*1 is either statutory remedy have not shown that Appellants I to that portion dissent inadequate, incomplete affirm the order of Common- majority’s order and would Court. wealth
901A.2d S.E.G. In re ADOPTION OF Appeal of L.S.G. Pennsylvania. Supreme 2, Argued March 2006. July Decided *2 Perrott, John Edgar for Esq., L.S.G. Dedola,
Anthony Uniontown, S. Esq., for Fayette County Children and Youth Services. Adams, Uniontown,
Jason Frederick Esq., for S.E.G. CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, BEFORE: NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, BALDWIN, JJ.
OPINION Justice BAER.
We granted appeal allowance of case this review Superior Court’s determination that a agency may state file a petition parental prior issuance court order changing a child’s permanency plan from reunification to adoption. We conclude that court- filing precedent is not a condition
ordered rights, accordingly, parental to terminate of a of the Superior affirm order Court. of review grant that our limited emphasize
Initially, we evaluation of sufficien encompass case this does termination, a pure but rather involves cy of evidence relat Act’s provisions the Juvenile question law—whether children, 42 Pa.C.S. for dependent review ing permanency Act’s provisions or the 2511-21, of a filing prohibit §§ parental rights, rights in Or termination of involuntary changing to a Court’s order phan’s Court Essentially, adoption.1,2 child’s dependent requires this Court determine question presented chil relating statutes Pennsylvania’s whether planning.” “concurrent dren allow for *3 cur- underpinnings of the historical and understanding An planning concurrent is known as concept rent status of of this case. As to a discussion necessary prerequisite system is a dual-track planning concurrent implies, name agencies parents provide child welfare under which children, also with their their reunification while enable should reunifi- placement planning permanent alternative Crea, Barth, & Tom Wulczyn, fail. Richard Fred cation See the Adoption Research on Evidence: Anticipation From Pol’y (2005). Act, 12 J. 371 Families and Safe Law & Va. Soc. to the substantial developed problems in reaction system system, which focused almost that arose under 371-75; also id. at see exclusively reunifying on families. See novo, pure question of is de and our review of a law 1. Our standard of Fajt, Corp. Power v. scope plenary. See Harbor Water of review is Safe 234, 954, (2005). 12 966 n. Pa. 876 A.2d notwithstanding dependency heard in Juvenile that 2. We note that Court, Legislature Orphans’ has author- in Court judges permit judges Orphans' to sit as Juvenile Court ized proceedings in a case such judge to hear termination Juvenile Court 6351(i). Thus, practice, judge both often one hears this. however, case, proceedings. In this dependency did not occur. 327, In re 719 A.2d In Lilley, many 332-35 (Pa.Super.1998). cases, languished years children foster care for their while parents attempted unsuccessfully regain custody by demon- strating ability care for their id. children. See Con- versely, equally but unfortunately, some children were re- turned to unsafe prematurely attempts environments failed reunification, necessitating their re-removal and return to foster care. See id. Even in cases where the parents clearly regain would not be able to custody, agencies and courts were unable to sever in an expedited process pursuit permanent, and allow the stable homes children. scenarios, See id. As a consequence of all these children suffered became what known as “foster care drift: re- peated transitions from foster care to foster home that occur when children stay foster care for a lengthy period without a permanent plan.” Id. at 373. situation,
In reaction to the the United States Congress enacted the Safe Act of Families Pub.L. (ASFA). 105-89 altered the ASFA focus dependency pro- ceedings to include consideration need to move children toward in a adoption timely manner when reunification proved 671(a)(15)(C). unworkable. See 42 so, U.S.C. In doing ASFA tied federal funding adoption State’s of a plan that encompassed required set elements forth ASFA. See id. 671(a). One the requirements relevant current appeal involved availability of concurrent “In planning: order for a to be eligible State for payments ... it shall have a plan approved by the ... Secretary provides reasonable place efforts to child or with a legal guardian may be concurrently made with reasonable efforts of *4 type (B)[to described in subparagraph preserve and reuni- § fy 671(a)(15)(F) added). See id. (emphasis families.]” In the years following ASFA, federal enactment of Pennsylvania modified its statutes relating chil- dependent dren to comport with the provisions. federal Significantly, Pennsylvania’s legislature amended the Act in 1998 to include the dual purposes of reunification and adoption rather than merely reunification: “This chapter shall be interpreted (1) To the following purposes: to effectuate
