In RE: J.D.H. Appeal Of: A.S.H., Natural Mother
171 A.3d 903
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Child (J.D.H.) was taken into emergency protective custody days after birth in June 2016; Jefferson County CYS alleged Mother has untreated mental-health issues and cannot safely care for the infant.
- Child was placed in foster care, adjudicated dependent on August 1, 2016, and remained in foster placement.
- Permanency review hearings occurred October 26, 2016 and January 25, 2017; on January 30, 2017 the trial court changed Child’s permanency goal from reunification to adoption.
- Mother appealed the goal-change order; her counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an Anders brief arguing the appeal was frivolous.
- The Superior Court extended Anders withdrawal procedures to goal-change-only appeals, required counsel to notify Mother of her rights and right to appointed counsel in future proceedings, found counsel’s Anders submission compliant, and conducted an independent review of the record.
- The court affirmed the goal change, concluding Mother had regressed, posed safety risks, had not attained parenting skills and Child was thriving and bonded with foster parents; the 15-of-22-month guideline is not an absolute prerequisite to a goal change.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | CYS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing the permanency goal to adoption after ~7 months was improper | Mother: Juvenile Act contemplates waiting until child has been in placement 15 of last 22 months before goal change | Court/CYS: 15-of-22 months is one statutory factor, not an absolute prerequisite; child’s best interests and safety control | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; goal change was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements in Pennsylvania)
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency and permanency matters)
- In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084 (Pa. Super. 2011) (child’s best interests govern permanency decisions)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (permanency and stability cannot be indefinitely subordinated to parental progress)
- Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Anders procedural steps for counsel seeking withdrawal)