In Re Ab
19 A.3d 1084
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Three girls B.B., A.B., M.B. were in CYS custody with a goal of reunification and concurrent adoption; guardian ad litem appeals after the court denied change to adoption; CYS sought permanency goal change based on bonding and progress; the court found strong mother–child bond and ongoing protection from maternal grandfather; concurrent goal-planning allowed continued reunification while pursuing adoption.
- Mother had past abuse by Maternal Grandfather, a registered sex offender; CYS concerns included housing, mental health needs, and safeguarding from grandfather.
- Mother demonstrated compliance with the family service plan, maintained housing and income, attended visits, and pursued counseling; the court found a strong bond and ability to protect despite risks.
- Trial court ordered increased supervised visitation and transition planning toward reunification; it denied the goal change to adoption.
- Guardian ad Litem argues for adoption under §6351(f)(9) based on 24 months in placement and bond; CYS supports adoption but concedes concurrent planning.
- Court affirmed the decision denying change to adoption, emphasizing the best interests and substantial bond, not mechanical §6351(f)(9) application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transition home was in children's best interests | Guardian ad litem: bond supports adoption | Court: bond and best interests support reunification | No, best interests supported continuation of reunification with transition planning |
| Whether the goal should be changed to adoption after 24 months | Guardian ad litem: §6351(f)(9) requires adoption | Court: concurrent planning allows adoption while reunification remains goal | No, goal change denied; concurrent planning and child welfare factors favored reunification with ongoing adoption efforts |
| Whether record supports significant parent–child bond | Bond evidenced by children's statements and therapist observations | Bond overstated or context undermines it | Yes, certified record supports significant bond and court’s consideration of bond in best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) ( Supreme Court overruled mechanical § 6351(f)(9) application; requires holistic review of factors)
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child-focused permanency and safety prioritized)
- In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (best interests and child safety guide permanency decisions)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (child’s needs and permanency guidance grounded in best interests)