and construed or to possible whenever preserve unity family family unity when provide permanent another alternative 42 Pa.C.S. cannot be maintained....” family 6301(b)(1) language). amended added to indicate (emphasis the specific, before the Court whether question now agencies and trial provides statutes applicable of the language reunification purposes the dual ability pursue courts the through plan- concurrent planning alternate permanency ASFA, allowing pursue by ning, required securing first court-ordered termination without change. (Mother) bar, placed her voluntarily
In the case at L.S.G. son, (Child), custody in the three-month-old S.E.G. (CYS) August and Youth Services Fayette County Children month, Division of the one the Juvenile Court 2002.3 Within adjudicated Child Court of Pleas Fayette County Common placement continuation of his and ordered the plan custody. permanency reunification as the CYS’s With plan outlining issues goal, developed family service CYS Child. At Mother to reunification with be addressed 2003, 24, indicated July CYS hearing review in the near it to file termination intended future, remain the until recommended reunification but Accordingly, proceedings. the conclusion of reunification as the continuation the Juvenile Court ordered goal. to terminate In CYS filed September 2511(a)(8) of the pursuant to Section parental rights Mother’s Fayette Act.4 The Court Division of Orphans’ reviewing sufficiency of the evidence to the Court is not Because termination, history of the support we need not consider the factual Rather, to the relevant we limit our discussion the facts case. timeline. provides: pertinent appeal, 4. As to this Section 2511 involuntary 2511. Grounds
573 County hearings petition Court of Common Pleas held on the At 8 and 2004. the submitted a April hearing, Mother written motion to dismiss petition, asserting the the Act, pursuant to the 23 Pa.C.S. 2511-21, §§ could not be filed in Court until the Orphans’ Court, Act, Juvenile the acting pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 6301-65, §§ had the changed permanency from reunifica- Essentially, tion to adoption. Mother contended that Juve- nile Court permanency hearing only review provided opportunity to challenge adequacy of the services provided Mother, by and that CYS without the hearing, process.5 she be argument, would denied due To her support (a) rights parent regard may General The of rule. to a child be any grounds: terminated after a following filed on of the (8) The child has been removed from the of the care voluntary agreement or agency, court under a with an 12 months or elapsed placement, more have from the of date removal or placement conditions which led to the or removal of the child continue to exist and termination of would best serve the needs welfare and of the child. §2511. 23 Pa.C.S. Although specifically Mother did not cite 42 Pa.C.S her motion, argument hearing her in the and before this Court invokes the (a)-(d) structure of the section. Subsections of Section do apply they this case because address issues to the parents' custody child’s removal from the relating depen- or issues (e) dency delinquency programs. Subsection sets forth timetables permanency hearings determining review purpose "for the child, reviewing permanency plan of the the date which the might permanency for the placement child be achieved and whether safety, protection physical, continues to be suited best mental 6351(e). parties’ and moral welfare of the child.” 42 Pa.C.S. The arguments currently before the primarily following Court relate (f) (f.l): provisions of subsections (0 hearing. Matters permanency per- determined at each —At manency hearing, following: shall court determine all (1) continuing necessity The appropriateness place- for and ment. (2) appropriateness, feasibility The compliance and extent of with the permanency plan developed for the child. (3) progress alleviating extent made toward the circumstances original placement. necessitated cases estab upon relied a number
Mother of a Juvenile Court’s decision significance lishing cases, goal. The as discussed change adoption definitely detail hold that infra, *6 by provided that services CYS were finally and determines the provide not continue to services and that CYS need adequate held that Significantly, the has parent. to the Court petition a cannot considering an Orphans’ Court a to and that a adoption, to reconsider a decision the ability to a has appeal goal change who fails waived . Jr., A.L.D., In the determination See re challenge to (Pa.Super.2002). A.2d 339-40 (4) placement goal feasibility the appropriateness and current the child. for (9)' placement has 15 of the last 22 If the child been for least ..., county sought join agency has or to whether the filed months recruit, identify, process rights parental and to to terminate qualified family adopt approve a to the child unless: and (1) physical, being for best to the tire child is cared relative suited child; mental and moral welfare the (ii) county agency compelling reason has documented the determining filing would