointments with the children for medical, dental, educational planning and counseling, (2) obtaining and maintaining an adequate and safe home, (3) maintaining a regular source of income capable of supporting a family, and (4) demonstrating real life parenting knowledge and skills. Courts have held that failure to comply with a service plan can support a finding of change of goal from reunification to adoption. In Re: K.D., 871 A.2d 823 (Pa.Super. 2005). After being warned repeatedly, this couple simply cannot muster the necessary insight or motivation to accomplish these goals. To the contrary, their 6 emeanor, testimony, and performance shows a total lack of ability to deal with the every day life skills required in good parenting. 3. Extent of Progress towards Alleviating the Circumstances Necessitating Original Placement. While some progress has been made, these little children have a right to a permanent, clean, safe and loving environment. Father did not testify at the change of goal hearing. We do know that he has no home of his own, has a very checkered employment history, and is apparently unable to master the rudimentary concept of cleaning a home. Additionally, Father has failed to make required support payments to the Domestic Relations Office since May 29, 2007. It was specifically required that the parents participate in getting Victoria’s medical needs scheduled to include having her immunized. While the parents did participate in the ParentWorks Program, from March 2007 until July 2007, the case was closed because the parents were evicted from their home; they have been unable to find suitable housing in order to re-open their case. The mother was invited to re-open her service with ParentWorks on August 20, 2007, at the Safe Harbour housing shelter. Mrs. Allison initially agreed to call the caseworker to restart the service but since that time the caseworker has received no response from Mrs. Allison. While this Court has little doubt that the mother professes to love these children, she again, even as a college graduate, has chosen employment that will not financially support a family of three children. For her to maintain that the solution to her housing dilemma is to get on a waiting list at a homeless shelter for a family unit knowing that she will be forced to leave by August 2008, shows a fundamental inability to realistically deal with life’s problems. While the parents 7 ave signed releases, they do not actively participate in any medical, dental, educational or counseling sessions. Initially, the parents were given the ability to contact their children at any time to arrange visits or speak with them. This did not happen. These parents do not even telephone their children. But for the actions of the Agency to set up a formal schedule, the parents simply do not interact with their children. In evaluating all of the above, it is patently clear that no significant progress has been made toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement. Perhaps the Guardian Ad Litem put it best in stating that “I think its just been too long and we have given them way too many chances and opportunities and these children need to move forward with their lives instead of waiting and waiting and waiting for mom and dad to do what it is they need to do .” 4. Appropriateness and Feasibility of the Current Placement Goal. The two oldest children have been in placement now for 15 months and 11 days. The youngest child has been in placement almost his entire life. This couple has been offered services to improve their parenting skills and have been consistently put on notice that their progress was insufficient to warrant the goal remaining return to parents. Still, after all this time, no real progress has been made. To the contrary, the children have been placed in the homes of relatives of the parents who have provided an environment in which everyone involved in this case agrees the children are thriving. If the best interest of these children is truly what is at stake in this case, then it is no longer appropriate or feasible to believe that after all this time, these 8 arents will develop and be capable of consistently providing the type of normal parenting skills necessary for these children. In this case, the parents’ inactions and inability to cope with life’s daily pressures speak louder than their illusory good intentions. 5. A Likely Date by Which Goal Could be Achieved. The simple answer to this question is no one knows. Again, while the father did not testify, Mother’s testimony was that she certainly was not able to take the children back at the time of the hearing. The facts remain that this couple has no home, has insufficient income to satisfactorily raise these children, and has not shown the necessary fundamental parenting concerns or skills to realistically believe they can ever really do what is in the best interest of these children. This Court finds that the Agency has made more than reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan for these parents. The Guardian Ad Litem stated correctly that “Children and Youth has literally held their hands to get this far, and they get nowhere.” One of the key mandates of the Adoption and Safe Families Act is to shorten the time children spend in foster care and to speed the process of adoptions so that children who cannot be reunified with their families are moved to other permanent family settings as quickly as possible. 42 U.S.C. (a) (15) (C). For these children, this time has come. 6. Safety of the Children. Given the record presented to this Court, it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that these children are not safe or well cared for in the custody of their parents. Contrary to this inadequate care provided by the parents, 9 t is patently obvious that the children are thriving in the care of their foster parents who are interested relatives of the parents. 