J-A06028-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: U.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 2617 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP- 52-DP-0000023-2021 IN THE INTEREST OF: N.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 2618 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP- 52-DP-0000024-2021 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 2619 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP- 52-DP-0000025-2021 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA J-A06028-25

: : APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 2620 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP- 52-DP-0000026-2021 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: K.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 2621 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered September 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): CP- 52-DP-0000027-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2025 Appellant, K.V. (“Mother”) appeals from the September 5, 2024 order that changed the permanency goal of her five children, thirteen-year-old U.G., eleven-year-old A.G., nine-year-old N.G., seven-year-old S.G., and five-year- old S.G. (collectively, “Children”), from Reunification to Adoption. 1 Upon review, we affirm. ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Children’s father is not a party to this appeal.

-2- J-A06028-25

We glean the following procedural and factual history from the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion and the certified record. Mother and S.G. (“Father”) are parents to Children but are currently separated. In August 2021, the Pike County Children and Youth Services (the “Agency”) obtained emergency custody of Children and placed then in foster care due to concerns over Mother’s unstable mental health and parents’ inadequate housing. In December of 2021, after Father secured adequate housing, the court determined that Father was ready, willing, and able to care for Children, ordered Children to be placed in Father’s care, and terminated court- supervision. At the time, Mother was only minimally compliant with court- ordered services.

After the trial court dismissed supervision, Father returned Children to Mother’s care. In March 2023, the Agency once again obtained emergency custody of Children and placed them together in a potentially pre-adoptive foster home. Since Children have been in placement, Mother has failed to comply with court-ordered objectives and failed to make any progress towards reunification. On September 4, 2025, after a hearing, the court found that Mother failed to comply with recommended mental health treatment, failed to participate in a parenting capacity evaluation, failed to attend parenting classes, failed to consistently attend visitation, did not currently have adequate housing after she was recently evicted, and that a goal change to Adoption would be in Children’s best interest. On September 5, 2025, the

-3- J-A06028-25

Court ordered the Agency to change Children’s permanency goals from Reunification to Adoption.

Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Mother raises a sole issue for our review: “Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in changing the goal from return home to parent or guardian to adoption.” Mother’s Br. at 11.

We review a trial court’s decision to change a child’s permanency goal to Adoption for an abuse of discretion. In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, this Court “must determine that the court’s judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not apply the law, or that the court’s action was a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the record.”

Interest of H.J., 206 A.3d 22, 25 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). Our standard of review in dependency cases requires this Court “to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law.” R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190.

This Court is “not in a position to make the close calls based on fact-specific determinations.” Id. Rather, “we must defer to the trial judges who see and hear the parties and can determine the credibility to be placed on each witness and, premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of the success of the current permanency plan.” Id. Notably, even if this Court “would have made a -4- J-A06028-25

different conclusion based on the cold record, we are not in a position to reweigh the evidence and the credibility determinations of the trial court.” Id. The overarching purpose of the Juvenile Act, which governs goal change requests, is “[t]o preserve the unity of the family whenever possible or to provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1). At each dependency review hearing, the trial court must consider, inter alia, the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the child’s placement, the extent of compliance with the permanency plan, the extent of progress made toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the child’s placement, the appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child, the likely date the goal might be achieved, and the child’s safety. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f). The focus of goal change proceedings, like all dependency proceedings, is on “the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child and the best interests of the child must take precedence over all other considerations.” H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. “The parent’s rights are secondary in a goal change proceeding.” In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The Agency has the burden to show that a goal change would serve the child’s best interests. Id. If reunification with the child’s parent or guardian is not in the child’s best interest, the trial court may determine that Adoption is the appropriate permanency goal. H.J., 206 A.3d at 25; 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1)(2). Notably, “Adoption may not be an appropriate permanency goal -5- J-A06028-25

if severing an existent parent-child bond would have a detrimental effect on a child.” H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. Further, “[b]ecause the focus is on the child’s best interests, a goal change to [A]doption might be appropriate, even when a parent substantially complies with a reunification plan.” R.M.G., 997 A.2d at 347.