that child; the serve the needs and welfare of (iii) family provided necessary has not been with the child's parent, guardian the safe return the child's or custodian to achieve plan. the frames set forth in the within time (f.l) upon the determinations Additional determination. —Based subsection-ff) presented at under and all relevant evidence the made hearing, following: one the court shall determine of the (1) parent, If when child will be returned to the child's is guardian or cases where the return of child best custodian safety, protection physical, mental and moral suited to the child. welfare of (2) county placed adoption, will and when the child be and the parental rights where agency will file for termination cases parent, guardian suited to the child’s or custodian not best return safety, protection physical, mental and moral welfare of child. (3) legal placed If and when the child will be with a custodian.... (4) willing placed be a fit and If and when the child will with relative.... (5) placed living arrange- when child will be If and another approved permanent in nature which is ment intended court.... 42 Pa.C.S. 6351. Rejecting Mother’s argument, Orphans’ Court denied July 11, 2004, the motion dismiss in August On court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 2511(a)(8).6 After Mother filed her notice appeal and her statement of timely matters complained on appeal, Orphans’ filed opinion addressing Mother’s chal- lenge sufficiency of the evidence and her claim must precede CYS’s termination petition.7 case, Relevant to the issues in this the court found had supplied CYS Mother with the appropriate services and had met prove its burden to that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. Similarly, Orphans’ Court held that termination would be in Child’s best it interest as would allow adoption. his
In answer Mother’s challenge to the timing termi- nation petition, the Orphans’ Court concluded that it was J.G., *7 bound In re & 68, M.G. 855 A.2d 70 (Pa.Super.2004), in Superior which the Court held that a “goal change is anot necessary prerequisite to the initiation of involuntary termi- proceedings.” nation In so holding, Orphans’ the Court noted that changing adoption, CYS could continue its concurrent plan providing Mother with services at aimed reunification, such as parenting classes, visitation and until the of termination, time whereas if the goal had been changed to those adoption services would have ceased. Consequently, the court noted that process this of concurrent planning enables a to receive in assistance his her quest reunification until point of termination. Superior Court,
Before the challenged Mother the court’s M.G., decision in upon which the trial court based its decision. She claimed that the decision in failed M.G. to consider the of interaction two subsections of Section 6351 and in resulted the violation of the parents’ process rights. due In a memo- decision, randum Superior Court affirmed the termination father, 6. parental rights The court also terminated the of Child's who is party appeal. anot to this noted, previously sufficiency As of the evidence is not before this Court. reasoning upon relied its prior It parental rights. of Mother’s Superior M.G., an en observing only panel banc in Conse- that decision. or this could overturn Court Court Court, and we to this challenge directed her quently, Mother following to the issue: limited appeal allowance of granted 6351, governing of 42 language Whether children, child requires of disposition dependent child for a change protective agency rights. of seeking parental adoption prior (2005). S.E.G., Pa. A.2d 982 In re issue, Superior begin must with the of this Any review bar, the child As in the case in M.G. Court’s decision for termination filed agency M.G. service from reunifica- seeking without care children had been foster tion to but after the months, timeframe for court triggering for over fifteen permanency plan agency’s the timeliness scrutinize petition, specific absent of a termination filing and direct to 42 Pa.C.S. recognized exceptions, pursuant statutorily 6351(f)(9). M.G., this like Mother before The parent Court, premature claimed that the termination was to be reunification. goal continued while the development initially recounted peti- a termination procedure filing the Lycoming County years prior events prior goal change. tion Several M.G., goal changes filed for agency always the local when delayed while a case would petitions, grant potentially appealed the parents of termi- appealed grant separately opposed then *8 care remain foster nation. the child would Consequently, court through the appellate case progressed while the twice child, the for the permanency In an effort to achieve system. requirements considered the agency court and the local of the Act and the Adoption practices Juvenile Act and the counties, in the and determined agencies other child services a court- could be filed that a termination without changed Accordingly, agency change. ordered practices.
