Opinion
OPINION BY ALLEN, J.:
M.T. (“Mother”) and C.T., III (“Father”) (collectively “Parents”) have appealed from the June 10, 2013 Orders changing the permanency placement goal of the parties' two dependent children, C.E.T., IV (d.o.b. September 2010), and M.J.T. (d.o.b. October 2011) (“the Children”), to adoption, and from the March 5, 2014 decrees terminating Mother and Father's parental rights.
We initially note that although the trial court conducted the termination hearing on November 21, 2013, the trial court waited until this Court affirmed the Children's goal change on March 4, 2014 before entering the March 5, 2014 termination decrees. On April 17, 2014, this Court entered an order granting en banc reargument, and withdrew the March 4, 2014 decision affirming the goal change. The trial court did not vacate the termination decrees it entered on March 5, 2014. We find no error in such action, and note that “a goal change from reunification to adoption [i]s not a necessary prerequisite to the initiation of involuntary termination proceedings.” In re N.W., 859 A.2d 501, 507 (Pa.Super.2004) (citing In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa.Super.2004) (emphasis in original)). Our Supreme Court has held that “an agency may file a termination petition even where reunification remains the permanency goal for the child.” In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568, 901 A.2d 1017, 1026 (2006). This is due in part to the policy espoused by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, 42 U.S.C. § 671 –675, which imposes upon the states the requirement to focus on a dependent child's need for permanency, rather than the parents' actions. Consistent with the foregoing, we consider both the June 10, 2013 orders effectuating goal change, and the March 5, 2014 decrees terminating Mother and Father's parental rights.
Critical to our analysis in this appeal is the trial court's compelling, detailed and accurate recitation of the evidence of record. Because of its relevancy, we adopt and reproduce the trial court's recitation of the facts and procedure below:
Relative to the parents' initial appeal concerning the goal change to adoption, [the Superior] Court entered a decision filed March 4, 2014 affirming [the trial] court's Order of June 10, 2013 by a 2–1 decision. However, after submission of an application for re-argument by the parents, [the Superior] Court subsequently entered an Order on April 17, 2014 granting their application and vacating its prior March 4, 2014 Order. On June 3, 2014, [the Superior] Court entered an Order denying BCCYF's motion to consolidate the goal change and termination of parental rights appeals, but indicated instead, that the cases will be listed as related appeals. The matter of re-argument pertaining to the goal change, and the termination of parental appeals, is to be submitted on briefs by counsel of record for the parties before an En Banc panel on August 5, 2014.
The subject children, C.E.T., IV and M.J.T., were removed from the care of their parents on June 22, 2012 pursuant to a Voluntary Placement Agreement signed by the parents, C.T., III and M.T. C.E.T., IV was placed in the [M.] foster home on such date, while M.J.T. was placed in the same foster home three (3) days later (June 25, 2012) upon her release from the hospital. A Dependency Petition was filed for both children on July 5, 2012, and an Adjudicatory Hearing was scheduled before the master on July 18, 2012. However, both parents and the paternal grandparents, C.T.J. and P.T., requested that the matter be heard by a judge in the first instance, therefore, the matter was subsequently scheduled before the undersigned on September 13, 2012.
By Orders of Adjudication entered September 17, 2012, both children were declared dependent and have remained in the custody of BCCYF since such time. BCCYF initially became involved with this family after receiving two (2) Childline reports on June 19, 2012. The initial Childline report (C.L. No. 07–11165) alleged that M.J.T. was the victim of abuse (serious physical injury and serious physical neglect) by her paternal grandfather, C.E.T., Jr., due to second degree burns
suffered to her feet, ankles, thigh and buttocks. She was admitted to UPMC—Mercy Hospital
in Pittsburgh, PA. (RR 3–4; Order of Adjudication, 9/17/12 ¶ 15(a)(1)). The second Childline report (C.L. No. 07–11166) alleged that M.J.T. was the victim of abuse (serious physical injury) as a result of severe proximal humerus fracture
and metacarpal fracture, as well as various bruising to her face, head and extremities, and abrasions to the left eyelid, nose, upper lip and chin that were inconsistent for a child her age (at the time of the Childline referral the identity of the perpetrator(s) was unknown). (RR 4; Order of Adjudication, 9/17/12, ¶ 15(a)(1)).
