In the Interest of R.J.T.
608 Pa. 9
Pa.2010Background
- Child removed from Parents' care shortly after birth due to domestic violence and parental substance issues; placed with paternal grandmother then in foster care under CYF supervision.
- A 2007-2009 sequence of permanency reviews occurred; CYF represented that Foster Parents desired adoption despite a prior removal request.
- January 23, 2009 permanency hearing featured evidence of parental progress, concurrent planning discussions, and a request by CYF and guardian ad litem to change the goal to adoption.
- Trial court denied the goal change, citing continued parental progress and concerns about Foster Parents' long-term commitment and the child’s emotional welfare.
- Superior Court reversed, holding error under §6351(f) and (f.9) by not adopting the change; this Court reinstates the trial court’s denial and remands for further proceedings.
- Court emphasizes concurrent planning is allowed and that the child’s best interests guide the decision, not a sole reliance on §6351(f)(9).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying goal change | R.J.T. case supports change to adoption given duration in care | CYF and foster resources show adoption appropriate if reunification unlikely | No abuse; trial court properly weighed best interests under 42 Pa.C.S. §6351 |
| Role of §6351(f)(9) in decision | Focus on 15/22 months mandates adoption when reunification not imminent | §6351(f)(9) is one factor among many to assess best interests | Not a litmus test; court can consider all factors; concurrent planning permitted under ASFA |
| Effect of concurrent planning | Concurrent planning should be pursued, potentially with adoption while keeping reunification alive | Concurrent planning not required to change goal; trial court could deny change | Concurrent planning is encouraged but not mandatory to change goal; does not require cessation of reunification services in every case |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.E.G., 587 Pa. 568 (Pa. 2006) (approval of concurrent planning under ASFA; multiple objectives allowed)
- In re D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review; burdens and factors under §6351(f))
- In re S.B., 208 Pa. Super. 21 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discusses permanency planning and best interests)
- In re N.W., 859 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 2004) (ASFA alignment; reasonable efforts and concurrent planning)
- In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2009) (statutory interpretation of §6351(f) and related provisions)