The Superior statutory Court M.G. next considered the to provisions relating changes petitions. It parental noted involuntary is conducted under the aegis Orphans’ pursuant Act permanency while planning children, governed which Section 6351 Act, is implemented by act, the Juvenile Court. Neither it concluded, contains a provision requiring a expressly court- ordered goal filing precede a termination petition. Instead, 6351(f)(9), the court looked Section details one the factual findings Juvenile Court must make at each six-month hearing regarding review the appropriate permanency goal for the child:
(f) Matters to be determined permanency At hearing. each permanency hearing, a shall court determine all of the following:
ijs * [*] [*] (9) If the child has been in placement for at least ., last 22 months .. whether the county agency has filed or sought join petition to rights and recruit, identify, process approve a qualified family to adopt the child unless:
(i) the child is cared being a relative best suited to the physical, mental child; and moral welfare of the (ii) the county has documented a compelling rea- son for determining filing a petition to terminate parental rights would not serve the needs and welfare of child; (iii) the child’s has family not been provided with neces- sary achieve the safe return child’s parent, guardian or custodian within the time frames set forth in the permanency plan. 6351(f)(9) added). (emphasis concluded, It “a
plain reading of the Juvenile Act suggests that one of the matters that may at a determined six-month hearing where the ostensible is reunification but the child has been placement for an extended period, is whether the
578 M.G., petition.” filed a termination has agency
social services tense, “has past use of the provision’s at 855 A.2d. 71-72. Court, that an filed,” suggests Superior according seeking without first may file a termination agency change. goal court-ordered a con- attempted rely
Although parent the M.G. H.S.W.C.-B., 575 Pa. in In re by this Court trary statement (2003), 908, Court concluded 473, Superior A.2d 911 836 obiter dictum.8 non-binding that statement constituted argument that Or- rejected parent’s The court also jurisdiction the Juvenile Court’s usurp could not phans’ Court petition with- considering a termination changes by goal over that the It observed goal change. court-ordered out simply are divisions Court and the Juvenile Court Orphans’ M.G., that, in the same Pleas and the Court within Common in both courts.9 judge presided bar, arguments many reasserts In the case at Mother M.G., incor- which she contends was by the parent raised Superior that argues she rectly Additionally, decided. 6351, entirety Section failed to consider Court M.G. assumption that an contradicts court’s she claims which Orphans’ Court may file change from the Juvenile Court. first securing without M.G., sustain a clear urges this Court to As in Mother Court, Orphans’ Court and the between the Juvenile division through had been established she contends J.B., L.B., M.B., K.B., Pa.Super. 388 cases.10 In In re Court H.S.W.C-B, goal changes we and termination In held that denials appealable. grants petitions, final and petitions, were as well such case, we our decision in that com Although part of the basis of mented, parental petitions terminate "Proposed changes and rights sought concurrently; one cannot seek to ... are often 836 goal is reunification.” A.2d at 911. if the still N.W., re 859 A.2d and in In Superior Court in the instant case 9. The (Pa.Super.2004), was not a condition concluded n Orphans’ judge Court Court precedent even when the they may supra page See at judge person, as well be. are not the same 570, 2, 1018, n. 2. n. 901 A.2d noted, provides acknowledges that the statute previously Mother 10. As Judge Judge Orphans’ Court and hear to act as for a Juvenile Court (1989), notes, 565 A.2d she the Superior Court held that an changing order
constitutes a final and appealable
determination
the Or
phans’ provided
to the CYS
*10
were adequate,
but that the
is nonetheless
of
incapable
caring
highlights
child. She
the Superior Court’s
A.L.D.,
decision in In re
797 A.2d
(Pa.Super.2002),
in
which the
Court,
court held that a
considering
termination petition, cannot reconsider the decision of the
Orphans’ Court
of
regarding
sufficiency
the services.11 To
reinforce this line of reasoning, Mother invokes our comment
in
suggesting
goal
H.S.W.C.-B.