This Court has held that placement in a pre-adoptive home should be completed within 18 months. H.J., 206 A.3d at 25. “A child’s life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.” In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). “Thus, even where the parent makes earnest efforts, the court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s need for permanence and stability to a parent’s claims of progress and hope for the future.” R.M.G., 997 A.2d at 347 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As an initial matter, Mother’s argument section is substantially underdeveloped. To support her claims, Mother merely provides boilerplate law regarding permanency review hearings by citing Section 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, which lists the “[m]atters to be determined at a permanency hearing.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f). Under each subsection, Mother simply gives her opinion about what the trial court’s finding should be without any citation to the record or relevant authority. As such, Mother fails to apply the facts of this case to the law that she provides to assert any actual trial court error with regards to the dispositions for Mother’s five Children.

-6- J-A06028-25

It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P 2119(a)-(c). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure [] state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (listing argument requirements for appellate briefs). “When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] a [c]ourt will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). It is not the role of this Court to develop an appellant’s argument where the brief provides mere cursory legal discussion.

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 925 (Pa. 2009). This Court “will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012).

Because Mother fails to apply the law to the facts of this case in a meaningful and coherent manner with citation to the record as required by our Rules of Appellate Procedure and case law, we find that her issue is waived.

Even if this Court did not find Mother’s issue to be waived, we discern no trial court error. After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the trial court’s opinions, we conclude that there is no merit to the -7- J-A06028-25

issue that Mother has raised on appeal. In its Rule 1925(a) opinions, the trial court made factual findings that support changing Children’s permanency goals to Adoption, and those findings are supported in the record. 2 Accordingly, even if we did not find waiver we would affirm on the basis of the trial court’s October 21, 2024 opinions. Id. at 1-4 (finding that Children have been in care for seventeen months, Mother has made minimal compliance towards her goals, the three oldest Children wish to be adopted, Children are healthy and thriving in their foster home placement, Children cannot be safely returned to Mother’s care in the foreseeable future, and a goal change to Adoption is in Children’s best interest).

All parties are instructed to attach a copy of the October 21, 2024 trial court opinions to all future filings.

Order affirmed.

Date: 4/30/2025

____________________________________________

2 The trial court issued a substantially similar Rule 1925(a) opinion with regards to each individual child. Our citation to the trial court opinion refers universally to the opinion issued for each child.

-8- Circulated 04/21/2025 12:31 PR sr ; C

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION DIVISION In The Of: The Interest Of; U• UG a GIM aminor, CP-52-DP-23-2021 €P-52-DP-23-2021 APPEAL OF K.V., Mother 2617 2617 EDA 2024 2024

OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA RULE RULE OF OE APPELL_ATE PROCEDURE APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 AND NOW, this • V !V day of October 2024, after thorough thorough review of the record in in the above- captioned hatter, above-captioned matter, we we continue to to stand by our decision and respectfully request request that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed (filed on September 5, 2024) which changes the goal in in this matter from reunification with aaconcurrent goal of adoption to adoption alone, alone. We believe that the Order, which was issued in the appropriate standardized form, adequately adequately states our factual findings and legal conclusions. conclusions. We respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil

Procedure No. 1925(a). In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters Complained of on on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we would like to add the following: Contrary to Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the record in this matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was in the best interest of the subject child. child. This child and her four siblings have been involved with our dependency court since August August 2021. The undersigned undersigned has been the dependency judge presiding over this family throughout throughout.

Mother and Father are separated. separated. In August August 2021, the child and her siblings were removed from Mother and placed in foster care. At the first permanency review hearing held on or December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the

Page 1of 4

•j• removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate housing housing for this child and her four siblings. As such, the subject child and her siblings siblings were placed placed in Father's physical custody physical custody and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021. It is significant significant to to P , note that white while supervision was terminated because of Father being custody, being able to take custody, Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency permanency plan plan and had made minimal minimal progress progress to alleviate alleviate the the circumstances necessitating placement during necessitating placement during that that review period. period At some At some point after Court point after supervision was Court supervision was terminated, terminated Father's actions resulted Father's actions resulted in in the the children ending up back in Mother's physical physical care.

This child was back in our Dependency Dependency Court as aaresult of the Agency Agency filing filing aa Petition for Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted. granted. The Agency Agency followed up with the filing of aa Dependency Petition. On May 25, 2023, May 25, 2023, following following aa dependency hearing, the dependency hearing, subject child the subject child and and her her four siblings were four siblings determined to were determined to be be dependent dependent children. Our determination that this child was children. appealed by was dependent was appealed by Mother and affirmed by the Superior Court.

