In the Int. of: A.S., a Minor
In the Int. of: A.S., a Minor No. 1646 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 10, 2017Background
- A.S., a young insulin-dependent diabetic, was removed from his parents’ care after a November 2015 referral alleging medical and environmental neglect; emergency custody occurred January 22, 2016 and dependency adjudication followed April 7, 2016.
- CYF prepared multiple family service plans requiring mental health treatment, home remediation, in‑home services, psychological evaluation, and diabetes/nutrition education; JusticeWorks provided in‑home assistance.
- Parents made only minimal-to-moderate progress; the home remained unsanitary (animal urine/feces, clutter/hoarding), and parents’ compliance varied by issue and by parent.
- Significant medical concerns: caregivers at times failed to manage A.S.’s diabetes properly; Father allegedly provided food that caused A.S.’s blood sugar to spike to ~419.
- On September 7, 2016 (a 90‑day status review), the court sua sponte changed the primary permanency goal from reunification to adoption (with a concurrent reunification goal), citing lack of sufficient progress and ongoing risks to A.S.’s health and safety.
- Parents appealed, arguing the goal change was not in the child’s best interest, was against the weight/sufficiency of the evidence, and (Father) that the court deprived them of notice by changing the goal at a status hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing the goal to adoption was contrary to the child's best interest / against weight/sufficiency of evidence | Parents: They were making progress (Mother "moderate"), cooperating with services; goal change premature | CYF/Court: Parents’ limited progress, worsening home conditions, and medical danger to A.S. made reunification not viable | Court affirmed goal change: best interests of child (safety, permanency) support adoption goal given record evidence |
| Whether parents were given sufficient time to achieve reunification | Parents: Not enough time; goal change premature before full opportunity to reunify | CYF/Court: Child cannot wait indefinitely; ASFA/juvenile act emphasize timely permanency; evidence showed failure to advance toward discharge of parental duties | Court held time allotted plus parents’ lack of meaningful progress justified change; child’s need for permanency controls |
| Whether changing the goal sua sponte at a 90‑day status hearing violated due process / required formal permanency hearing or notice | Father: Status review is less formal; changing goal without prior notice deprived him of process | CYF/Court: No statutory bar to earlier or court‑initiated goal change; Father had notice of dependency, multiple hearings, counsel, and opportunity to present/cross‑examine | Court held no due process violation: hearing provided process, and statute doesn’t prohibit court‑initiated goal change before six months if reunification is not viable |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of S.G., 922 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for goal-change—abuse of discretion—and focus on child’s best interests)
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (safety, permanency, and well‑being of child take precedence over parental rights; ASFA‑informed timeframes)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (policy that a child’s life cannot be put on hold awaiting parental improvement)
- In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2003) (due process protected where parent had counsel, multiple hearings, and opportunity to litigate despite agency‑initiated termination petition)