that a
change must precede
H.S.W.C.-B.,
(“[O]ne
termination. See
Turning to the language Section Mother contends the Superior Court’s ignores decision import (f.l)(2): subsection
(f.l) Additional upon determination.' —Based the determina- (f) tions made under subsection and all relevant evidence presented the court hearing, shall determine one of the following:
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
(2)
and when the child will he placed
adoption, and
If
the county agency will
parental
file for
cases
return
guard-
where
to the child’s parent,
concurrently
matters under both
pursuant
statutes
to 42 Pa.C.S.
6351(i).
She contends
apply,
that the reverse does not
and that
Orphans'
judge
case at bar an
Court
could not assume the role of a
judge
Juvenile Court
regarding
changes.
consider matters
However,
noted,
many
judge presides
counties one
over the
Orphans'
functions
both the
Court and the Juvenile Court.
Mother,
by
Superior
11. As noted
Court has reaffirmed
conclu-
sion that a
Juvenile Court’s
decision
any
regarding
forecloses
debate
sufficiency
provided
the services
T.B.B.,
parent.
to the
See
She to determine “if and when” CYS power the exclusive rights. notes that She file a will made under based on the determinations that decision is (f)(4), (f), relating “ap- including subsection subsection placement goal of the current feasibility propriateness language that this contradicts the child.” Mother claims (f)(9) based of subsection “plain reading” Court’s merely the use of tense. past subsections, Mother alleged conflict between
Given Construction, 1see Pa.C.S. Statutory that the Rules of argues the intent of the 1921, 1922, this Court look to require §§ and construe the statute enacting the statute legislature *11 the provisions.12 argues effect to all of She give subsection interpretation improperly Court’s vitiates Superior (f.1)(2) and, it, to decide of the Juvenile Court power with a also petition. to file She whether and when negates construction Superior contends that Court’s to a termination ability Court’s determine when (f)(9)(i)-(iii), should subparagraphs be filed under (iii), to situations pertain which specifically subparagraph and controls), (Legislative provides pertinent part, In intent Section 12. object interpretation is to of all and construction of statutes Genera] Assembly. Ev- intention of the ascertain and effectuate the construed, give ery possible, effect to all its if to statute shall be provisions. 1921(a). 1 Pa.C.S. ascertaining legisla- pertinent part, (Presumptions in In Section 1922 intent), provides tive Assembly ascertaining in the enact- In the intention of the General others, may following among presumptions, a ment of statute the used: (1) absurd, Assembly not intend a result that is That the General does impossible of execution or unreasonable. (2) Assembly to That the intends the entire statute be effec- General tive and certain. (3) Assembly not intend to violate the Constitu- That the General does of Commonwealth. tion of United States or this 1 Pa.C.S. where the family has not been provided necessary ser- argues vices. She that the to appropriate time consider the adequacy provided the services to the family by is at Any hearing. termination, Mother,
hearing after to according would not address the adequacy provided whose terminated, thus, rights have been and would result deprivation of parents’ rights to due process. Consequently, Mother contends legislature could not have intended a result deny parents’ would the Fifth rights under Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Moreover, interpretation she asserts that is improper because it parent’s could result a denial of right equal protection, because some parents provided would be the op- portunity to raise issues denied others. Mother,
According proper construction of Section 65^1, requiring court-ordered change prior to the filing of a petition, to all gives provisions effect statute, for judicial allows review the actions the county agency, parent’s and does not violate a due process equal protection. Consequently, she recommends that this Court “correct” the or sought” tense the verb “filed (f)(9) subsection present indicate the rather than the past tense, which she contends is authority within our under Sec- tion 1923 Construction,13 thus, of the Rules of Statutory require a change of precede any termination petition.
