In Re RJT, 9 A.3d 1179

R.J.T., a minor, was removed from Parents' custody shortly after birth due to domestic violence and parental substance issues.
Child was placed with paternal grandmother, then in foster care; CYF developed a Family Service Plan addressing DV and substance issues.
January 2009 permanency hearing considered whether to change the goal from reunification to adoption; Foster Parents expressed interest in adoption but Parents sought reunification.
CYF moved for a permanency-goal change; Dr. Rosenblum recommended concurrent planning but cautioned about Foster Parents' commitment.
Trial court denied the goal change, citing best interests favoring reunification and concerns about Foster Parents; CYF appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed and remanded for adoption.
This Court ultimately granted review to determine if the Superior Court erred in reversing and reinstated the trial court’s denial of the goal change, holding that the Superior Court erred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the goal change	CYF argues goal change to adoption was warranted given placement 24 months and progress	Mother and Father argue concurrent planning and continued services; goal change not strictly required by 6351(f)(9)	No abuse of discretion; trial court’s concurrent-planning approach upheld; order denying goal change reinstated

In re Adoption of S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568, 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (concurrent planning approved as a mode to pursue reunification and adoption)
In re S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1019 (Pa. 2006) (articulates concurrent planning under ASFA)
In re R.J.T., 990 A.2d 777 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Superior Court reversal for abuse of discretion on §6351(f) grounds)
In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2009) (statutory findings required at permanency hearings)
Commonwealth v. Baird, 601 Pa. 625, 975 A.2d 1113 (Pa. 2009) (abuse of discretion when trial court ignores the law)