The The child and her child and her four four siblings siblings have have now now been been in care for in care for seventeen consecutive seventeen consecutive months. Placement continues to be necessary and appropriate months. appropriate with no foreseeable date by by which which the goal of reunification be achieved. reunification can be achieved. This This child stated that she fccls that shc feels safe in in her her current foster home where her four siblings are also placed. placed. This child is clear that she does not want to return to Mother's care. This child appears to the Court to be be thriving thriving since the the removal from removal from Mother's care. The Mother's care. goal change The goal change allows allows the the Agency Agency to to focus on permanency focus on permanency child. for this child At our November 16, I6, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Hearing, Mother was found to be minimally compliant with the permanence plan and to have made no progress progress toward

Page 2of 4 Page2of4 alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At our March 6, 2024 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance with the plan and to have made no progress toward toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement. At the September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, we again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan and to have made no progress progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement.

Mother has ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address.

Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation. The portion of the parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr. Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding regarding Mother's ability to parent parent and her mental health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and her siblings health. siblings were removed from Mother in March 2023.

2023, The The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing housing for this child. child. The Agency Agency offered Mother services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail avail.

Mother had supervised telephone contact with this child together together with the child's sisters (the three oldest and only female children) which had to be stopped because Mother refused to engage in conversation with the child and would strictly strictly read the Bible to her.

Attempts to redirect Mother's telephone conversations failed. failed. The child was having emotionally and behavioral issues following the telephone calls. calls. Based upon the evidence presented we discontinued Mother's separate telephone conversations with the three oldest and altered it to supervised telephone children and telephone conversations between Mother and all five of the children together. Mother's willingness to participate in supervised visitation as I arranged by the Agency had been inconsistent and limited and concerns during the limited

Page 3of 4 visitations which she has engaged engaged were testified to throughout throughout the permanency permanency review hearings. hearings Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency plan plan and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement. Mother has not expressed a a willingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan or to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement in the placement in the foreseeable future. The foreseeable future. The goal goal of reunification appropriate or reasonably is no longer appropriate feasible. 1 reasonably feasible.' Based on our in-camera interviews with the child and her siblings, our observations of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, the child and her siblings cannot be safely returned retumed to Mother in the foreseeable future. The Agency Agency has made reasonable efforts to work toward reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.

Mother.

We prioritized the safety, permanency and well-being of this child in in granting the goal change goal change to adoption. adoption. We maintain that our decision was made in the best interest of this child. Based upon upon the record, we believe the goal goal change change was appropriate, appropriate, and we Order. respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order BY THE COURT: I: ...±#_th ION. KE iON, KELLY Y A. GAUGHAN, Jr. ', GAUGHAN,J 7 '! ·-· e e cc: John Martin, Esq., for for Mother/Appellant Mother/Appellant p Christian Weed, Esq., for Father for Father Nicholas McIntyre, Nicholas Mcintyre, Esq., Esq., for Pike County Children Pike County Children && Youth Youth Mark Moulton, Moulton, Esq., Guardian ad Esq., Guardian ad litem litem Court Administration Court Administration C,

I We We note note that that Father failed to Father failed to appear appear for for the goal change the goal change hearing hearing and and has has not appealed the not appealed same. Father the same. Father does does not have not suitable housing have suitable for the housing for the child child and has shown and has shown no no intention of of obtaining obtaining the same. the same Page 4of 4 Page4of4 r"

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION DIVISION a The In The Interest Interest Of.

Of: NA• N. Gt, GIB, a aminor, CP-52-DP-24-2021 €P-52-DP-24-2021 APPEAL APPEAL OF OF K.V., K.V., Mother Mother 2618 EDA 2024

OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF PENNSYLVANIA_RULE APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925 AND AND NOW, NOW, this ' ,,,,..- a` 51' day day of October 2024, after after thorough thorough review review of of the record record in the above-captioned in above-captioned matter, we continue to stand by our decision and respectfully request that the Superior Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed (filed on September 5S, 5, 2024) 2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with a which changes a concurrent goal of adoption adoption to adoption alone. We believe that the adoption alone the Order, which was was issued in in the appropriate

standardized form, form, adequately adequately states our factual findings and legal conclusions. We respectfully refer the Superior respectfully Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1925(a).

