In the Interest of: A.A., a Minor, 1006 EDA 2016

Child (born Nov. 2009) was removed from the home in Jan. 2014 after an incident in New Jersey; CYS obtained protective custody and Child was adjudicated dependent Feb. 19, 2014.
Child placed with foster parents in Waymart; foster placement stable, Child made significant educational and health progress but showed some emotional regression during placement.
Parents had supervised visitation; Mother's visitation was suspended by court order on July 27, 2015; Father’s reunification and ICPC efforts failed and his ICPC was denied due to criminal history.
CYS developed a permanency plan, conducted family-finding efforts, assessed kin (Maternal Grandfather approved but not recommended due to protective-capacity concerns), and prepared foster parents to adopt.
At the Feb. 23, 2016 permanency hearing (order entered Mar. 7, 2016), CYS sought change of permanency goal from reunification to adoption (concurrent SPLC); trial court approved the change and mother timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by changing goal from reunification to adoption after suspending Mother’s visits seven months earlier	Mother: suspension of visitation was unsupported; court should have given Mother more time to remedy deficits and allowed visitation to continue before goal change	CYS/Trial court: Mother failed to comply with plan, made minimal progress, visits were inconsistent and suspended to allow reunification efforts with Father; goal change serves Child’s best interest	Court: No abuse of discretion; record supports goal change based on §6351(f)/(f.1) factors and Child’s best interest

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases: accept trial court fact/credibility findings if supported)
In Interest of L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (dependency review and abuse-of-discretion standard)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (definition of abuse of discretion in parental/child matters)
In re G., T., 845 A.2d 870 (Pa. Super. 2004) (definition of "dependent child" and burden on petitioner)
In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 2002) (court’s authority to make dispositional orders for dependent children)
In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2007) (factors under 42 Pa.C.S. §6351(f) for goal-change decisions)
In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s best interest governs placement after dependency)
In re E.F.V., 461 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 1983) (state’s interest in protecting child’s best interest over parental preferences)