# In the Interest of: A.R., Appeal of: R.J.H.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 4, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9957606

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 4, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, J.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9957606

## Opinion text

J-S05016-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.J.H., MOTHER : No. 955 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 2, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000100-2023

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.J.H., MOTHER : No. 956 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 2, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000099-2023

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.J.H., MOTHER : No. 957 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 2, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000098-2023
J-S05016-24

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.R., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.J.H., MOTHER : No. 958 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 2, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-25-DP-0000097-2023

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: APRIL 4, 2024

Appellant, R.J.H (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered in the Erie

County Court of Common Pleas, which established a permanency goal of

adoption for A.R., D.R., S.R., and T.R. (“Children”) and determined that the

Erie County Office of Children and Youth (“OCY”) need not make reasonable

efforts towards reunification. We affirm.

The trial court opinion set forth the relevant facts and procedural history

of this case as follows:

On June 6, 2023, the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) were
called to the area of Mother’s residence after A.R. (age 4)
and D.R. (age 2) were found in a neighbor’s yard
unsupervised. PSP made a referral to [OCY] after Mother
could not provide them with basic information about the
Children, including dates of birth.

On June 7, 2023, [OCY] workers went to Mother’s home to
assess the safety of the Children. Upon arrival at the
residence, [OCY] workers observed “multiple trash bags
outside on the porch, flies and several small dogs inside a
small wire fence.” The outside of the home had a “very

-2-
J-S05016-24

strong odor of garbage and feces.” Maternal Grandfather
(“Grandfather”) answered the door and stated Mother did
not wish to speak to [OCY] but agreed to locate the Children
so that the workers could assess their safety. While at the
residence’s front door, the workers observed deplorable
home conditions, including feces on the floor and counters
covered in boxes and trash. The workers attempted to
engage Mother in conversation and described her as unable
to have a coherent conversation. Specifically, Mother could
not provide the Children’s dates of birth and “kept making
comments that people want her to be abused.” Based on
the home conditions and the caseworker’s observations of
Mother, [OCY] obtained an Emergency Protective Order
(“EPO”) for the Children.

On June 13, 2023, [OCY] filed Dependency Petitions
(“Petitions”) for the Children. The Petitions included a
Motion for Finding of Aggravated Circumstances alleging
aggravated physical neglect pursuant to [42 Pa.C.S.A. §
6302]. The Petitions alleged the Children were the victims
of aggravated physical neglect by Mother and Father[1] in
that they had a “profound, prolonged failure to provide
supervisory, medical, and/or educational care to the
[Children],” which has “seriously impaired the [Children’s]
functioning.”

The Adjudication Hearing was held before the Juvenile Court
on June 22, 2023.

(Trial Court Opinion, 10/19/23, at 1-2) (record citations omitted).

At the adjudication hearing, OCY presented expert testimony from

forensic nurse practitioner Karin Wickwire. The parties stipulated to Ms.

Wickwire’s qualifications as an expert in the field of “child maltreatment.”

(N.T. Adjudication Hearing, 6/22/23, at 8). Ms. Wickwire examined Children

and observed bruises, abrasions, and scars on their bodies. Children also

____________________________________________

1 J.R. (“Father”) is not a party to the instant appeal.

-3-
J-S05016-24

suffered from serious tooth decay. Ms. Wickwire described the two oldest

children as unresponsive, which caused concern for the development of their

speech and hearing. Ms. Wickwire also stated that the two youngest children

were at risk of continued developmental delay, illness, and injury if they

remained in Mother’s home. Based on her examinations, Ms. Wickwire opined

that Children were the victims of serious physical, medical, and educational

neglect at the hands of their caregivers.2

Rhiannon Bernadini, a supervisor with OCY, testified regarding her visit

to Children’s home. In her experience as both an OCY supervisor and

caseworker, Ms. Bernadini opined that Mother’s home was “[p]robably one of

the worst homes I’ve ever seen.” (Id. at 39). Ms. Bernadini observed trash

bags on the front porch, feces in the entryway, food scattered on the floor,

and clutter throughout the residence. The home contained three mattresses,

which were utilized by Mother, Father, and Grandfather. The adults in the

home were unaware of where Children might have slept. Six dogs were “kept

in cages in the basement [in] deplorable conditions.” (Id. at 43).

During her visit, Ms. Bernadini encountered Mother. Mother made

strange comments and seemed incoherent. After searching OCY’s records,

Ms. Bernadini discovered that Mother had a prior diagnosis of “hallucinogen-

____________________________________________

2 Complicating matters, Ms. Wickwire testified that there were no birth records

for three of the children, because Mother had opted to give birth in her home.
(See N.T. Adjudication Hearing at 31).

-4-
J-S05016-24

related disorders.” (Id. at 49). Despite this diagnosis, Mother informed Ms.

