In re A.W.

Full title: IN THE INTEREST OF: A.W., A MINOR APPEAL OF: R.W., FATHER

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 11, 2017

In re A.W. No. 1715 MDA 2016 04-11-2017 The record reveals the following facts and IN the INTEREST OF; A.W., a Minor Appeal of and spurt played child in the legal and proto Scot E. Lineberry, York, for Frosties ('CYF" of "Agency") : CYF then place Hobbs, York, for Feliciano, appellee. Dani Martin Miller . York , for York County Children 2415, at 1. On September 24, 2015, the con and Youth, appellee. OPINION BY OTT, J. Scott E. Lineberry, York, for appellant. cancersed. The seder of atindiesimonwas of adjudication Charles J. Hobbs, York, for Feliciano, appellee. to comply with family service plan ("ESP" including but, not limited to, securi Daniel D. Worley, York, for Guardian Ad Litem, losment housing, and in-home serv martin Miller. York, for York County Children with Child, the onder provided, "Father SCI [State Correctional Beatingtice] of upon BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OTT, J, and release [ from prison] and return to York County OPINION BY OTT, J On December 17, 2015, a status review he 2015rather ) appeals from the September 30. occurred before a dependency master. "hoc County changing the placement goal to adoption Township. the vithough he has had no telephone with a concurrent goal of placement with a legal ontact with CYR, he "telephones about once a born in July of 2015.' We reverse and remand in 2. The court adopted the findings "1 19 ordance with the following decision. master by order dated December 18, 2015. 2 The wind count captained the a satan casetext In re A.W. 162 A.30 1117 (Pa. Super. CL 2017) Father states that he has a lot on his plan York asea [ Catholic Charities ] be wim a resource for his on. Order, 39/16, 21 1. master by order dated August 31, 2016. 9/16, at 2. On September 30, 2016, the trial count held a samis review hearing during Which Bri ander the same date, the count changed the goal to a legal custodian. The court directed CYF "to s the bestimitation of parental rights process in we stand in regard to this matter" NY. 100/16 # 1 Father timely filed a notice of appeal and a appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 10, Father presents the following issue for our review: discretion in changing the dependent ot " Id s 1-2. child's permanency goal from reunification hearing where the record did not support August 30, 2016. such a goal charge(?) casetext 117 (Pa. Super. CL 2017) cturn a foster child to his or her biologie e have explained our scope and standard of In re N.C. . 909 A 2d 818, 325 (Pa. Super. 2006) s efforts toward placing the child in an adoptive children removed from the parental home, a trial court must consider the someone at 10 Matters to be determine permanency hearing At each perma ermanency hearing, a court shall determine all of the following appropriateness of the placementan hearing judge has applied the z esters of compliance with the permanency plan developed for the child. at The extent of progress made toward and win on the credibility ecessitated the original placement. "the Interest D.P. . 972 A.2d 1221, 1225 (Pa. he current placement goal for the child (5) The likely date by which the placeme Act. 42 PACS.A $ 6301 of rep . wh goal for the child might be achieved. Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA"), 42 us.C. $ 671 er reg . In re M.S. . 980 A.2d 612 to finalize the permanency plan in Ibloch statutes are compatible pieces of (6 ) Whether the child is safe. care children with thele man east 15 of the last 22 montes or the com has determined that aggravate efforts to prevent or eliminate the casetext Inre A.W. 162 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Super. Ct 2017) parents and the need for the child to have need to remove the child from the child's preserve and reanify the family need not (ching N.T. 9130/16, at 11). The court explained be made or continue to be made, whether The child has only ever lived [with) his join a petition to terminate parental rights only fonzy the child who goes they an approve a qualified family to adopt the was adjudicated dependent approxima child unless a year prior to the Change of ") the child is being cared for by a relative best suited to the physical, mental and mocal welfare of the child ") the county agency has documented a would not serve the needs and welfare of rison; he has not visited ointments, or even called on provided with necessary sensors And. at 2-3 (citations to record emitted). achieve the safe return to the child's parent. On appeal, Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to address all of the relevant factors set tames set forth in the permancecy play order Specifically, Father asserts that the wanly service plan or otherwise determ father] might be achieved Nor did the focus on the best interests of the child." In re S.B. stemming whether or not CYF had ma 206 Pa Super. 21. 1213 And 973, 975 (2008) as in effect." Father's brief at 12. Fun chance over all boats of the could must talk ation omitted) (emphasis in original). bond between Father and Child and ( 2 Moreover, The burden is on the child welfare "has not made any effort to engage not visited" Child id at 13. Prison 275, 36 A. 34 367, 573 (2011) CYP and the Guardian Ad Litem filed a joint Instantly, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial make no progress in addresing the issues that based on his "lack of a bond win the biological casetext Inre A.W. 162 A. 3d 1117 (Pa. Super. CL 2017) caused Child's placement, and that the goal change or *fizzis in Child's best interest* F referral for the [Catholic Charities] team to bject hearing one the time of the subject p casetext In re A.W. 162 A.36 1117 (Pa. Super. CL 2017) wiare gone the ander, and rem goal with a concurrent pool of childs plac Order reversed Case remanded for p consistent with this decision Jurisdiction