HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-DP-0000204-2008
IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
D.I., :
D.O.B. 9/04/2008 : CP-21-DP-204 – 2008
:
:
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J. October , 2010
On July 26, 2010 following a lengthy permanency review hearing we changed the
goal for D.I. from “return home” to “adoption”. Mother has filed this timely appeal in
which she claims we erred in changing the goal. She also alleges that her procedural and
substantive due process rights were violated. Since neither due process claim was raised
before us, we will limit our discussion to the reasons for the goal change.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
D.I. was born on September 4, 2008. She was placed with the current foster
parents two days later upon her discharge from the hospital. She is one of four children
born to Mother in the 33 months between the end of December 2005 and the beginning of
September 2008. She is one of 15 children sired by Father. At the time of her birth all of
Mother’s children were in the Agency’s care. Further, none of the Father’s children were
living with him. Some were in the care of various agencies throughout the state and
others lived with relatives.
At the time D.I. came into care the Agency was in the process of terminating
1
Mother’s parental rights to her other three children. In order to avoid the same fate for
D.I., intensive reunification efforts were put in place. The services were designed to
1
All four of Mother’s children, including D.I., share the same father.
CP-21-DP-204-2008
address Mother’s poor parenting skills, mental health issues, financial instability and
inadequate housing.
Mother cooperated fully with the Agency. While she made steady progress in
2
several areas, the most significant progress occurred in the last six months. In that time
period she obtained stable housing and made substantial progress on both her parenting
skills and mental health issues. However, she was still not capable of independently
parenting D.I.
It is questionable whether Mother will ever be able to parent independently. She
has been receiving parent training since the Agency became involved with her other
3
children in March of 2006. Despite intensive efforts by her current parent trainer she is
still not able to parent on her own. The trainer feels that “she will be able to parent the
4
child independently in the future.” When we pressed her for a time frame she responded
5
“I would hope three months would be sufficient.” On the other hand the CASA
volunteer, whose testimony we found to be persuasive, felt that Mother would not ever be
6
able to effectively parent “without constant coaching.” Furthermore, the CASA
7
volunteer’s position was supported by the other testimony. The caseworker also had
concerns over Mother’s ability to parent D.I. independently. She indicated that once
custody was returned to Mother intensive in home services would be needed for six
2
Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 14, 26.
3
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 25.
4
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 42.
5
Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 42 – 44.
6
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 62.
7
During a brief period in late May and early June when her various support providers were on vacation at
the same time, Mother’s parenting abilities regressed.
2
CP-21-DP-204-2008
months. She further testified that she was “unsure” if Mother would be able to parent
8
independently at the conclusion of that time frame.
Mother has made very little progress in the area of financial stability. While she
has worked extensively with a job coach since January 2009, she has not obtained
employment except for a temporary job during the last Christmas season. She is living
on cash assistance of $205 per month plus food stamps. Her stable housing was made
9
possible through the Rapid Re-housing Project which pays her rent for 18 months. She
has not had full time employment since a job with K-Mart which lasted for about 9
months in 2005. Furthermore, she has a poor history of managing her finances. She
squandered a $100,000 windfall in less than nine months after receiving it in 2007.
The child has formed a bond with both Mother and her foster parents. While the
bonding evaluator could not say which was stronger, the evidence suggested that it is the
one with the foster family. She had limited contact with Mother for the first year of her
life. When visitation increased significantly in May of this year, the child would “scream
10
and kick” during the exchanges. It was clear that she did not want to leave the foster
11
parents. The tantrums would last anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes.
Furthermore, the CASA volunteer described the child’s attachment as follows:
I’ve been to Mother’s apartment probably as much as the caseworkers have been,
and I’ve been to the foster parents. I have to say that that child is much happier
and much more engaged, much more active when she’s with the foster parents. I
mean, that home is fabulous for that child. She is very enamored with foster Dad,
and I believe that’s because he has been the only male role model in her life, and
12
he is her father.
8
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 29.
9
Transcript of Proceedings, pp. 8, 9.
10
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 18.
11
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 18.
12
Transcript of Proceedings, p. 61.
3
CP-21-DP-204-2008
DISCUSSION
In determining whether a goal change is appropriate, our focus must be on the
child and her best interests, not those of the parent. In re: N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa.super.
2006). “Safety, permanency, and well being of the child must take precedence over all
other considerations. . . .” Id. at 823. A goal change to adoption amounts to a
determination that the agency has “provided adequate services to the parent but that
he/she is nonetheless incapable of caring for the child and that, therefore, adoption is now
the favored disposition.” In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 339 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citations
omitted).
In the instant case D.I.’s need for permanency was the deciding factor in our
decision to change the goal to adoption. Despite having been provided training for more
than four years, as well as intensive training services for almost a year, Mother had still
not reached the point where she could independently parent the child. The parent trainer
“hoped” that she could achieve such a goal in three months; the caseworker was “unsure”
if she could attain that goal in six months, and the CASA volunteer was reluctantly forced
to conclude that she would never be able to parent effectively “without constant
coaching.” We found the CASA volunteer’s assessment of Mother to be the most
13
credible.
We also had serious concerns regarding the permanency of a placement with
Mother. Even if she achieved the goal of being able to parent independently (which we
were satisfied she would not), her ability to maintain stable housing and to adequately
provide for D.I. is problematic at best. Despite working intensively with a job coach for
13
The CASA volunteer has worked with Mother continuously for more than three years.
4
CP-21-DP-204-2008
more than 18 months she was unable to secure any meaningful employment. Her only
source of income is cash assistance, which is finite, as is the free rent on her home.
All of the witnesses agreed on the following facts. Mother is not able to
independently parent at the current time. D.I. has been waiting more than 22 months.
She is happy, healthy and secure in the foster home where she has lived all of her life.
There is a strong mutual bond between her and the foster parents who stand ready to
adopt her. Based upon those facts alone we were convinced that her permanency and
well being would best be served by a change of goal to adoption.
__________________ _____________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire
John Mangan, Esquire
Sean Shultz, Esquire
Jacqueline M. Verney, Esquire
CCC&YS
CASA
:sld
5