9. Permanent Placement for the Children. As required by paragraph (9) of 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 6351, where children have been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months and reasonable efforts have been made to eliminate the need for removing these children from their parents then inquiry must be made to determine what permanent placement can be made for these children. As the record indicates Victoria and Paul James have been in placement outside of their parents’ home since June 30, 2006. They are currently in the loving home of their maternal grandparents where all evidence shows that the children are thriving. The Creamers have indicated their willingness to adopt Victoria and Paul James and this Court finds that these children are being cared for by people best suited to provide for the physical, mental and moral welfare of these children. Equally, the Court finds that Michael who has been in placement for all but 4 days of his life is also in a loving and caring home with his Father’s step- brother. William Baker has indicated that he is willing to adopt Michael. Michael is thriving and this Court finds that he is currently being cared for by a relative best suited to provide for his physical, mental and moral welfare. Cumberland County Children and Youth have moved forward to provide for permanent placement of these three children. On December 10, 2007, the case file reflects that petitions were filed for involuntary termination of parental rights for all three children. 10 . Visitation with Parents In their concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, the parents state, “6. Appellants aver that this Court was in error in determining that visitation with the parents shall remain supervised for one hour every other week.” While it is unclear, this Court will assume that the parents wanted more visitation time and that the visitation should be unsupervised. We will proceed in this opinion under this assumption. Throughout the record in this case, it has been shown that when Children and Youth did not do the actual work of scheduling visitation, the parents simply did not take it upon themselves to initiate such action. It is apparent that the parents are uncomfortable in dealing with the relatives who now have physical custody of the children. Given the observed demeanor of these parents and the fact that these placements have obviously focused attention on their own failures, the Court can understand their not wanting to have regular communication with the foster parents. However, this does not alleviate the requirement that they take it upon themselves to promote visitations. These parents do not even call these children. The Families United Network caseworker, who observes the visitation of the parents with these children, noted that the parents’ attitude toward visitation was complacent and that they are happy that they don’t have to take care of the children. Prevalent throughout the testimony is the fact that the children are thriving and have effectively bonded with their foster parents. It has been held that the frequency of visitation between the parent and child may be changed in conjunction with a change of goal. In the interest of M.B., 674 A.2d 702 11 Pa.Super. 1996). In the case at bar, this Court did not change the visitation schedule. Prior to the change of goal hearing, visitation was supervised one hour every other week. Given the fact that both foster families indicated that they were willing to adopt the children and that they felt it was important for the children to continue to know their natural parents, the Court felt that the continued supervised visitation would promote this goal and not do any harm to the children. The visitation continues to be supervised because this Court has serious concerns as to what these parents would do with the children in an unsupervised situation. It was noted by the Families United Network caseworker that during visits, when it came time to clean up the toys after a visit, it was usually the caseworker who had to initiate cleanup and that the staff of the Families United Network ended up doing most of the cleanup. Given these parents’ history with cleanliness and order, it does not take much deduction to come to the conclusion that leaving the children to these parents unsupervised will not promote their proper upbringing. Interestingly, in preparing this opinion, an examination of the official court file reveals that on January 30, 2008, an Order of Court was entered upon agreement of the parties that supervised visitation for the parents was reduced to one hour per month. CONCLUSION This Court’s decision to change the goal is based on clear and convincing evidence. It has become clear to the Court that the parents are currently not able to provide a safe home environment for their three small children. The parents are separated; the mother resides in an efficiency apartment at a homeless shelter. The parents do not have sufficient earnings or 12 avings to obtain housing and were evicted from their last home. The children are currently living in stable homes and are thriving. These Kinship Foster Parents are ready to adopt these children. The focus of this Court must remain on what is in the best interest of the children. It is the firm belief of this Court that the plan for these children should be changed to adoption in order to provide them with stability and support. These parents have had fifteen months to make the changes necessary to bring these children home to them, but have failed to make any real progress. Therefore, this Court did not err in changing the goal from “return home” to “adoption.” By the Court, M .L. Ebert, Jr., J. Lindsay Baird, Esquire For Children and Youth John Mangan, Esquire For the Parents Jacqueline Verney, Esquire Guardian Ad Litem 13