Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0161-2003 INRE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AP., BORN 7-31-2000 AND AP., BORN 2-16-2002 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925 Guido, J., October , 2005 On June 29,2005 we conducted a permanency review 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". Mother has filed this timely appeal in which she alleges that we erred in changing the goal. She also alleges that she was "denied the chance to fully present her case."l FACTUAL BACKGROUND Mother and her former husband are the natural parents of four children, including these two girls. In December of2003 Mother had a fifth child to her paramour. Feeling overwhelmed, she asked the agency to put her four older children into placement? However, rather than place the children, the Agency made arrangements for their father and the paternal grandmother to keep the children for a few days to give mother a respit.3 By May of2004 there were numerous agencies providing services to the family. On May 11, 2004 an interagency meeting was held to discuss "major concerns" with 1 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of', p. 3. 2 Transcript of Proceedings, June 29,2005, p. 28. 3 Transcript of Proceedings, June 29,2005, p. 29. NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 regard to the children's well being.4 Despite having been invited to attend, mother did not do so.s After the meeting, the agency caseworker and the family based team went out to meet with mother to discuss some of their concerns.6 Rather than work to address their concerns, mother stated that she no longer wanted her four older children, desiring instead to start a new life with her boyfriend and their new baby.? As a result of the May 11, 2004 meeting the four older children were placed by the Agency. 8 The two older children went into the custody of their father and paternal grandmother, where they remain today. The two girls at issue in these proceedings were each placed with mother's sisters.9 After a brief stay with their maternal aunts, these girls quickly ended up together in the same foster home where they have remained for almost thirteen months. 10 Shortly after the placement of her four older children, mother expressed a desire to have them adopted. On repeated occasions the Agency counseled her that she should not be so quick to give up on her children.ll Nevertheless, mother approached the foster mother in July of 2004 to ask if she would consider adopting these girls. 12 Mother visited with the children sporadically until September of2004. She has not had any visits with them since then.13 She did attend the permanency review hearing that was held on November 10, 2004. At that time the Agency, the Guardian Ad Litem, 4 Transcript of Proceedings, June 29,2005, p. 24. 5 Transcript of Proceedings, June 29,2005, p. 24. 6 Transcript of Proceedings, June 29,2005, p. 24. 7 Transcript of Proceedings, June 29,2005, p. 24. 8 The exact date of placement is not clear in the record. It could have been as early as May 11, 2005. In no event was it later than May 17, 2005. See Recommendation of Master approved by order dated May 20, 2004. 9 See Recommendation of Master approved by order dated May 20,2004. 10 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 34. 11 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 32. 12 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 36. 13 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 6. 2 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 and the children's natural father were all requesting a goal change to adoption.14 The Juvenile Master recommended that the goal remain "return home" because Mother was still "unsure of what she wants to have happen.,,1s The Master concluded his report with the following: Counsel for the children's mother indicates that the system has failed her and that she should continue to have an opportunity to reunite with her children. Mother was advised that she needed to cooperate with the Agency and work actively to attempt to get her children back. Since it is an early date to change the goal to adoption, it is recommended that the present placements continue with the goal to remain to return home unless progress is made, a change of goal to adoption should be seriously considered at the next permanency hearing. (emphasis added). 16 The next permanency review was scheduled to be held before the Master on May 25, 2005. At the commencement of the hearing mother exercised her right to have the review held before this court rather than the Master.17 We conducted the permanency review on June 29,2005. Mother had not seen these girls smce September of last year.18 She made no attempt to see or contact them until May 25, 2005, when her attorney informed the Agency that she wanted to resume visits. 19 Furthermore, despite the Juvenile Master's 14 See Master's Report of November 10,2004, Permanency Hearing approved by order of court, dated December 28,2004. 15 See Master's Report of November 10, 2004, Permanency Hearing approved by order of court, dated December 28,2004. 16 See Master's Report of November 10, 2004, Permanency Hearing approved by order of court, dated December 28,2004. 17 See Master's Report of May 25,2005, approved by order of court dated, May 31, 2005. 18 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 6. 19 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 8. The Agency refused to schedule visitation on the advice of the children's therapist. 3 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 admonition in November, mother had virtually no contact with the Agency between the last permanency review hearing and May 25, 2005?0 The children have thrived in their current foster placement. They have bonded with, and have become an integral part of, their foster family. They were unhappy, developmentally delayed and heavily medicated at the time they came into the foster home.21 They are now happy, developmentally on track and off their medications.22 The foster parents love these girls as their own children and stand prepared to adopt them. DISCUSSION The law is clear that our focus in a change of goal proceedings 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: JR., 788 A.2d 1006, 1008 (Pa.Super. 