1925(a). In further response In response to the Concise Statement of the Matters Complained of on Complained on Appeal Appeal filed filed by by the the Appellant, Appellant, we like to we would Like following: to add the following Contrary Contrary to Appellant's Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the record in this matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was in the record in best interest of the subject best subject child. This child and her four siblings have been involved with dependency court since August our dependency August 2021.

2021. The undersigned undersigned has been the dependency judge presiding presiding over this family throughout.

Mother and Father are separated. In August 2021, are separated. 2021. the child and her siblings were were removed removed from Mother and placed care. At the first permanency review hearing placed in foster care. held held on or December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the Page 1of 4

removal, removal, demonstrated that that he he had secured appropriate appropriate housing for this and her four this child and siblings. As siblings. As such, such, the subject subject child and her siblings were placed in Father's physical custody

I and Court supervision and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021 2021. It is significant to

I note that while supervision was while supervision was terminated terminated because because of Father Father being being able to take custody, Mother only minimally Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan and had made minimal progress progress to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement during that period. that review period.

At At some some point supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in point after Court supervision in the children ending children ending up back in up back in Mother's Mother's physical care. physical care This This child child was was back back our Dependency Dependency Court as aaresult result of the the Agency filing aaPetition for for Emergency 9, 2023 which was granted.

Emergency Shelter Care on March 9,2023 granted. The Agency followed up with the filing with the of a filing of aDependency Dependency Petition.

Petition. On May May 25, 2023, following 25,2023, following a a dependency hearing, hearing, the subject child and her four siblings were determined to be dependent children. the subject children. Our determination determination that this child was dependent was appealed by Mother and affirmed by the Superior Court Superior Court.

The child and The and her her four four siblings siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive months. months. Placement Placement continues to be necessary necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable date by which the which goal of the goal of reunification can be reunification can be achieved. achieved. This child child feels safe safe in in her current foster home home where her four where her siblings are also placed. four siblings placed. This This child does not not wish wish to to be returned to to Mother.

Mother. This appears to the Court to be thriving since the removal from Mother's care.

This child appears The goal The change allows the goal change the Agency Agency to focus on on permanency permanency for this this child. child At our At our November November 16, 16, 2023 2023 Permanency Permanency Review Review Hearing, Hearing, Mother was found Mother was found to to be minimally minimally compliant compliant with the permanency permanency plan plan and to have made no progress toward alleviating the alleviating the circumstances circumstances which which necessitated necessitated placement. placement. At our March At our 6, 2024 March 6, 2024

Page 2of 4 Permanency Hearing, Mother was Permanency Review Hearing, was found to not be be in compliance with the plan and to have made no progress progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement. At the September September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, we again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan and to have made no progress again toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement Mother has ongoing, ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address address.

Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation, evaluation. The The portion of the parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr. portion Dr Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental health. health. Further, Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and her siblings were removed from Mother in March 2023. The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing for this child. The Agency offered Mother ejected. services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail.

Mother had supervised supervised telephone contact with this child together with the child's sisters (the (the three oldest and only female children) which had to be stopped because Mother refused to engage engage in conversation with the child and would strictly read the Bible to her.

Attempts Attempts to to redirect redirect Mother's Mother's telephone telephone conversations conversations failed. failed. The The child was was having having emotionally and behavioral issues following emotionally following the telephone telephone calls. Based upon the evidence presented presented we discontinued Mother's separate telephone conversations with the three oldest supervised telephone conversations between Mother and all five of children and altered it to supervised the children together. the children together. Mother's Mother's willingness willingness to to participate participate in in supervised supervised visitation visitation as arranged by arranged by the Agency Agency had been inconsistent and limited, and concerns about Mother's

Page 3of 4 conduct during conduct during those those limited visits visits were were testified testified to to throughout throughout the the permanency permanency review review hearings. hearings Mother Mother has shown an ongoing, ongoing, overall lack of compliance compliance with the permanency plan and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement. placement. Mother has not expressed aawillingness ability to bring willingness to or ability bring herself into into compliance with with the the plan plan or to alleviate the necessitating placement circumstances necessitating placement in the foreseeable future. The goal of reunification is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible. longer appropriate feasible.'1 Based on our in-camera interviews with the child and her siblings, our observations

of Mother, of Mother, and and Mother's Mother's own testimony, testimony, the child and her her siblings be safely returned siblings cannot be returned to Mother to Mother in in the the foreseeable foreseeable future. future. The Agency Agency has has made made reasonable efforts efforts to to work toward reunification but but has not received received cooperation from from Mother.