Conversely, argues CYS that the Court properly M.G., upon relied turn properly construed rele vant provisions. statutory CYS contends that the Superior *12 correctly (f)(9) Court plain read the language subsection to punctuation 13. 1923. Grammar and of statutes (a) Grammatical errors shall transposition not vitiate a statute. A may words and clauses be resorted to where a sentence is without meaning as it stands. (c) phrases may Words and necessary proper which to inter- pretation aof statute and which do not conflict with its obvious intent, purpose any way and scope operation, nor its affect may be added the construction thereof. 1 Pa.C.S. parental rights file a agency
allow based on obtaining goal a court-ordered first without Moreover, tense, main “has filed.” CYS the past the use of (f.l)(2) that subsections Mother’s contention tains that (f.l)(2) apply does not (f)(9) because misplaced conflict is (f.l), CYS, entitled (f)(9). Indeed, subsection according determination,” has only is once implicated “additional made under sub to determinations pursuant been identified (f).14 five subsections of contends that each section CYS is (f.l) goal, discrete corresponds previously made under findings to the regard determined with (f). (f.l) occurs only pertains what Subsection subsection the section relied Specifically, determined. after a Mother, (f.l)(2), once is selected only applies upon if reunification apply and cannot appropriate as the goal.15 remains the Act or the Juve- nothing
CYS asserts that filing to the goal change prior requires nile Act in fact contends that the federal petition, and termination ASFA, system, encourages into the state incorporated occur whereby proceedings termination planning concurrent maintains at reunification continue. CYS aimed while services parents system actually provides planning that the concurrent under the custody of their children than more to regain time reunifica- providing would cease system old where of a court-ordered tion at the time services contin- concurrent CYS must adoption, planning, because with hearing. until the termination CYS ue to provide filing petition, CYS asserts that after [withdraw], past, and has withdrawn “could if the achieved parental rights parents termination of have their progress goals prior substantial or made at 18. hearing.” Appellee Brief the interaction of in M.G. did not address 14. The (f)(9) (f.l). subsections concurring with CYS's attorney for the child filed a brief 15. The n analysis. *13 CYS further maintains that concurrent planning eliminates one in layer appeal consequently years delay achiev- ing permanency children. concurrent planning, Under contends, process is not requiring CYS streamlined a determination, and the appellate delay, related Moreover, of a filing petition. termination process maintains that no due violation results because presented court with a termination petition prior goal to a also change will consider whether the parent has satisfied the in plan goals service determining whether termination is in the best interest child.
Initially, disagree we with Mother that our statement H.S.W.C.-B., 911, 836 A.2d at controls our decision in this H.S.W.C.-B., case. In we held that of goal change denials petitions, grants as well such petitions, are final and appealable. We did whether the address lan statutory guage allows precede goal change. Accordingly, the statement that “one cannot seek if is still reunification” constitutes Rather, obiter non-binding dictum. following reasons, that, conclude under we statutory relevant an language, agency may file a even where reunifica tion remains the child.
