Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0127-2002 IN THE MATTER OF N.C., BORN MARCH 29, 1992 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE MATTER OF S.C., BORN JULY 3,1998 IN THE MATTER OF M.C., BORN JUNE 11, 1999 NO. CP-21- mVENILE 127 - 2002 IN THE MATTER OF L.C., BORN DECEMBER 28,2000 IN THE MATTER OF AC., BORN JANUARY 14, 2004 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925 Guido, J., February 1, 2006 On November 9,2005, we conducted a permanency review hearing in connection with the above siblings. We changed the goal for N.C. from "return home" to "another planned placement intended to be permanent."l We changed the goal of AC. from "return home" to "adoption". We changed the goal ofL.C. from "return home" to "placement with a fit and willing relative".2 S.C. and M.C. were placed in the care and custody of their father subject to protective supervision by the agency? Mother has filed this timely appeal from that portion of our order dealing with N.C., AC., and L.C. In effect, she contends that we erred in changing each child's goal.4 1 See Order of Court dated November 9, 2005. 2 See Order of Court dated November 9, 2005. 3 See Order of Court dated November 9, 2005. While all of the children have the same mother, there are several different fathers involved. S.C. and M.C. share the same father who is now able to provide them with a safe and loving home. 4 See "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal." CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 FACTUAL BACKGROUND All of appellant's children were found to be dependent and placed outside of the home in March of 2003. Their first permanency review was held before the dependency Master in October 2003. The Master summarized the family's circumstances as follows. This hearing concerns four children ofYC., N.C., age 11; S.C., age 5; M.C., age 4; and L.C., age 2. They were placed when YC. identified B.G. as her boyfriend and was allowing him to be with her children. He had been in prison for five years after attempting rape against an II-year old girl, and has since been returned to prison on another sexual offense. The children's mother, Yc., was listed as a result as an indicated perpetrator of imminent risk of sexual abuse by omission. She was recently in York County prison on a violation of her probation relating to bad check charges. She is scheduled for trial in Cumberland County for theft by unlawful taking in November. She is currently pregnant with her fifth child which is due in January. The children's mother had a drug and alcohol evaluation from Roxbury, which did not result in a recommendation of any drug and alcohol treatment but did recommend mental health counseling. She had a psychiatric evaluation on May 22, 2003 resulting in a diagnosis of poly- substance abuse by history, adjustment disorder, chronic, unspecified and personality disorder not otherwise specified, and a recommendation of individual therapy. She clearly has a history of extremely poor judgment and instability. N.C.'s father is a Megan's Law offender until 2010, and cannot currently be a resource for him. The father of S.C. and M.C. is in prison at least until May of2004. L.C.'s father is in Cumberland County prison on a parole violation. The youngest child, L.C., continues in placement with her paternal grandmother. . . The other three children, N.C. S.C. and M.C. have been placed with paternal grandmother, N.C. through August 4,2003 and now are all in the foster home of Jack and Rose Heisey. 5 AC. was born on January 28,2004 and was allowed to remain in the care and custody of appellant YC. By March 2004, YC. had made some progress. Although she 5 See "Comments" to Master's Report for October 17,2003, permanency hearing. 2 CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 remained dependent, L.C. was returned to yc.'s care and custody. However, there were still some areas of concern as noted by the Master at the permanency review hearing in April 2004: This hearing concerns the three children ofYC. who are still in placement N.C., age 12; S.C., age 5; and M.C., age 4. . . . Since the last review, the youngest child L.C. was returned to her mother's care and YC. has had another child who is now three (3) months old. YC. has begun the TIPS Parenting Program for about a month and participates in family therapy with all of her three (3) children. . . . All the children are doing well in foster care. N.C. has expressed concerns about being put in a position to take care of his siblings. Part of his history is that N.C. was asked to be a primary caretaker of his younger siblings. He has concerns about whether his mother will get herself together so that he can come home. He unequivocally stated that he wants to go home. S.C. has also shared with her therapist that the girls were typically left alone with N.C. and was concerned about whether she would have adequate supervision in her mother's house.6 In June 2004, YC. was arrested for driving under the influence. She was incarcerated for more than a month, necessitating the placement of the two children in her custody. L.C. returned to her paternal grandmother. AC. was found to be dependent and placed in a foster home. Both children have remained in those placements ever since. The next permanency review hearing occurred in October of2004. The Master summarized the family's circumstances in his report as follows: N.C., S.C. and M.C. are in the Cressler foster home. L.C. is in the care of her paternal grandmother, and AC. is in the Tober foster home. They are all doing well in their placements. YC. has made some progress. She continues with her individual counseling and is employed full time. She is active in her church and gets considerable support from church members. Her counselor is working on her issue of a tendency to form relationships with men who may be unsuitable. It was recommended at that hearing that YC. cooperate with completing a psychiatric evaluation, continue with her individual 6 See "Comments" to Master's Report for April 16, 2004, permanency hearing. 