Mother We prioritized safety, permanency prioritized the safety, permanency and well-being of this child in granting the goal change to goal change to adoption. adoption. We maintain that We maintain that our our decision decision was was made made in in the the best interest of best interest of this this child. Based child. Based upon upon the record, record, we believe the goal change was appropriate, and we respectfully request respectfully that the request that Superior Court the Superior Court affirm affirm our our Order.

Order.

BY THE COURT.

COURT:

., t HON. KE Y A. GA - John Martin, Martin, Esq., for Mother/Appellant I cc: Esq., for Christian Weed, Christian Weed, Esq., Esq., for Father Father Esq., for Nicholas McIntyre, Esq., for Pike Children & Youth Pike County Children Youth Mark Moulton, Esq., Guardian ad litemitem VD Court Administration Court

IWe note that Wenote that Father Father failed failed to appear appear for the goal goal change hearing and has not appealed the same. same. Father does not have suitable housing not have suitable housing for for the the child child and and has has shown shown no no intention intention of of obtaining obtaining the the same. same Page 4 of 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PIKE PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C) JUVENILE DIVISION DIVISION I

Of: : In The Interest Of At Gt A1100M GIM a aminor, mninor, CP-52-DP-26-20i.1 CP-52-DP-26-2021 APPEAL OF K.V., Mother 2620 EDA 2024

OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE APPELLATEPROCEDURE PROCEDURE 1925 1925 J\ AND NOW, this x` 3Fay day of October 2024, after thorough review of the record

in the above-captioned above-captioned matter, we continue to stand by by our decision and respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September September 4, 2024 2024 (filed (filed on September 5, 2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with aaconcurrent goal of adoption to adoption adoption alone. We believe that the Order, which was issued in adoption alone. in the appropriate standardized form, adequately states our factual factual findings and legal conclusions. We respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil No, 1925(a).

Procedure No. In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters Complained of on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we Complained we would like to add the following: Contrary to Appellant's Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the the record record in in this this matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was was in in the best interest of the subject child. This child and her four siblings siblings have been involved with our dependency court since August 2021, 2021. The undersigned has been the dependency judge presiding over this family throughout throughout.

Mother and Father are separated. separated. In August 202I, 2021, the child and her siblings were care. At the first permanency review hearing removed from Mother and placed in foster care. held on or December December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the Page 1of 4 Page1or4 4' removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate housing for this child and her four siblings. As such, the subject child and her siblings were placed in Father's physical custody siblings. custody and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021. It is significant to note that while supervision was was terminated because of Father being able to take custody, Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan plan and had made minimal progress to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement placement during that review period period.

At some point after Court supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in the children ending up back in Mother's physical care care.

This child was back our Dependency Court as a a result of the Agency filing a a Petition for Emergency Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted. granted. The Agency followed up with the filing filing of aaDependency Dependency Petition. On May 25, 2023, following a 25,2023, a dependency hearing, the subject child and and her four siblings were determined to be dependent children. children. Our by the determination that this child was dependent was appealed by Mother and affirmed by the Superior Superior Court.

The child and her four siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive months. Placement continues to be necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable date by which the goal of reunification can be be achieved. This child feels safe in her current foster home home where where her her four siblings are also placed. four siblings placed. This This child child does not wish wish to to be be reunified reunified with Mother. This child appears to the Court to be thriving since the removal from Mother's care care.

The goal change allows the Agency to focus on permanency for this child. goal change At our November 16, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to be minimally minimally compliant with the permanency plan and to have made no progress toward alleviating alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement. At our March 6, 2024

Page 2of 4 i

Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance compliance with the plan plan and to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At the September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, Hearing, we again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan plan and to have made no progress progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement address.

Mother has ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address Mother adamantly adamantly refuses to complete complete the court-ordered parental parental fitness evaluation. The The portion of the parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr. Dr Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental parent and health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and her siblings siblings were removed from Mother removed from Mother in in March March 2023.