Mother fails to direct this Court’s to any attention language (relating Section 6351 goal changes) or Section 2511 (relating petitions) to termination evincing a requirement adjudicated goal change to adoption precede the filing petition to terminate parental rights. Although Mother cites valid setting caselaw forth the principle that a Juvenile Court decision ordering change and underlying determina- tion of the adequacy of provided by an agency cannot questioned aby subsequent Orphans’ considering termination, those cases are not relevant a goal when decision has not Moreover, been made. nothing the statu- tory language prevents the Orphans’ Court from considering similar issues when determining whether the evidence sup- ports termination of parental rights and whether such termi- nation is in the best interest child. perma- hold Court must
Under Section six months every for a child hearings nency review guardian to the child’s parent, until “the child returned *14 of the court.” jurisdiction from the custodian or removed 6351(e)(3). of hearings purpose are “for the § child, of the plan determining reviewing permanency or bemay for the child of the date which to be best suited continues placement achieved and whether moral and mental and safety, physical for the and protection 6351(e). § of the child.” welfare 6351(f) noted, a number dis- lists As Section previously hearing court must consider each crete issues that the place- of the current appropriateness plan determine for court to necessary deemed a ment. factors One fifteen been placement is whether the child has consider 6351(f)(9). Id. If child twenty-two months. the last findings category, into the court must make several falls this current placement appropriateness determine has county agency is whether “the goal, —one rights.” join a to terminate sought petition or filed case, (f)(9) contem- subsection Id. As is relevant to instant to join or sought a where the has filed plates agency situation court past, approv- in the petition a termination without would refer required, If were the statute approval al. court a of a but rather to court agency’s filing petition, not to the petition. file a termination agency directing order a agency that the has filed termination Additionally, finding trial court with substan- obviously provide the petition would of the current regarding appropriateness tial information agency’s perspective. at least from the placement, plan Moreover, protect aims not to the subsection rather of a termination but premature filing from the a child has not been filed for who why petition to determine time. 42 U.S.C. been in foster care for extended was Cf. 675(5)(E) to include system a case review (requiring if be filed that a termination shall assuring procedure period child is care an extended of time in the absence specified exceptions).16 Consequently, conclude that we (f)(9) nothing subsection that an cannot suggests agency file for termination of parental rights the permanency goal while continues to be reunification. (f.l)
Consideration subsection not change does this con- clusion because it applies only after consideration of subsec- (f). tion Armed with the determinations made under subsec- (f), tion whether an including agency has filed a termination (f.l) the trial petition, court under subsection must decide (1) whether the child will be “returned to the parent, child’s (2) custodian,” or guardian “placed for adoption, and the (3) county rights,” will file termination of parental custodian,” (4) “placed legal with a “placed with fit and relative,” (5) willing “placed in living arrangement another *15 intended to be permanent nature approved by is the 6351(f.l). § court.” 42 If Pa.C.S. the court to continues believe reunification despite remains a viable the agency’s filing termination, (f.l)(l) the applies court subsection to determine whether and when the child should be to returned his once the example, parent meets the necessary —for plan goals. service Accordingly, planning concurrent contin- ues. 675(5)(E) provides:
16. Section [I]n the case of a child who has been in foster care under the responsibility months, the of State for of most the recent 22 ... petition the State shall a parental rights file to terminate the of the (or, parents petition if by child's such a party, has been filed another and, joined seek be party petition), to as a concurrently, to the to recruit, identify, process, approve qualified family a for an adoption, unless— (i) State, relative; option at the being the the child is cared for a (ii) (which agency a plan State has documented in the case shall review) compelling available for court determining reason for child; filing such would not be in the best interests the or (iii) child, provided family the State has not consistent period with the time plan, the State case such services as the State home, necessary deems for the safe return of the child to the if child's (a)( type 15)(B)(ii) reasonable efforts of the described section 671 required this title are to respect be made with to the child.... added). (emphasis § 42 U.S.C. 675 (f), court, after of subsection
Alternatively, if the review goal, then the appropriate adoption determines that (f.l)(2) “if and determines and when” to court looks subsection county will when placed the child will be agency if the Obviously, court finds for termination. file there is no need to for termination previously, has filed termination, file will agency when determine instead, adoption proceedings merely the court considers when however, Mother’s support does not language, occur. The will file a may decide when to reading only Indeed, Act we note that petition. “A to terminate provides the converse: specifically agency.” ... an may ... be filed parental rights (f), 2512(a). Mother cannot with subsection As (f.l) the agen- point any provision prohibiting to subsection filing petition prior from cy adoption.
