Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0141-2004 IN THE MATTER OF AK., BORN FEB. 4, 2004 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE MATTER OF LX., BORN FEB. 4, 2004 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 141 - 2004 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925 Guido, J., March , 2006 On November 30,2005, we conducted a permanency review hearing in connection with the dependency placement of 22 month old twin sisters AK. and L.K. At the conclusion of the hearing we changed the goal from "return home" to "adoption". Both parents have filed timely appeals from that order. The issues raised on appeal by the parties are virtually identical. They contend that we erred in changing the goal to adoption because each parent had cooperated with the agency and had completed, or substantially completed, the goals of his/her permanency plan. 1 They also contend that we erred in changing the goal without considering the children's bond with their parents.2 We will discuss each issue in the opinion that follows. Factual Background On June 4,2004 these girls were placed on an emergency basis because of suspected physical abuse. Over the next few months several hearings were conducted before the Dependency Master. On January 12, 2005, we approved the Master's Report 1 See each party's "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)", paragraph 3. 2 See each party's "Concise Statement of Matters Complained of Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)", paragraph 5. CP-21-mVENILE 141 - 2004 and adopted his recommendations that 1) the children were abused; 2) they were dependent; 3) father perpetrated the abuse; 4) mother was responsible for the abuse by omissions; and 5) aggravated circumstances existed as to both parents.3 Both parents filed timely appeals from that order. In our "Opinion Pursuant to Pa. RAP. 1925" filed in connection with that appeal, we summarized the facts leading to placement. As we noted: AK. and L.K. were placed on an emergency basis because of suspected physical abuse. Pictures taken of the babies on that date showed that each child had extensive bruising on her face and body as well as dried blood under her fingernails and toenails. Skeletal surveys were performed on each child at the Hershey Medical Center. AK.'s survey showed that she had sustained 18 rib fractures and 12 fractures of her arms and legs. In addition, she had a possible skull fracture. Her sister L.K. had sustained 17 rib fractures. All of the fractures on each child were in various stages of healing, indicating that they occurred at different time. Dr. Danielle Boal interpreted the skeletal survey. She is board certified in radiology and pediatrics. It was her opinion that the majority of the fractures could not have been caused accidentally. She further opined that they were caused by various intentional actions, i.e. shaking the children, as well as bending and jerking their extremities. Other physicians testified regarding the non fracture injuries, including the blood under the fingernails and toenails, as well as the extensive bruising. They concluded that the majority, if not all, of those injuries had been intentionally caused.4 Both parents were eventually convicted of criminal charges in connection with the injuries inflicted upon their children. Each was sentenced to prison the week before the permanency review hearing. Mother received a four to twelve month sentence in the Cumberland County Prison. Father was sentenced to serve three to ten years in a state 3 See orders of January 12, 2005, with Master's Report and Recommendation attached thereto. Although the existence of aggravated circumstances, we issued orders directing the agency to work toward reunification. 4 See our July 25,2005, "Opinion Pursuant to Pa. RA.P. 1925", p. 2. We note that the Superior Court affirmed our decision in a "Memorandum Opinion" dated December 29,2005. 2 CP-21-mVENILE 141 - 2004 correctional institution. Mother will be eligible for parole soon. Father will not be eligible for parole until the end of November, 2008. DISCUSSION The law is clear that our focus in a change of goal proceedings must be on the child. In re: ALD., 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. 2002). 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). While the parents were cooperating with the agency, and had achieved most, if not all, of the goals of their respective permanency plans, there had been virtually no progress "towards alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement." See In re: JR. supra. Despite having been convicted and sentenced, neither parent stood willing to accept responsibility for his or her actions.S Notwithstanding overwhelming medical evidence that the multiple injuries to these children were intentionally caused, father remained adamant that they were caused accidentally, and mother still believed him.6 5 Both parties entered pleas pursuant to what mother described as a "plea agreement package deal." Transcript of Proceedings, November 30, 2005, p. 41. 6 See Transcript of Proceedings, November 30, 2005, pp. 38-39,48-49. 3 CP-21-mVENILE 141 - 2004 As long as they remain in denial, neither parent can properly address the issues that led to the abuse of these children. Until those underlying issues are addressed, it will not be safe for the children to return home.7 Since the children had been in placement only 4 days shy of 18 months, and since there was no foreseeable date when the goal of "return home" might be achieved, we felt that a change of goal to adoption was appropriate. Both sisters have been with the same foster parents since the time of their placement. They have formed a very real bond with those foster parents as well as their extended family. The girls have thrived in the safe and loving environment provided by the foster family. Furthermore, the foster parents have indicated a willingness to adopt them. These children are entitled to permanency and a change of goal to adoption by the foster parents will achieve that goal. We note that we did consider the level of bonding between the children and their parents before we determined that a goal change was appropriate. Both parents had participated regularly in weekly supervised visits, as did the paternal grandparents. The evidence regarding the children's bond with those parties was not as comprehensive as we would have liked. Seeking professional input on the issue, we included the following provision in our order: Regular visitation shall continue with the paternal grandparents and mother in the Cumberland County Prison until a bonding assessment has been completed vis-a- vis the children, their mother, and the paternal grandparents to determine whether it is in their best interest to continue contact with those parties as we move forward with the adoption proceedings. 8 7 We are satisfied that father is still a threat to abuse these children and that mother is still a threat to allow it to happen. 8 See order dated November 30, 2005. Because of father's lengthy incarceration, a bonding assessment involving him was not practical. 4 CP-21-mVENILE 141 - 2004 DATE Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire Megan Malone, Esquire Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esquire Jacqueline M. Verney, Esquire :sld Edward E. Guido, 1. 5