Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0273-2001K.B., born January 15, 1998 A.B., born January 27, 2000 R.B., born March 10, 2002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CP-21-JUVENILE 0273 - 2001 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., March ,2004 On December 17, 2003, we conducted a permanency review hearing in connection with the siblings K.B., born January 15, 1998, A.B., born January 27, 2000, and R.B., born March 10, 2002. Since R.B. had been adopted, we entered an order terminating his dependency. We found that A.B. continued to be dependent but returned custody to his parents, subject to the protective supervision of the agency. We also found that K.B. continued to be a dependent child. However, we directed that she remain in the agency's custody and in her current foster placement. We also changed her goal from "return home" to "adoption". The parents have filed this timely appeal in connection with the order involving K.B. The only issue raised on appeal involves our alleged error in changing the goal from "return home" to "adoption". K.B. and her brother A.B. were placed into the care and custody of Cumberland County Children and Youth Services on November 15,2001, due to the homelessness of their parents.~ Since that time, they have continued as dependent children, bouncing from one placement to another five different times.2 They were returned to their parents for a See order dated November 19, 2001, approving Master's Report of November 16, 2001. See Court Exhibit # 1 p. 3, admitted December 17, 2003. CP-21-JUVENILE 0273 - 2001 little over two months in January 2002.3 However, problems with the parents' heroin use, domestic violence, and recurring homelessness necessitated the children being returned to foster care again on March 10, 2002.4 They have been in the same foster home since October 24, 2002.5 At the time of the hearing in December of 2003, their parents had made significant progress in achieving the goals of their permanency plan. Father had been drug free for a little over one year.6 Mother had been drug free for a little over 10 months.7 They had both completed parenting classes, obtained stable housing and were gainfully employed. Under those circumstances, we were satisfied that A.B. could be safely reunited with his parents. Conversely, we were also convinced that it would not be safe to send K.B. home. K.B. is the oldest of her siblings. She was almost four when she was first separated from her parents. However, in those four years she had been emotionally ravaged by their drug abuse, domestic violence and periods ofhomelessness. Perhaps because of A.B.'s younger age, it did not seem to affect him quite so badly. In any event, at the time of our hearing in December of 2003 K.B. was at a critical emotional stage. K.B.'s psychological therapist testified at the permanency hearing. We found her testimony to be credible and compelling. K.B. has been diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder (RAD). As a result of her psychological condition, she displays See Court Exhibit # 1 p. 3, admitted December 17, 2003. See Court Exhibit # 1 p. 3, admitted December 17, 2003. R.B. was born on that date and was placed with relative who eventually adopted him. See Court Exhibit # 1 p. 3, admitted December 17, 2003. Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, p. 61. Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, p. 46. CP-21-JUVENILE 0273 - 2001 acting out behaviors that pose a "safety risk for herself and others.''8 She had made significant progress in the current foster placement. However, when she began unsupervised visitation with her parents she regressed and these behaviors became much 9 worse. At the time of the hearing, we were faced with a very real risk that K.B. would need inpatient psychiatric care if she were returned to her parents,l° Furthermore, we were convinced that she must immediately begin focused therapy for her psychological problems or risk permanent damage. ~ We were also convinced that it is in her best interest to undergo that therapy while living in her current foster home because it has the ~2 best chance of success in a stable, loving environment, where she feels safe and secure. Her current foster parents have provided just such an environment since October of 2002. Finally, we concluded that a return to, or even continued contact with, her parents would both pose an immediate and long term danger to her emotional health. ~3 The law is clear that our focus in a change of goal proceeding must be on the child. In 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." In re: d.H., 788 A.2d 1006, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2001). K.B. was placed in a foster home because of her parents' severe drug addiction, bouts of domestic violence and homelessness. At the time of the permanency hearing, 8 Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, p. 22. 9 The psychologist explained this as resulting from K.B. being "scared," which is a direct result of the bad treatment she had received at the hands of her parents when she lived with them. Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, pp. 21-22. l0 Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, p. 30. ~ See Court Exhibit # 1, p. 10 admitted December 17, 2003. ~2 Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, p. 25. ~3 See Child's Exhibit # 1 and Court Exhibit # 1, p. 10 admitted December 17, 2003, as well as Transcript of Proceedings, p. 30. CP-21-JUVENILE 0273 - 2001 she had been in placement for 23 of the last 25 months. 14 When efforts toward reunification reached the point where unsupervised visits could be instituted, K.B. had significant set backs to her mental and emotional health. This was a direct result of the psychological trauma she had suffered while living with her parents. Under these circumstances, we clearly felt that it was in K.B.'s best interest to change her goal to adoption. ~ 5 DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire For CCC&YS Jacqueline M. Verney, Esquire For the Children Galen Waltz, Esquire Dan Worley, Esquire For the Parents 14 The Juvenile Act places great emphasis on permanency in the lives of dependent children. Absent compelling reasons to the contrary, the act requires the Agency to move forward with "a petition to terminate parental rights 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 (1)(9). In the instant case, we felt that there were compelling reasons to move forward with regard to the adoption of K.B. This is especially true given the fact that her current foster parents may be interested in adopting her. is Although the decision was clear, it was not easy, especially in light of her parents' recent progress. As we said to the parents in open Court: Here is where my job gets tough. Because if this was about rewarding you for your efforts and rewarding you for doing what you're supposed to do, I would send K.B. home today. But it's not. This is about what is in K.B.'s best interests, and that's why I've got very difficult choices to make. While I think that the possibility is there for A.J. to be correctly treated and rehabilitated in your care, I don't think that possibility is there for K.B. I think the damage is too great. The situation is too critical. She needs intensive therapy so that this young gift doesn't have to be institutionalized in the future. What I'm going to do - - and I'm not doing it lightly - - I'm going to do what I think needs to be done in her best interests to give her the permanency she deserves, and that in no way reflects on the efforts that you've put in over the past year. Transcript of Proceedings, December 17, 2003, p. 92. CP-21-JUVENILE 0273 - 2001