2023. The The home home has since been has since been foreclosed foreclosed upon upon and and Mother Mother ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing ejected. housing for this child. The Agency Agency offered Mother services to address her mental health and housing housing issues to no avail.

Mother had supervised telephone contact with this child together with the child's sisters (the three oldest and only female children) which had to be stopped stopped because Mother refused to engage engage in conversation with the child and would strictly strictly read the Bible to her. her Attempts to redirect Mother's telephone conversations failed. failed. The child was having emotionally and behavioral issues following following the telephone telephone calls. Based upon upon the evidence presented we discontinued Mother's separate telephone conversations with the three oldest children and altered it to supervised telephone telephone conversations between Mother and and all five of the the children together. together Mother's willingness to participate in supervised visitation as arranged by the Agency was inconsistent and limited, and concerns regarding Mother's

Page 3of 4 Page0f4 conduct during those limited visits was testified to throughout throughout the permanency permanency review hearings.

Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency permanency plan plan and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement. placement. Mother has not expressed expressed aawillingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan plan or to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement in the foreseeable future. goal of reunification future. The goal is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible.' Based ased on our in - camera interviews with the child and her siblings, our observations in-camera of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, the child and her siblings siblings cannot be safely safely returned to Mother in the foreseeable future. future. The Agency has made reasonable efforts to work toward reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother. from Mother We prioritized the safety, permanency and well-being of this child in granting granting the goal goal change change to adoption. adoption. We We maintain maintain that that our decision was was made in the made in the best best interest interest of this this child. Based upon upon the record, we believe the goal change was appropriate, goal change appropriate, and we respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order.

BY THE COURT:

HON. KEL Y A. GA dHAN,

cc: John Martin, John Martin, Esq., Esq., for Mother/Appellant for Mother/Appellant Christian Weed, Esq., for for Father Nicholas McIntyre, Father Mcintyre, Esq., for Pike County County Children& Youth Children Youth ' Mark Mark Moulton, Esq., Guardian ad Esq., Guardian ad litem litem '-0 Court Administration Court Administration rti u

we note that Father failed to appear for the goal change hearing and has not appealed We appealed the same. same. Father does not have suitable housing for the child and has shown no intention of obtaining the same. same Page 4of 4 J rn r ' r L c . ·, e IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF . I PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION - p ' In The Interest Of: ' - sf ct, a S111WGIM aminor, CP-52-DP-27-2021 C-,• APPEAL OF K.V., Mother 2621 2621 EDA 2024 C.)

OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE APPELLATEPROCEDURE 1925 AND NOW, this ,, O th;e [' day of October 2024, after thorough thorough review of the record in the above-captioned in above- captioned matter, we continue to stand by our decision and respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed 5, (filed on September S, 2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with a a concurrent goal of adoption to adoption alone. alone. We We believe that the Order, which was issued in the appropriate standardized form, adequately states our factual factual findings and legal conclusions. We respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. No, 1925(a).

1925(a). In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters Complained of on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we would like to add the following: Contrary to Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the record in record in this matter matter supports our determination that the goal change to adoption was was in the best interest of the subject child. child. This child and his four siblings have been involved with our dependency court since August 2021 2021. The undersigned has been the dependency judge presiding presiding over this family throughout.

Mother and Father are separated. In In August 2021, this child and his siblings were removed placed in foster care. removed from Mother and placed care. At the first permanency review hearing 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent at the time of the held on or December 7, 202I, Page 1of 4 4 removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate housing housing for this child and his four siblings. As such, the subject child and and his siblings siblings were placed in Father's physical custody physical custody and Court supervision was was terminated terminated one day later, 2021. It later, December 8, 2021 It is is significant significant to to note that while supervision was was terminated because of Father being able to take custody, custody, Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan and had made minimal progress to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement during that review period. placement during period At some point after Court supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in the child and and his siblings ending up back in in Mother's physical care. care This child was back in our Dependency Court as aaresult of the Agency filing aa Petition for Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted. The Agency followed up with the filing filing of aa Dependency Petition.