Bernadini that she was not receiving mental health treatment. Regarding her

parenting of Children, Mother told Ms. Bernadini, “I neglected my children

because [Father] neglected me.” (Id. at 50).

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that OCY “had

sufficiently established aggravated circumstances [and] Children had been the

victims of aggravated physical neglect by the parents.” (Trial Court Opinion

at 11). On June 27, 2023, the court adjudicated Children dependent and

established a permanency goal of reunification.

The court conducted a dispositional hearing on July 31, 2023. At that

time, Ms. Bernadini testified that OCY indicated Mother “for medical neglect,

dental neglect, and egregious lack of supervision.” (N.T. Hearing, 7/31/23, at

7). Ms. Bernadini stressed that Mother “has essentially taken no

accountability for the way that her children were. She seems to … blame

[Father] for a lot of this.” (Id. at 25-26). Under such circumstances, Ms.

Bernadini doubted that OCY could offer a family service plan to remedy the

situation. Ms. Bernadini also stated that Children were doing well in their

foster homes. Children communicated more, ate with utensils, and slept in

their beds. The foster parents were also addressing Children’s dental and

educational needs.

Following the testimony from Ms. Bernadini, Mother called the OCY

caseworker, Erynne Kubat. Ms. Kubat testified that she worked with the family

-5-
J-S05016-24

to obtain birth certificates for the three children who lacked official

documentation. Ms. Kubat explained that the relevant Commonwealth agency

had contacted Mother to start the process. Ms. Kubat asked Mother “if

anything had gotten followed up on as far as sending in the paperwork and

necessary documentation.” (Id. at 33). Mother claimed, however, that she

was “not involved in the process at all,” and Father “was doing all of it[.]”

(Id.) Regarding Father’s inability to complete the paperwork, there was

“always something [that] came up” to derail his progress.3 (Id.)

Ms. Kubat also testified regarding OCY’s attempts to refer the family for

services:

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Now from my understanding, at
this point in time you don’t have a court order open, but you
can still make referrals for services such as mental health
and other services, right?

[WITNESS]: Yes.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: What about parenting classes?
Did [OCY] make any referrals for parenting classes?

[WITNESS]: No.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Is there a reason?

[WITNESS]: We did attempt to make a
referral for family preservation. And while that is not a
parenting class, it is an in-home service. They would be

____________________________________________

3 Ms. Kubat later admitted that the inability to obtain birth certificates/Social

Security numbers impacted the children’s ability to obtain dental care: “They
did not have insurance. The family was concerned about paying for the
children to see a dentist.” (Id. at 37).

-6-
J-S05016-24

able to observe interactions with the parents and children
and work with the family. That service plan was declined.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: By the family?

[WITNESS]: Yes; by the family.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: How about Project First Step?

[WITNESS]: That referral was not made.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Okay. Or Homemakers?

[WITNESS]: No.

[MOTHER’S COUNSEL]: Now early intervention—did you
need to have the birth certificate and Social Security number
to make the referral for early intervention?

[WITNESS]: Yes.

(Id. at 34-35).

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court made the following, on-the-

record statement:

[Mother] had four children; three of whom essentially did
not exist [according to] the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
She knew there were steps that needed to be taken. And
I’m going to be very clear: I fault [OCY], as well, for the first
year of this.

But she was given some semblance of assistance, and at
least made aware of what needed to be done. … And the
children suffered as a result with rotten teeth, injuries, and
basically an inability to function.

* * *

And can mom get a job? And can she work on her own, and
do all of those things? I’m sure she can. But I can’t go back
and find a program that’s going to teach a mother who
clearly … was not even able to brush her children’s teeth.

-7-
J-S05016-24

The most basic thing that we do for our kids.

And for those reasons, I just cannot offer a treatment plan
here. I do not find that there—there’s just—you can’t fix
this. This is something that you can’t fix at this point. When
you can’t meet a child’s basic needs, we can’t give you
services to get you any further in life.

(Id. at 54-55).

On August 2, 2023, the court entered dispositional orders changing

Children’s permanency goals from reunification to adoption. The orders did

not provide Mother with any periods of visitation. On August 21, 2023, Mother

timely filed separate notices of appeal and concise statements of errors

complained of on appeal. This Court consolidated the matters sua sponte on

September 8, 2023.

Mother now raises two issues for our review:

Whether the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion
and/or error of law when it determined that the agency
established, by clear and convincing evidence, that a
permanency goal of reunification was not feasible and
established the grounds for an establishment of a goal of
adoption at the dispositional hearing…?

Whether the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion
and/or error of law when it concluded that the agency had
established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the
agency shall no longer provide services, including visitation,
to [Mother]?

(Mother’s Brief at 3).

Mother’s issues are related, and we address them together. Mother

argues that the purpose of the Juvenile Act is to preserve the family unit, and

reunification may occur even where a court finds aggravated circumstances.