The daughter, M.J.T., was seen by Dr. Janet Squires and Dr. Joy Richmond while at UPMC—Mercy. Both doctors opined that the bruising and fractures could not have been caused by an accidental source. (RR 5). More specifically, Dr. Squires reported that after reviewing an x-ray of M.[J.T.]'s injuries, the right humerus fracture
was estimated to be one (1) to three (3) weeks old, and that the metacarpal fracture was most likely caused by squeezing or pounding of the hand. (See Dependency Petitions, p. 5).
In our September 17, 2012 Order of Adjudication, we specifically made the following finding:
“... the court finds clear and convincing evidence that the child, M.J.T., was the victim of abuse (serious physical injury) relating to the bruises, abrasions and fractures. The court further finds clear and convincing evidence that the bruising, abrasions, fractures and burns all would have caused M.J.T. severe pain and would have significantly impaired the child's functioning and development for a period of time. With respect to the identify (sic) of the perpetrator of the bruises, abrasions and fractures, however, there is only prima facie evidence that the perpetrators of the abuse are the parents and grandparents due to the fact that they were the only ones responsible for the welfare of the children during the time that the injuries occurred ...”
Order of Adjudication, 9/17/12, ¶ 15(a)(1)
The 6th Month Permanency Review hearing was held December 11, 2012. In our Permanency Review Order of December 13, 2012, we found that “[t]he parents still must come to a greater understanding and appreciation relative to the burn injuries and fractures that [M.J.T.] suffered, including the cause(s) of such injuries.” (Permanency Review Order, 12/13/12, ¶ 3(b)(ii)). We also found that each child was doing well in the [M.] foster home and that Mr. & Mrs. M[.] were a permanent adoptive resource if reunification did not occur. (Permanency Review Order, 12/13/12, ¶ 23(b)). Finally, we found that the parents had made “slow progress relative to the FICS Reunification Services.” (Permanency Review Order, 12/13/12, ¶ 23(i)).
Reunification services were initiated through Family Intervention Crisis Services (hereinafter “FICS”) on July 26, 2012 and remained open until June 10, 2013. (RR 10, 60, 128, 275 & 283). During the course of time, visits were increased, but always remained fully supervised. FICS also offered separate counseling sessions and parenting education sessions once per week with both parents. (RR 10, 61 & 134). The counseling and parenting sessions were later combined in February of 2013. (Id. ). In addition, FICS facilitated the Women Aware Program for the mother, the Men Helping Men Program for the father, with the goal of assisting the parents in their relationship with one another. (RR 56 & 135).
In addition to the services provided by FICS, the family was afforded numerous other services to assist them in reaching the goal of reunification. (RR 10–11, 55 & 70). For example, the parents attended the Family Resource Center Parenting Program in September 2012, and were scheduled to continue until November 15, 2012. (RR 10–11). However, both parents were discharged from the program due to the distraction caused by [Father] openly flirting with other women in the group (RR 70). Further, both parents were engaged with the Parents as Teachers Program (RR 55), and both children receive Early Intervention Services (RR 51 & 217). Shelley McCune of FICS noted that there were some positive attributes for the parents, for example, they were cooperative, kept a clean and orderly house, possessed a strong desire to have their children return home, and developed a good relationship with the resource parents. (RR 13–15).
Ms. McCune, however, also noted several deficiencies that the parents shared, including a lack of understanding of the injuries that their daughter had suffered which resulted in her placement. (RR 17). A particular concern was the fact that neither parent recognized the child's obvious body bruising; did not realize that she had suffered several broken bones, and had no knowledge nor any explanation as to how those injuries occurred. (RR 17). The parents' lack of knowledge and their failure to offer a viable explanation as to what occurred to their daughter has been, and continues to be, a very serious concern to this court because of the difficulty this creates in ensuring that the children are safe in the
...