Petition. On May May 25, 2023, following following aa dependency hearing, the subject child and his four siblings were determined to be dependent children. Our determination that this child was dependent was appealed by Mother and children. affirmed by Court. by the Superior Court The child and his four siblings The siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive months. Placement continues to be necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable date by by which the goal of reunification can be achieved. This child is still young and immature. immature. The child was not able to offer the Court anything persuasive regarding the goal change, but based on our observations, the child appears to be healthy and thriving since the removal from Mother's care. The goal change allows the Agency to focus on permanency for this child.

At our November 16, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to be minimally compliant with the permanency plan and to have made no progress toward

Page 2of 4 alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At our March 6, 2024 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance with the plan and to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At the September 4, 2024 Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing, we again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan and to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement.

Mother has ongoing, ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address.

Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation. The portion of the parental portion parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr. Dr Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and his siblings were health. removed from Mother in March 2023.

2023. The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing for this child. child. The Agency offered Mother services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail avail.

Mother's willingness willingness to participate participate in supervised visitation with this child, as arranged by arranged by the Agency, Agency, has been inconsistent and limited. Concerns regarding Mother's conduct with the child during these limited visits was testified to throughout the permanency review hearings.

Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency plan and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement. Mother has not expressed and a a willingness willingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan or to alleviate the

Page 3of 4 I circumstances necessitating placement in the the foreseeable future. future, The goal of reunification is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible.' feasible. ]

Based on Based on our our in-camera in-camera interviews interviews with the the child child and and his his siblings, our observations siblings, our observations of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, testimony, the child and his siblings siblings cannot be safely safely returned to to Mother in future. The Agency in the foreseeable future. Agency has has made reasonable reasonable efforts efforts to work work toward reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.

Mother We prioritized prioritized the safety, safety, permanency permanency and well-being of this child in granting the goal change to adoption. adoption. We maintain that our decision was made in the best interest of this child. Based upon the record, we believe the goal change was appropriate, and we

respectfully respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order Order.

BY BY THE COURT:

HON. KE Y A. GA ' I HAN, J,

cc: John Martin, Esq., for Mother/Appellant t ., Christian Weed, Esq., for Father �·" i ' ' Melntyrs, Esq., Nicholas McIntyre, Esq., for Pike Pike County County Children Children & Youth Youth c Mark Moulton Moulton,,Esq., Guardian ad liten Court Administration litem - %

t ' - � r -,, "

IWe we note that Father failed to appear appear for the goal goal change hearing and has not appealed the same. same. Father does not have suitable housing housing for the child and has shown no intention of obtaining the same same.

Page 4of 4 • - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PIKE PLEAS OF PIKE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION DIVISION - "' 'g f k

In The Interest Of: la stS• G M, aaminor, ts, minor, CP-52-DP-25-2021 APPEAL OF K.V., Mother T'J 2619 EDA 2024 eci

OPINION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE PROCEDURE 1925 AND NOW, this `_`J) _ day of October 2024, after thorough V"day thorough review of the record in in the above-captioned matter, we we continue to to stand by our decision and respectfully request respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm our Order dated September 4, 2024 2024 (filed (filed on September 5, 2024) which changes the goal in this matter from reunification with a goal of a concurrent goal adoption to adoption alone. alone. We believe that the Order, which was issued in the appropriate appropriate standardized form, adequately states our factual findings and legal conclusions. We legal conclusions. respectfully refer the Superior Court to the same pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1925(a). In further response to the Concise Statement of the Matters Complained of on Appeal filed by the Appellant, we would like to add the following: following: Contrary to Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Appeal, the record in this matter supports our determination that that the goal change to adoption was was in the best interest of the subject child. child. This child and his four siblings siblings have been involved with our dependency court since August 2021. The undersigned undersigned has been the dependency dependency judge judge presiding over this family throughout. throughout.

Mother and Father are separated. In August 2021, this child and his siblings were removed from Mother and placed in foster care. At the first permanency permanency review hearing hearing held on or December 7, 2021, Father, who was not the custodial parent parent at the time of the Page 1of 4

O removal, demonstrated that he had secured appropriate appropriate housing housing for this child and his four and his four siblings. As such, the subject child and his siblings were placed placed in Father's physical physical custody custody and Court supervision was terminated one day later, December 8, 2021. It is significant and significant to note that while supervision was terminated because of Father being being able to take custody, custody, permanency plan Mother was only minimally compliant with the permanency plan and had made minimal progress to to alleviate the circumstances necessitating necessitating placement during that review period. placement during period At some point after Court supervision was terminated, Father's actions resulted in the child and his siblings ending up back in Mother's physical care care.