-8-
J-S05016-24

Mother asserts she should have the opportunity to reunite with Children

because “[t]his family had no prior agency involvement until September

2021[.]” (Id. at 8). Additionally, Mother insists that OCY did not prove that

she completely lacked the capacity to remedy her circumstances. Mother

explains that she recently obtained employment, independent housing, a

driver’s license, and a cell phone. Moreover, Mother emphasizes that OCY

“failed to connect the past alleged severity of the case to the feasibility of

[M]other to prospectively achieve reunification.” (Id. at 9).

Even though reunification is no longer the goal, Mother argues visitation

remains in Children’s best interests. If her parental rights are not terminated,

Mother claims her relationship with Children would suffer from the lack of

visitation. Mother also insists that she should receive services to improve her

parenting skills and mental health. Mother concludes that the court abused

its discretion when it changed the goal to adoption and suspended all visitation

and services. We disagree.

On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion

standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006).

In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion,
we 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. We are
bound by the trial court’s findings of fact that have support
in the record. The trial court, not the appellate court, is
charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of
the witness and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In
carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to

-9-
J-S05016-24

believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When the trial
court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of
record, we will affirm, “even if the record could also support
an opposite result.”

Id. at 822–23 (internal citations omitted).

The Juvenile Act controls the disposition of dependent children. See In

re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1217 (Pa.Super. 2008). Section 6351 provides in

relevant part:

§ 6351. Disposition of dependent child

* * *

(f) Matters to be determined at permanency
hearing.—At each permanency hearing, a court shall
determine all of the following:

(1) The continuing necessity for and
appropriateness of the placement.

(2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of
compliance with the permanency plan developed for
the child.

(3) The extent of progress made toward alleviating
the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement.

(4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the
current placement goal for the child.

(5) The likely date by which the placement goal for
the child might be achieved.

(5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to
finalize the permanency plan in effect.

(6) Whether the child is safe.

- 10 -
J-S05016-24

* * *

(9) If the child has been in placement for at least 15
of the last 22 months or the court has determined that
aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable
efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the
child from the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or
to preserve and reunify the family need not be made
or continue to be made, whether the county agency
has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate
parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and
approve a qualified family to adopt the child unless:

(i) the child is being cared for by a relative
best suited to the physical, mental and moral
welfare of the child;

(ii) the county agency has documented a
compelling reason for determining that filing a
petition to terminate parental rights would not
serve the needs and welfare of the child; or

(iii) the child’s family has not been
provided with necessary services to achieve the
safe return to the child’s parent, guardian or
custodian within the time frames set forth in the
permanency plan.

(10) If a sibling of a child has been removed from his
home and is in a different placement setting than the
child, whether reasonable efforts have been made to
place the child and the sibling of the child together or
whether such joint placement is contrary to the safety
or well-being of the child or sibling.

(11) If the child has a sibling, whether visitation of
the child with that sibling is occurring no less than
twice a month, unless a finding is made that visitation
is contrary to the safety or well-being of the child or
sibling.

(12) If the child has been placed with a caregiver,
whether the child is being provided with regular,
ongoing opportunities to participate in age-appropriate

- 11 -
J-S05016-24

or developmentally appropriate activities. In order to
make the determination under this paragraph, the
county agency shall document the steps it has taken
to ensure that:

(i) the caregiver is following the
reasonable and prudent parent standard; and

(ii) the child has regular, ongoing
opportunities to engage in age-appropriate or
developmentally appropriate activities. The
county agency shall consult with the child
regarding opportunities to engage in such
activities.

* * *

(f.1) Additional determination.—Based upon the
determinations made under subsection (f) and all
relevant evidence presented at the hearing, the court
shall determine one of the following:

(1) If and when the child will be returned to the
child’s parent, guardian or custodian in cases where
the return of the child is best suited to the safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of
the child.

(2) If and when the child will be placed for adoption,
and the county agency will file for termination of
parental rights in cases where return to the child’s
parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited to the
safety, protection and physical, mental and moral
welfare of the child.

(3) If and when the child will be placed with a legal
custodian in cases where the return to the child’s
parent, guardian or custodian or being placed for
adoption is not best suited to the safety, protection
and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.

(4) If and when the child will be placed with a fit and
willing relative in cases where return to the child’s
parent, guardian or custodian, being placed for

- 12 -
J-S05016-24

adoption or being placed with a legal custodian is not
best suited to the safety, protection and physical,
mental and moral welfare of the child.

* * *

(f.2) Evidence.—Evidence of conduct by the parent that
places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk,
including evidence of the use of alcohol or a controlled
substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the
child at risk, shall be presented to the court by the county
agency or any other party at any disposition or
permanency hearing whether or not the conduct was the
basis for the determination of dependency.

