In re C.D.F.

Decision Date16 May 2022
Docket Number102 MDA 2022,85 MDA 2022
PartiesIN THE INTEREST OF: C.D.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: B.G., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: C.D.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: B.G., MOTHER
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Decree Entered December 14, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s) 2021-0207a

Appeal from the Order Entered December 15, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s) CP-67-DP-147-2016

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E [*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

B.G. ("Mother") appeals from the order and decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, which changed the permanency goal from reunification to adoption and involuntarily terminated her parental rights to her minor son ("Child"). After a careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On August 26, 2019, the York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families ("the Agency") filed an application for emergency protective custody as to Child on the basis he was without proper care or control. The Agency averred that, on August 26, 2019, it received a referral that Mother, who was on probation, was arrested for loitering and prowling, and she was confined to the York County Prison.

In this same incident, Mother's paramour was charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol, as well as loitering and prowling. The incident occurred behind Mother's home, and Child was in the home at the time. Since Child's biological father is deceased and maternal grandmother lives in Georgia, the Agency was unable to find any relative resources to care for Child.

By order entered on August 27, 2019, the Orphans' Court found sufficient evidence that the return of Child to the home of Mother was not in Child's best interest and would be contrary to his welfare. Thus, the Orphans' Court transferred legal and physical custody of Child to the Agency, and Child was placed in foster care. The Orphans' Court appointed David Cook, Esquire, as the guardian ad litem for Child.

On August 29, 2019, the Orphans' Court conducted a shelter care hearing, at the conclusion of which the Court held that sufficient evidence was presented to prove that the return of Child to Mother was not in Child's best interest. Thus, the Orphans' Court directed that legal and physical custody of Child would remain with the Agency and Mother would have supervised visitation. The Orphans' Court noted Mother had been released from prison; however, the guardian ad litem expressed concern that Mother minimizes her criminal and drug history.

On August 30, 2019, the Agency filed a dependency petition; however, the Agency withdrew the petition without prejudice on September 6, 2019. Legal and physical custody of Child was returned to Mother. The Agency continued to monitor the family and provide services.

On February 21, 2020, the Agency filed an application for emergency protective custody as to Child on the basis he was without proper care or control. The Agency averred that Child has mental health and behavior concerns for which he takes prescribed medicines. The Agency further averred Mother's paramour resides with Mother and Child, and the Agency has concerns about domestic violence, which occurs between Mother and her paramour. The Agency indicated Mother has sustained black eyes and bruises from incidents related to domestic violence, and Child has expressed that he is afraid of Mother's paramour.

The Agency alleged Mother lost her job at the beginning of 2020, Mother's paramour threw away Child's bed, and Mother voluntarily gave guardianship of Child to the prior foster parents in mid-January 2020.

However, the foster parents subsequently expressed an unwillingness to continue to care for Child. Thus, since the Agency was unable to identify any relatives to care for Child, the Agency sought emergency protective custody of Child.

By order entered on February 21, 2020, the Orphans' Court found sufficient evidence that the return of Child to the home of Mother was not in Child's best interest and would be contrary to his welfare. Therefore, the Orphans' Court transferred legal and physical custody of Child to the Agency, and Child was placed in foster care. The Orphans' Court appointed David Cook, Esquire, as the guardian ad litem for Child.

On February 24, 2020, the Orphans' Court conducted a shelter care hearing, at the conclusion of which the Court held sufficient evidence was presented to prove that the return of Child to Mother was not in Child's best interest. Thus, the Orphans' Court directed that legal and physical custody of Child would remain with the Agency and Mother would have supervised visitation. The Orphans' Court found Mother was unemployed, searching for housing, and taking Suboxone.

On February 25, 2020, the Agency filed a dependency petition raising similar allegations as were made in the February 21, 2020, application for emergency protective custody. The Agency noted Child had been placed with a new foster family.

On March 3, 2020, the Orphans' Court held a dependency hearing, at the conclusion of which the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Child is without proper care or control, subsistence, education, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional heath. Thus, the Orphans' Court found Child to be a dependent child.

The Orphans' Court held that, based upon findings of abuse, neglect, or dependency of Child, it is in Child's best interest for him to be removed from Mother's home; however, the Orphans' Court set the goal as return to parent. The Orphans' Court provided several goals for Mother, including parenting capacity assessment, random drug and alcohol testing, in-home team, drug and alcohol counseling, mental health counseling, and summer camp/day care planning.

Following a hearing, on August 4, 2020, the Orphans' Court filed a permanency review order wherein the Court indicated it had consulted with Child, and the views of Child had been ascertained by the guardian ad litem.[1]Child expressed he was anxious to return home with Mother. However, the Orphans' Court noted Mother had been minimally compliant with the permanency plan.

On November 9, 2020, Mother petitioned for the appointment of counsel; however, concluding her income exceeded the guideline amount for court-appointed counsel, the Orphans' Court denied the petition. On May 17, 2021, Mother filed a second petition, and, concluding she met the guideline amounts, the Orphans' Court appointed counsel to represent Mother.

The Orphans' Court held numerous status review and permanency review hearings, and the Court entered orders on November 17, 2020, February 12, 2021, June 8, 2021, and July 27, 2021. In each of these orders, the Orphans' Court determined the placement of Child continued to be necessary and appropriate. In the November 17, 2020, order, the Orphans' Court found Mother moderately compliant with the permanency plan. However, in the subsequent orders, the Orphans' Court found Mother minimally compliant with the permanency plan. The goal continued to be to return Child to Mother. In the July 27, 2021, order, the Orphans' Court directed that the Agency place Child in a residential treatment facility so that he could receive psychiatric care and treatment.

On August 10, 2021, the Agency filed a motion for modification of placement seeking to have Child placed in in-patient hospitalization, and on that same date, the Orphans' Court granted the motion.

On September 27, 2021, the Agency filed a petition for a hearing to change the court-ordered goal from reunification to adoption pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6365. On September 28, 2021, the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Mother under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).

The Orphan's Court combined the matters and held a two-day hearing (December 9 and 14, 2021) on both petitions. At the hearings, Child was represented by Attorney Cook as the guardian ad litem, as well as Carolyn J. Pugh, Esquire, as his legal counsel. Thomas W. Gregory, Jr., Esquire, represented Mother, who was present at the hearings.

Krystyn Wartluft, who is an outpatient therapist and case management supervisor at Pennsylvania Counseling Services-York Psychiatric ("Pennsylvania Counseling"), testified she has a master's degree in addiction and co-occurring disorders. N.T., 12/9/21, at 14. She confirmed Mother is her client, and she conducted an initial drug and alcohol evaluation on Mother in September of 2021. Id. at 15.

During the initial evaluation, Ms. Wartluft concluded Mother was a good candidate for the women's trauma group, and Mother began to attend the group on October 7, 2021. Id. The group meets once a week for two hours, and Mother attends regularly. Id. Ms. Wartluft testified Mother met with her individually once a week, and sometimes twice a week, for forty minutes to an hour. Id.

Ms. Wartluft testified she is addressing several issues with Mother, including PTSD, substance abuse, relationship skills, healthy boundaries, time management, coping skills, and co-dependency issues. Id. at 16. Ms. Wartluft described Mother as a "group leader" and indicated she has "made quite a bit of progress." Id.

Ms Wartluft admitted that, at the beginning of treatment, Mother underwent a drug and alcohol test, and she tested positive for an unprescribed methamphetamine. Id. at 17, 22. Ms. Wartluft indicated Mother shared with her that she had a relapse just prior to starting treatment; however, Mother did not test positive in any subsequent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT