In the Interest of: S.G., a Minor, 1189 EDA 2017

Background

Child (born Apr. 2003) evaluated Oct. 7, 2016 for facial injuries and suicidal ideation; Child alleged Father caused injuries. Child hospitalized and discharged to Mother; CYS later requested Child not be returned to Father.
After a Jan. 9, 2017 altercation between Child and Mother and Mother’s incarceration, Child was placed temporarily with a friend and then taken into CYS custody on Jan. 17, 2017; Dependency petition filed Jan. 19, 2017.
On Feb. 27, 2017 the trial court adjudicated the Child dependent and ordered residential placement; an early permanency review occurred Mar. 24, 2017.
At the Mar. 24 hearing CYS caseworker and the Child testified; Father also testified. CYS recommended continued dependency and placement in a residential/therapeutic foster setting pending openings.
Trial court continued dependency and placement outside Father’s home, citing the Child’s mental-health needs, the Child’s fear/refusal to return to Father, lack of adequate prior therapy while with parents, and need for psychotherapy per Dr. Saba’s report.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	CYS/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether Child should be returned to Father (continued dependency)	No evidence of Father’s unfitness; placement unnecessary	Child presently lacks proper parental care/control due to unmet mental-health needs, poor parent–child relationship, Child’s fear	Affirmed: trial court’s finding of continued dependency supported by record
Appropriateness of placement	CYS failed to ensure educational/behavioral/mental-health needs were met	Placement (residential/therapeutic foster care) best addresses therapy needs and safety	Affirmed: placement proper and supported by testimony
Least restrictive alternative requirement	Return to Father with in-home/outpatient services would be least restrictive	Child refuses return; therapeutic foster care least restrictive to meet needs	Affirmed: therapeutic foster care is least restrictive under circumstances
Preservation of family / reunification efforts	CYS failed to provide reunification services; unity should be preserved	CYS encouraged visitation/counseling; Child refused; forcing reunification would be counterproductive	Affirmed: reunification premature; efforts were adequate given Child’s refusal
Reasonable efforts by CYS to prevent removal/reunify	No services provided; CYS did not meet statutory duties	Trial court found sufficient efforts and that placement was necessary for Child’s welfare	Affirmed: record supports trial court’s conclusion CYS complied appropriately
Father’s progress toward alleviating removal circumstances	Father unable to complete goals due to lost insurance; willing to pay out-of-pocket	Minimal compliance; Child refuses contact so Father cannot demonstrate parenting or reunify	Affirmed: minimal progress attribution reasonable given Child’s refusal and lack of therapy while in home
Requirement to set likely reunification date	Permanency order omitted a return date; this is not harmless	Court acknowledged omission, labeled likely return date as “unknown” given unpredictability; conducts 3-month reviews	Affirmed: omission justified or harmless under facts; schedule of frequent reviews provides oversight

Key Cases Cited

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review in dependency cases; accept trial court fact/credibility findings)
In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (dependency adjudication principles)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
In re H.S.W.C.-B, 836 A.2d 908 (Pa. 2003) (orders maintaining status quo in dependency may be final and appealable)
In Re: M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (balancing family unity against child protection and stability)
In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
A.N. v. A.N., 39 A.3d 326 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial court is fact finder on necessity of removal)
In the Interest of S.S., 651 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super. 1994) (removal necessity reserved to trial court)