Interest of L.T. & D.T., minors, Appeal of: A.Z., 158 A.3d 1266

Background

Two children, L.T. (born Oct. 2014) and D.T. (born Sept. 2015), were adjudicated dependent after D.T. sustained fatal non-accidental brain injuries while in Father’s care; CYS obtained custody and placed L.T. with maternal grandmother.
At disposition the permanency goal was reunification; Mother was granted supervised visitation and ordered to complete services (psych eval, parenting, domestic violence program, safe housing, releases).
Thirty days after disposition the juvenile court held a permanency review hearing (June 1, 2016); media appeared without filing a petition to open the statutorily closed proceeding and parties objected.
During that hearing the court sua sponte announced it was contemplating changing both children’s goals to adoption; following testimony (agency witnesses and Mother) the court entered an order changing both goals to adoption and terminating Mother’s services/visitation for L.T.
Separately, the court on June 16, 2016 entered an order vesting CYS with authority to make all medical decisions, including end-of-life decisions for D.T.; D.T. later died (July 15, 2016).
Mother appealed: she challenged (1) media access to the closed permanency hearing; (2) notice and timing for the court’s goal-change consideration; (3) the substantive goal change (reunification→adoption) after ~2 months of services; (4) termination of visitation; and (5) denial of participation in medical/end-of-life decisions for D.T.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYS/Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Media access to closed permanency hearing	Trial court erred by permitting media into statutorily closed dependency hearing over unanimous objections	Press presence was acceptable given existing publicity from Father’s criminal case and court discretion to open proceedings	Reversed: court abused discretion by allowing media without petition/notice; proceedings must be closed consistent with statute unless press follows proper petition/notice and court applies the two‑prong analysis from In re M.B.
Notice of contemplated goal change	Court should have given advance notice (or agency should have filed a goal‑change petition); reliance on Benchbook best practices supports this	Juvenile Act requires permanency hearings to address continuation/modification of placement; court may raise goal issues sua sponte	Held that no statutory notice requirement exists; the hearing addressed a required permanency determination so lack of separate notice was not reversible error on notice grounds
Substantive change of permanency goal (reunification → adoption for L.T.)	Change was premature after ~2 months of services; mother had begun services, visited, bonded with child; best interests did not support immediate adoption goal	Court emphasized severity of D.T.’s injuries, Mother’s immaturity, housing instability, and perceived lack of urgency; sought permanency for child	Reversed as to L.T.: court abused discretion changing goal to adoption so soon given Mother’s compliance, bond with L.T., and limited time CYS had to pursue reunification
Visitation termination with L.T. after goal change	Termination was not supported by best‑interest analysis and was improper given early stage of reunification	With goal changed to adoption, trial court limited visitation under best‑interest standard	Because goal change reversed, visitation issue remanded: visitations must be reconsidered under the more protective “grave threat” standard appropriate when reunification remains the goal

Key Cases Cited

In re M.B., 819 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super. 2003) (articulates presumption of openness for court proceedings and framework for press access vs. minors’ privacy in dependency cases)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (explains permanency‑hearing statutory duties and that “goal change” aligns with required placement determinations)
In re A.K., 936 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2007) (best interests of the child govern dependency/permanency decisions; parental interests are secondary)
In the Interest of D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2009) (discusses circumstances supporting goal changes after prolonged agency involvement)
In re M.S., 980 A.2d 612 (Pa. Super. 2009) (upholds adoption goal where prolonged parental inaction and aggravated circumstances made reunification unworkable)
In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (children’s need for timely permanency outweighs indefinite delay awaiting parental improvement)
In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard of review for change‑of‑goal orders is abuse of discretion)
In re J.A., 107 A.3d 799 (Pa. Super. 2015) (mootness doctrine and narrow exceptions where issues are capable of repetition yet likely to evade review)