3 CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 counseling and drug and alcohol counseling and continue with her family counseling with the girls. . . . Nathan continues to prefer not to see his mother, expressing to his counselor that he has been disappointed so many times in the past that he does not wish to be vulnerable to that disappointment again.7 Several hearings were held before the Master and this Court during the year 2005. For most of the year, Mother had maintained full time employment and stable housing. In addition, she has stayed drug and alcohol free. However, her judgment and parenting skills were still an issue.8 On the other hand, the children were thriving in their respective placements. Because the agency was requesting a goal change, the next permanency hearing was scheduled before us on July 27, 2005. Despite the fact hat the older children had been in placement for more than 2 years and AC. for all but 6 months of her life, we ordered that the goal remain "return home.,,9 We scheduled another permanency hearing for November 9,2005. By the time of the November 9,2005 hearing several relevant developments had occurred. All of the children except L.C. had been moved into the same foster home as AC. Albeit through no fault of her own, mother had lost her job and was in very real danger of losing her housing. She was not in a position to provide a safe and stable home to any of her children at that time.10 The father ofM.C. and S.C. was back in the picture 7 See "Comments" to Master's Report for October 27,2004, permanency hearing. 8 See "Recommendations of Master" approved by Order dated June 29,2005. 9 See Order dated July 27,2005. Mother had progressed to the point that we felt unsupervised visitation with the girls was appropriate. The father of M. C. and S. C. had been released from prison, found work and was working toward re-establishing his relationship with his daughters. N.C. had been meeting with his mother in a therapeutic setting and some limited progress was being made. Therefore, we felt that "return home" was still an appropriate goal. 10 We also shared the concerns of N.C. 's therapist regarding mother's poor judgment when it came to the emotional well being of her children. 4 CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 and had re-established his relationship with them. He had also completed all the goals of his permanency plan. For that reason, we placed S.C. and M.C. in his care and custody. 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 A2d 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 A2d 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). N.C. had been in placement for over 30 months at the time of the November 9, 2005 hearing. Except for a brief period in 2004, L.C. had been in placement as long. AC. had been in the same foster home for 17 of the 22 months she has been alive. N.C. is now a teenager. His therapist expressed concerns about his emotional and mental stability and suggested that "permanency would be the best thing" for him. 11 Permanency was also our paramount concern, not only for N.C., but for AC. and L.C. as well. N.C. had been placed into the same foster home as his sister AC. The foster parents are providing a safe, secure, loving environment. They stand willing to adopt N.C. and AC. Because his therapist felt that continued contact with his mother would be 11 Transcript of November 9, 2005, proceedings, pp. 13, 15. 5 CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 beneficial to N.C. we changed his goal to "another planned placement intended to be permanent" rather than to adoption as requested by the agency. The only true parents AC. has ever known are her foster parents. She has bonded with them. She needs permanency and they stand ready, willing and able to provide that to her. We were satisfied that a change of goal to adoption was appropriate for her. 12 L.C. was thriving in the home of her paternal grandmother. She has been receiving individual counseling and participates in the Head Start Program. A goal change to placement with a fit and willing relative was necessary to provide her with the permanency to which she is entitled after so many months in placement. DATE Edward E. Guido, 1. Jane Adams, Esquire Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire David Lopez, Esquire Megan Malone, Esquire Kathleen Shaulis, Esquire Sean Shultz, Esquire Michael Whare, Esquire Juvenile Probation CCC& YS CASA :sld 12 However, the record is not clear as to the bonding, if any, between AC. and her mother. Therefore, before commencing adoption proceedings we directed the agency "to obtain a bonding assessment between (AC.) and her mother to determine whether or not loss of contact will do damage to the child." See Order of Court dated November 9, 2005. 6