(g) Court order.—On the basis of the determination
made under subsection (f.1), the court shall order the
continuation, modification or termination of placement or
other disposition which is best suited to the safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the
child.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f), (f.1), (f.2), (g).

“Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, if a court finds that aggravated

circumstances exist in a given case, the court must then ‘determine whether

or not reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the

child from the home or to preserve and reunify the family shall be made or

continue to be made….’” In re L.V., 127 A.3d 831, 839 (Pa.Super. 2015)

(quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6341(c.1)). “A court may end reasonable efforts at

its discretion.” Id. The Juvenile Act defines “aggravated circumstances,” in

relevant part, as follows:

“Aggravated circumstances.” Any of the following
circumstances:

* * *

- 13 -
J-S05016-24

(2) The child or another child of the parent has been
the victim of physical abuse resulting in serious bodily
injury, sexual violence or aggravated physical neglect by the
parent.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. The Juvenile Act also defines “aggravated physical

neglect” as “[a]ny omission in the care of a child which results in a life-

threatening condition or seriously impairs the child’s functioning.” Id.

Additionally, the standard by which the court must determine whether

to grant visitation to a parent is dependent upon the placement goal mandated

in the family service plan. See In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287, 293 (Pa.Super.

2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 692, 871 A.2d 187 (2005). “Where …

reunification still remains the goal of the family service plan, visitation will not

be denied or reduced unless it poses a grave threat.” Id. (citation omitted).

“If … the goal is no longer reunification of the family, then visitation may be

limited or denied if it is in the best interests of the child or children.” Id. “The

‘best interests’ standard, in this context, is less protective of parents’ visitation

rights than the ‘grave threat’ standard.” In re B.G., 774 A.2d 757, 760

(Pa.Super. 2001) (citation omitted).

To determine whether visitation is in the child’s best interest
the court may consider all evidence relating to the child’s
best interest including but not limited to the following
factors: (1) length of separation from natural parents; (2)
effect of visitation on the child; (3) the age, sex and health
of the child; (4) the emotional relationship between child
and parents; (5) the special needs of the child; and (6) the
effect on the child’s relationship with the current caregiver,
usually the foster parents. Most importantly, the focus must
be on the best interests of the child, in light of the fact that

- 14 -
J-S05016-24

the natural family is not likely to be reunited.

In Interest of M.B., 674 A.2d 702, 706 (Pa.Super. 1996).

Instantly, the court determined that a goal change to adoption was in

Children’s best interests:

The record reflects the family was opened for services with
[OCY] approximately one year before the Children’s
removal. [OCY] attempted to assist the parents with
obtaining birth certificates for the three younger Children.
Mother and Father were an intact couple and failed to follow
through with obtaining the proper documentation to move
forward with obtaining the birth certificates. As a result, the
younger children were not eligible to receive medical,
dental, or early intervention services. S.R., who was (7)
years old at the time of the removal, had a birth certificate
and social security card, yet he had never been to the
dentist. He had attended one doctor’s appointment in his
life at the direction of [OCY]. Additionally, S.R. had not
received any early intervention services, had never been
enrolled in school, and had never undergone any cognitive
testing despite his clear communication delays.

The overwhelming evidence in this matter exhibits these
Children were the victims of serious physical neglect at the
hands of their Mother and Father. Evidence that neither
parent opposes; in fact, Ms. Bernardini credibly testified that
when she asked Mother what happened, Mother responded
that she neglected the Children because Father neglected
her.

Furthermore, Mother has taken no accountability for her
involvement, as reflected in the letter she wrote [OCY],
stating, inter alia, that the Children’s teeth were rotten
because she asked “[Father] and his parents to help her
brush the [Children’s] teeth. But they never did.”

Mother has not only demonstrated an unwillingness or
inability to meet her Children’s basic needs but also an
inability to comprehend how severely her actions have
mentally, physically, and educationally impacted the
Children’s health, growth, and development. Mother’s

- 15 -
J-S05016-24

actions and inactions placed the Children in danger, and her
lack of accountability continues to place the Children, who
are making progress in their respective foster homes, in
danger.

(Trial Court Opinion at 17-18).

Our review of the record confirms that competent evidence supported

the court’s findings. See In re N.C., supra. Based on the testimony from

OCY’s witnesses, the court determined that Children suffered from aggravated

physical neglect. As such, the court correctly found that aggravated

circumstances warranted the cessation of reasonable efforts at reunification.

See In re L.V., supra. The record also supports the court’s determination

that suspending Mother’s visitation was in Children’s best interests. See In

re C.B., supra. Ultimately, the court could not subordinate Children’s present

need for permanence and stability to Mother’s hope to remedy her

circumstances in the future. Accordingly, we affirm.

Orders affirmed.

FILED: 4/4/2024

- 16 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9957606. Public record. Not legal advice.