In the Interest of: A.W. Appeal of: R.W.
162 A.3d 1117
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Child A.W., born July 2015, was placed in York County CYF custody and kinship foster care in Sept. 2015 and adjudicated dependent.
- Father (R.W.) was incarcerated at placement; the adjudication required compliance with a family service plan (employment, housing, in‑home services) and allowed supervised visits upon approval or release.
- Father remained incarcerated until April 2016, was paroled to a halfway house April 25, 2016, released to York County Aug. 25, 2016, and had begun some services (Catholic Charities) and employment by Sept. 2016.
- Between June and Sept. 2016 Father had mixed compliance: employment and referrals but missed some therapeutic appointments; Catholic Charities reopened Sept. 22 and supervised visits began Sept. 28, 2016.
- On Sept. 30, 2016 the trial court changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption with a concurrent goal of placement with a legal custodian and directed CYF to begin termination proceedings for both parents.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding CYF failed to meet its burden that a goal change to adoption was in Child’s best interest given Father’s recent progress after release and the short time Father had been in the community.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYF/Guardian’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing permanency goal from reunification to adoption after a status review was supported by the record | Trial court failed to apply the §6351(f) factors, did not consider timeframes in the FSP or whether CYF made reasonable efforts; record didn’t support findings about lack of bond or Father’s post‑release efforts | Child welfare argued Father made insufficient progress to timely reunify and goal change served child’s best interests; GAL favored adoption | Reversed: court abused its discretion—CYF failed to prove goal change was in Child’s best interest given Father’s recent progress and short time in community |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2009) (scope and standard of review in dependency cases)
- In re M.S., 980 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 2009) (ASFA and Juvenile Act alignment; focus on child’s best interests)
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (agency must make reasonable efforts to reunify; redirect to adoption when efforts fail)
- In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (safety, permanency, and well‑being are paramount)
- In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (burden on agency to prove a goal change is in child’s best interest)