In the Interest of: C.K., A Minor Appeal of: CYF, 165 A.3d 935

Two children (N.L., b.2009; C.K., b.2011) were adjudicated dependent and removed from Mother in 2014; reunification was the primary permanency goal with adoption concurrent.
A psychologist (Dr. Rosenblum) evaluated the family in Oct. 2015 and recommended family trauma-based therapy (suggesting TRAC) because Mother lacked insight into the impact of domestic violence on the children.
The trial court repeatedly ordered CYF to implement family therapy and to involve consultants; CYF did not refer for family therapy until late Jan. 2016 and initially communicated the wrong therapy purpose to a contractor (A Second Chance).
A Second Chance declined to provide trauma-based treatment; after further delay CYF referred to TRAC, which accepted the family but did not begin until summer 2016; TRAC’s therapist testified she had not received full background materials when services began.
Mother missed and later attended intake; Father participated in initial TRAC sessions. The trial court found CYF’s delays, miscommunications, and failure to ensure appropriate provider information meant CYF did not make reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan during the relevant review period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CYF made reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan (reunification) during the review period	CYF contends it made efforts: referrals, consultations, and ultimately engaged TRAC; delays were due to provider availability and parent conduct	Trial court and Mother argue CYF delayed referrals, miscommunicated service purpose to contracted provider, and failed to ensure therapist received background, causing avoidable delay	Court of Appeals (Pa. Super.) affirmed: CYF did not make reasonable efforts during the relevant period due to delays, inaccurate communications, and failure to ensure appropriate service implementation

In re W.M., 41 A.3d 618 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court factfinding)
In re J.R., 875 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2005) (services must promote child’s best interests; only reasonable efforts required)
In re N.E., 787 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Super. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (agency not guarantor of parental success but must make reasonable efforts)
In re J.W., 578 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. 1990) (agency responsibilities in reunification context)
In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (ASFA framework and reasonable-efforts purpose)
In re S.A.D., 555 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1989) (agency must monitor referrals made to other public agencies)
In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (timeliness and 18-month reunification/adoption policy)
In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. 2010) (policy favoring timely permanency for children)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (emphasis on swift action for children’s healthy development)
In re J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (agency must put forth good faith effort; parents must cooperate)
In re Diaz, 669 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 1995) (agency duty to assist parents; parents’ duty to use efforts)