Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-0127-2002 (3) IN THE MATTER OF N.C., BORN March 29,1992 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPENDENT mVENILES NO. CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RA.P. 1925 Guido, J., April ,2006 After a permanency review hearing on November 9,2005 we changed the goal for N.C. from "return home" to "another planned placement intended to be permanent."l Mother's appeal of that order is still pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On February 8,2006 and February 15, 2006 we conducted another permanency review in connection with the placement of N.C. and his siblings. At the conclusion of those hearings we changed N.C.'s goal from "another planned placement intended to be permanent" to "adoption." Mother has filed the instant appeal from that last order. In effect she alleges that we erred in changing the goal to adoption. 2 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 11 year old girl, and has since been returned to prison on another sexual offense. The 1 See Order of Court dated November 9, 2005. 2 See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. NO. CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 children's mother, Y c., was listed 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 form 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 polysubstance 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? By March 2004, YC. had made some progress. Although she 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 (AC.) 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 3 See "Comments" to Master's Report for October 17,2003, permanency hearing. 2 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 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. (emphasis added).4 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. The next permanency review hearing occurred in October of 2004. 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 form 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 counseling and drug and alcohol counseling and continue with her family counseling with the girls. . . . N.C. 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. (emphasis added)5 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 had stayed drug and alcohol free. However, her judgment and parenting 4 See "Comments" to Master's Report for April 16, 2004, permanency hearing. 5 See "Comments" to Master's Report for October 27,2004, permanency hearing. 3 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 skills were still an issue.6 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 that 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."? 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.8 The father ofM.C. and S.C. was back in the picture 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. At the conclusion of the November 9,2005 review, we changed the goal of N.C. from "return home" to another planned placement intended to be permanent. We explained the reason for our decision as follows: N.C. had been in placement for over 30 months at the time of the November 9,2005 hearing. (He) is now a teenager. His therapist expressed concerns about his emotional mental stability and suggested that "permanency would be the best thing" for him. Permanency was also our paramount concern. . . 6 See "Recommendations of Master" approved by Order dated June 29,2005. 7 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. 8 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 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 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 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.9 By the time of the most recent permanency review in February of this year; it was clear that N.C. was making progress in his therapy because of the stable, secure and loving home the foster parents had provided to him.10 His therapist was now recommending a change of goal to adoption. 11 The foster parents still stand ready to adopt N.C. as well as his sister AC.12 Last but certainly not least, N.C. strongly desires to be adopted by his current foster parents. 13 N. C. had the courage to tell his mother why he wanted to be adopted. As he stated in a letter to her: Dear Mom First, no hard feelings but, I want to get adopted. I want to get adopted because I like where I'm at, . . . I'm scared to come home, and I don't want to. I'm scared to come home because I could land back up in foster care if you screw up, again. I don't want to come home because you've had too many boys in your life and because you lie to me. Those are the reasons I don't want to come home. Second, I feel I don't have a bond with you. I feel I need safety, care, love, and support. In conclusion, I want to be adopted by the (current foster parents) because I love them and respect them, too. That is why I wrote this letter to you. Nathan 14 9 See Rule 1925 Opinion dated February 1,2006. 10 See Transcript of Proceedings, February 8, 2006, p. 87. 11 See Transcript of Proceedings, February 8, 2006, p. 88. 12 See Transcript of Proceedings, February 8, 2006, p. 112. 13 See Transcript of Proceedings, February 8, 2006, p. 94. 14 See N. C. ' s Exhibit # 1. 5 NO. CP-21-mVENILE 127 - 2002 N. C. is the oldest of Y. C.' s children and as such has suffered the most at her hands. He has very deep and painful emotional scars. He is finally in a secure and loving home, a home where the family is willing to adopt him and his sister. He wants to be adopted. He has a real opportunity to achieve emotional stability. While mother has made some progress toward achieving her goals, our focus is not on her. As the Superior Court has stated, we must "determine the goal in accordance with the child's best interests, not those of his or her parents." In re: JR., 788 A.2d 1006, 100 (Pa.Super 2001). In the instant case, we were convinced that it is N.C.'s best interest to change his goal to adoption. DATE Edward E. Guido, J. Jane Adams, Esquire Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire Kathleen Shaulis, Esquire Ruby Weeks, Esquire Michael Whare, Esquire Juvenile Probation :sld 6