Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0193-2002IN THE MATTER OF S.T., BORN 1-14-94 A.T., BORN 10-5-96 M.T., BORN 2-24-99 M.T., BORN 5-1-02 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002 - 0193 JUVENILE IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., January ,2004 On October 8, 2003, we conducted a permanency and dispositional hearing in connection with the dependency placement of the above sisters. At the conclusion of the hearing, we changed the goal from "return home" to "adoption". We also found that aggravating circumstances existed and determined that the Agency need not make any further efforts to reunify the family. Finally, we ordered that the children remain together in the same foster home where they have been living since August of 2002. Their parents have filed this timely appeal. The only issue raised on appeal is our alleged error in changing the goal from reunification to adoption. ~ FACTUAL BACKGROUND S.T., born January 4, 1994, A.T., born October 5, 1996, M.T., born February 24, 1999, and M.T., born May 1, 2002, were all found to be dependent and placed in the care and custody of Cumberland County Children and Youth Services on July 27, 2002. Until the time of their placement they had always lived together with their natural parents, the Appellants herein. They were placed because both parents became unavailable due to their incarceration in connection charges alleging that they had endangered the welfare of See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. NO. 2002-0193 JUVENILE their son A.Q.T., born March 6, 1998. On July 24, 2003, caseworker Jill Olson investigated a confidential referral regarding A.Q.T. Upon meeting the child the caseworker directed that he be taken immediately to the Carlisle Hospital Emergency Room. A.Q.T. was only 28 3¼ inches tall and weighed a mere twenty (20) pounds. The Emergency Room physician found him to be profoundly undernourished and transferred him to Hershey Medical Center for treatment. At Hershey it was discovered that A.Q.T. also had four (4) broken ribs.2 On July 29, 2003, A.Q.T. was declared brain dead by his treating physician. After hearing on July 30, 2003, we found that the child was clinically dead and granted the request to discontinue life support. After a trial by jury both parents were convicted of various charges including involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault in connection with A.Q.T.'s death.3 On October 7, 2003, they each received aggregate sentences of five to ten years in a state correctional institution.4 2007.5 Neither parent will be eligible for parole until November 21, of 2002. They have thrived in that placement. children and keep them together. All four (4) sisters have been living together in the same foster home since August The foster parents are willing to adopt the : It should be noted that the care and nourishment of all four girls appears to have been proper. 3 It was this conviction that led us to find the existence of aggravating circumstances as defined in the Juvenile Act (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6302). 4 See CYS Exhibits, 1 and 2, October 8, 2003, proceeding. s The sentencing judge gave each credit from November 21, 2002. NO. 2002-0193 JUVENILE DISCUSSION The law is clear that our focus in a change of goal proceeding must be on the child. I, re: A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002). We must "determine the goal in accordance with the child's best interests and not those of his or her parents." I, re: J.H., 788 A.2d 1006, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2001). As the J.H. Court noted: At each review hearing concerning a child who has been adjudicated dependent and removed from the parental home, the trial court must consider: 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. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). These children were placed in a foster home because of their parents' incarceration. Until their parents were convicted and sentenced, the children's placement goal remained reunification.6 After sentence was imposed on October 7, 2003, it became apparent that reunification could not be achieved until at least November of 2007 and possibly not until much later. Under these circumstances the goal of reunification was no longer feasible. Therefore, we changed it to adoption.7 At the time of the hearing, the children had been in a stable and loving foster home for more then fourteen (14) months. We agreed wholeheartedly with the caseworker who articulated the Agency's position: 6 We also note that we deferred our decision on the existence of aggravated circumstances until such time as the outstanding criminal charges were resolved. 7 The Juvenile Act places great emphasis on permanency in the lives of dependent children. Absent certain specified circumstance, which were not present in the instant case, the act requires the Agency to move forward with "a petition to terminate parental fights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified family to adopt the child", ifa child has been in placement for 15 of the last 22 months. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6351 (f)(9). NO. 2002-0193 JUVENILE We feel that these four girls deserve permanency in their lives, and they are in an adoptive foster home. They are doing very, very well with the assigned foster parents who are willing to adopt and keep them together.8 We could not have stated it better. Notwithstanding the bond with their parents, we felt it was clearly in each child's best interest to have the permanency that a goal change to adoption would provide. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. James K. Jones, Esquire Mark F. Bayley, Esquire Lisa M. Greason, Esquire Ruby Weeks, Esquire CCC&Y Juvenile Probation :sld 8 Transcript of October 8, 2003, proceeding, p. 9.