This child was back in our Dependency Court as aaresult of the Agency Agency filing filing a a Petition for Emergency Shelter Care on March 9, 2023 which was granted. Agency granted. The Agency followed up with the filing of a a Dependency Petition. On May May 25, 25, 2023, 2023, following following aa dependency hearing, the subject child and his four siblings were determined to be dependent dependent children. Our determination that this child was dependent was appealed children. appealed by by Mother and affirmed by the Superior Court.

The child and his four siblings have now been in care for seventeen consecutive months. months. Placement Placement continues to appropriate with to be necessary and appropriate with no foreseeable foreseeable date by by which the goal of reunification can be achieved. This child is very very active and has difficultly focusing. The child is still young and immature. focusing. immature. The child was not able to offer the Court anything persuasive anything persuasive regarding regarding the goal change, the goal change, but but based on our based on our observations, observations, the the child child appears to be be healthy and thriving since the removal from Mother's care. The goal goal change change allows the Agency to focus on permanency for this child. child At our November 16, 2023 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to be be minimally compliant with minimally compliant the permanency with the permanency plan plan and and to have made to have no progress made no toward progress toward

Page 2o4 Page2 of 4 I

alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. placement. At our March 6, 2024 Permanency Review Hearing, Mother was found to not be in compliance with the plan and to have made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. At placement. At the the September 4, 2024 2024 Permanency Review Change Hearing, Review and Goal Change Hearing, we we again found Mother to have made no compliance with the plan plan and to have made no progress progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement placement.

Mother has ongoing, untreated mental health concerns which she refuses to address.

Mother adamantly refuses to complete the court-ordered parental fitness evaluation. The portion portion of the parental parental fitness evaluation which Mother did complete, led the evaluator, Dr. Dr Church, to raise several serious concerns regarding Mother's ability to parent and her mental health. Further, Mother's home was in foreclosure at the time the child and his siblings were health.

removed from Mother in March 2023.

2023. The home has since been foreclosed upon and Mother ejected. Mother has not secured alternate housing ejected. housing for this child. The Agency offered Mother services to address her mental health and housing issues to no avail.

Mother's willingness willingness to participate participate in supervised visitation with this child, as by the Agency, has been inconsistent and limited. Concerns regarding Mother's arranged by conduct with the child during these limited visits was testified to throughout the permanency review hearings.

Mother has shown an ongoing, overall lack of compliance with the permanency plan I and failure to alleviate the circumstances necessitating placement. placement. Mother has not expressed aawillingness to or ability to bring herself into compliance with the plan or to alleviate the

Page 3of 4 Page0t4 circumstances necessitating placement in the foreseeable future. future. The goal of reunification is no longer appropriate or reasonably feasible. feasible.'1 Based on our in-camera interviews with the child and his siblings, our observations of Mother, and Mother's own testimony, the child and his siblings cannot be safely returned retumed to Mother in the foreseeable future. future. The Agency has made reasonable efforts to work toward reunification but has not received cooperation from Mother.

Mother We prioritized prioritized the safety, permanency permanency and well-being of this child in in granting the goal goal change change to adoption. adoption. We maintain that our decision was made in the best interest of this child. child. Based Based upon upon the the record, record, we believe the goal we believe goal change change was was appropriate, and we appropriate, and we respectfully respectfully request request that the Superior Court affirm our Order Order.

BY THE COURT:

4.g.%.le. o.EL'.Gt&i.i.

HON. KEL Y A. GA ' HAN, J.

cc: John John Martin, Esq., for Mother/Appellant Martin, Esq., Mother/Appellant Christian Weed, Esq., for Father V- f -i Nicholas Nicholas McIntyre, Esq., for Pike County Children && Youth Mark Moulton, Mari Mouton, Esq., Esq., Guardian ad litem {item r, Court Administration C-) •t r r• C ' "17' , r N

IWe note that Wenote that Father failed to appear appear for the goal change hearing and has not appealed the same. Father does goal change not have suitable housing hot housing for the child and has shown no intention of obtaining the same same.

Page 4of 4