In the Int. of: K.C., Jr., a Minor, 667 MDA 2021

Background

Child K.C., Jr. born March 25, 2021; York County CYF obtained emergency protective custody the next day and placed Child with half‑siblings in foster/adoptive home.
Agency alleged parental risk factors including Mother’s prior involuntary TPRs, Mother’s intellectual/developmental delays, concerns of domestic violence, and reports of Father’s intoxication around the time of birth.
Juvenile court adjudicated Child dependent on April 19, 2021 and found aggravated circumstances as to Mother (not Father); primary goal adoption, concurrent goal reunification.
At a May 11, 2021 permanency review (≈22 days after adjudication) the court sua sponte changed the concurrent goal from reunification to placement with a Subsidized Permanent Legal Custodian (SPLC), stating reunification was a “fantasy.”
Father appealed both the dependency adjudication and the permanency goal change. Superior Court affirmed dependency but reversed the goal change as premature and an abuse of discretion, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Agency/Juvenile Court’s Argument	Held
1. Sufficiency of evidence for dependency adjudication	Court lacked clear and convincing evidence that Father’s health, criminal history, or relationship with Mother rendered Child without proper care	Agency relied on caseworker testimony about Father’s difficulties caring for the infant, cohabitation with Mother, and domestic‑violence concerns	Dependency adjudication affirmed; court’s fact findings and credibility accepted on record evidence
2. Admission of hearsay testimony about Father’s alcohol use	Testimony recounting hospital reports was inadmissible hearsay	Testimony was offered by caseworker about agency information	Issue waived on appeal for failure to preserve objection in trial court
3. Sua sponte change of concurrent permanency goal to SPLC	Change was premature after only ~22 days of services; no aggravated circumstances found as to Father; reunification efforts were still reasonable	Court concluded reunification was unrealistic given Father’s health, anger, alcohol history, and continued cohabitation with Mother	Reversed: court abused its discretion by terminating reunification efforts without reasonable opportunity for services and without addressing Child’s best interests
4. Termination/discontinuation of reunification services	Agency/court should not discontinue services absent aggravated circumstances or an assessment that reunification efforts are unreasonable	Court believed continued services would be futile and taxpayer resources wasted	Reversed as intertwined with Issue 3; juvenile court improperly ended reasonable‑efforts requirement at early stage

Key Cases Cited

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and dependency law principles)
In re Adoption of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (concurrent planning explained)
In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable‑efforts requirement to reunify)
In re C.K., 165 A.3d 935 (Pa. Super. 2017) (services must directly promote child’s best interests and reunification focus)
In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (dependency requires clear and convincing evidence)
In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (two‑part dependency inquiry: present lack of care and availability of care)
Matter of C.R.S., 696 A.2d 840 (Pa. Super. 1997) (definition of proper parental care)
A.N. v. A.N., 39 A.3d 326 (Pa. Super. 2012) (factfinder role in necessity of removal)
In re M.S., 980 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 2009) (family unity presumption under Juvenile Act)