2001). As the JR. 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 more than 13 months before we changed the goal to adoption. Despite encouragement from the Agency, and warnings from the Master, mother did absolutely nothing to implement the service plan formulated to reunify her 20 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 62. 21 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 35. 22 Transcript of Proceedings, p. 35. 4 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 with these children. To the contrary, she seemed intent on giving up the girls and starting a new life with her boyfriend and their child.23 We did not believe mother's claim that she was pressured by the Agency to give these children up for adoption or risk losing her youngest child. The allegation has no basis in the evidence or in common sense. It was she who approached the foster parents regarding the adoption of her children. Furthermore, she was represented by counsel throughout all of her dealings with the Agency. We did believe that the Agency was actually encouraging mother to work toward reunification. We found the caseworker's testimony in the following exchange to be credible and persuasive: THE COURT: MR. BERRY: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Where are we going here, Mr. Berry? . . I would ask for a little latitude. What I'm trying to get some glimmer of from these witnesses is something that they obviously don't want to say, which is that they were pressuring mom at that time to give up the two that were in foster care. Ask them. Were you pressuring mom at that time to give up the two in foster care? I several times said, Charolette, I don't want to - - call your attorney if that's something that you want to talk about. No, I would never have that conversation with her. I and several other people have gone out and talked to Charolette about, let's just get - - you know, do what you need to do. We're not saying, let's get rid of your kids forever. I don't want to talk about terminating your rights and adoption. I've had that conversation with her several times. What conversation, the conversation to comply with the terms of the permanency plan? Exactly. Work on what you need to do to get your kids back. Let's not talk about adoption. Let's just do what you need to do now. That was her - - I mean, her focus of the conversations with me, that's what it was, I want to terminate my rights, I'm not interested, I'm done. How do I do it? I have several times told her to call Dirk Berry about talk to him about that, that I wasn't going to - - that 23 Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 27 - 28. 5 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 THE COURT: that was something that she needed to talk to her attorney about. Mr. Berry has been involved as long as you have been involved in this case? Correct . . . He was assigned when we first went to court in May, correct. THE WITNESS: Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 31 - 33. It was not until the scheduled hearing on May 25,2005 that mother gave any indication of her willingness to work toward reunification. By that time the children had been in placement for more than 12 months. They had not seen their mother in more than 8 months. The older sister's counselor indicated that the child "has thrived" in the foster home and that contact "with her mother would have a negative impact on (her) and seriously undo the progress she has made in the (foster) household."24 The children have been part of the same foster family for thirteen months. The foster parents are willing to adopt them. The opportunity to live permanently in their current placement, a safe, healthy, and loving environment, is clearly in their best interests. Therefore, we changed the goal from return home to adoption. We have reviewed the record in detail to determine the basis for mother's allegation that we limited her ability to fully present her case. While there were times that we wondered aloud at the relevancy of certain evidence, we did not prevent her from presenting it. The following exchange illustrates the point: BY MR. BERRY: Q. In the early part of2004, who was your attorney? A.... THE COURT: I don't care about the early part of2004. Mr. Berry, if you want to lay a foundation, tell me what the foundation is. This is a permanency hearing. Let's get to the point of the matter. I want to know what this lady has done in the last six months when she was told the goal may be changed. What are you trying to establish? 24 See Agency Exhibit 8. 6 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 161 - 2003 MR. BERRY: THE COURT: MR. BERRY: THE COURT: MR. BERRY: THE COURT: MR. BERRY: THE COURT: MR. BERRY: THE COURT: She was scared, Your Honor, and she made some mistakes. The foundation for the mistakes is significant. She made a couple of mistakes because she was scared. Don't play games with me. Tell me what it is. The offer of proof is that she was represented by a different attorney, because Children and Youth was only going to seek dependency on the four children. Children and Youth, because she was uncooperative in the spring of2004, added the fifth child as punishment. I was then appointed to the case. That's what you're saying? That's the offer of proof. That's what I think the evidence will show. I need to get it on the record. I'm not concerned. I'm concerned about what you and her did the last six months when Master Flower made part of his report, and I affirmed it, that, okay, the time has come that we're going to reunite or change the goal to adoption. That other stuff is history, Mr. Berry. It's not entirely history. She may have been scared. You're a professional. You have been dealing with Children and Youth for years. Let's proceed. If I might finish the offer of proof. Ask her the questions, then, okay? You can lead her. Get it on. If that's what you want to do, get it on the record.25 While we questioned the relevancy of the evidence (and still do), in the end we allowed counsel to present it. However, as noted above, we did not believe it. DATE Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire Dirk Berry, Esquire Megan Malone, Esquire Jacqueline M. Verney, Esquire Juvenile Probation 25 Transcript of Proceedings Edward E. Guido, 1. 7