Moreover, interpretation an legislative history favors filing file for termination allowing discussed, Pennsylvania As previously a goal petition. to comport children relating modified statutes and adoption. of reunification purposes the ASFA’s dual with 6301(b)(1) Act that the Juvenile (providing 42 Pa.C.S. See unity the family interpreted preserve should be provide perma- or to another alternative possible whenever cannot be main- unity family when the family nent tained____). for con- plans provide state requires ASFA spend to limit time children as measure planning current system: in the care foster *16 eligible to be under this payments
In order a State by Secretary the plan approved it shall have a part, a child for place that ... reasonable efforts to provides ... may made guardian concurrently a be adoption legal with subpara- type efforts of described reasonable with (B)[relating to graph reunification]. 671(a)(15)(F). of the stat- Mother’s construction
42 U.S.C. availability planning of concurrent inhibit the would ute. 6351(f) Instead, Pennsylvania. construction Section (f.l) agencies petitions to allow to file termination while still plan maintaining services under a providing goal comports reunification as the child’s permanency with provision encouraging planning. ASFA’s concurrent More- M.G., over, noted and the in this and in by CYF courts case planning concurrent actually parents by permitting benefits continued scrutiny parental progress services toward meeting goals. service If find plan we were to that (final legislative scheme requires planning goal seriatim adjudication termination change adjudication), followed ser- off, persons vices to such as Mother be cut scrutiny would their progress reaching goals service plan could dimin- ished, and a period limbo between the goal court-ordered change from reunification presumably and the occur, eventual and adoption termination would to the detri- parents and, ment of the of dependent children importantly, the detriment of the all-important achieving prompt permanency for these at risk children. that
We conclude Section 6351 require does goal change precede the filing of a termination petition. Moreover, reject we Mother’s argument the Superior Court’s construction violates the of Statutory Rules Construc tion by creating interpretation undermining constitutional rights. Mother argues that allowing a termination precede due process by violates denying parents the opportunity to be heard issues raised subpar under agraphs 6351(f)(9)(i)-(iii),which would have been addressed a goal change hearing. Mother is correct that those factors less will have weight attached them if has been filed However, it change hearing. does not follow that Mother has been due process denied relevant, because these issues could also be and if raised parent, carefully during adjudication considered of Indeed, merits of the petition. bar, in the case at the Juvenile Court took evidence during termination hear ing relating only (f)(9) potentially applicable subsection issue, question adequacy provided by
588 4/8/04, Reviewing 106.17 Testimony, Notes of
CYS. evidence, that did all it could reunite court found “CYS Op. at 5. Slip Consequent- Trial Court with Mother.” [Child] fails, asserting process denial of due argument Mother’s ly, equal she denied that was argument as does her related protection. Court. affirm the decision
Accordingly, we NEWMAN, CASTILLE, SAYLOR Justice Justice Justice join opinion. EAKIN and Justice BALDWIN and concurring opinion. files a CAPPY Chief Justice CAPPY, concurring. Justice Chief that Pa. conclusion 42 majority opinion’s I agree with child protective agency § not that a require 6351 does C.S. reunification to child from its I rights. of parental seeking analysis apply forth the I would separately set write this conclusion. reach statutory construc- question case presents
In that this (“Act”), 1 1972 Pa.C.S tion, the Act of Statutory Construction 1501 et controlling. The Act directs seq., “[t]he is and of statutes is object interpretation construction all Assem- the intention the General ascertain and effectuate 1921(1). In the Act sets forth regard, this bly.” First, Pa.C.S.1921(b), the Act directs instructions. two free all are clear and from the words of statute “[w]hen letter it is not under ambiguity, disregarded Pa.C.S.1921(c), Second, in 1 spirit.” its pretext pursuing of the statute are Act directs that words “[w]hen Assembly’s may intent be ascertained explicit,” General matters, include the occasion considering specified statute; enactment; mis- circumstances of necessity law; attain; remedies; it former object it seeks chief (i)(9)(i) (child being subparagraphs The additional factors under relative) (ii) compelling (county agency documented cared termination) to Mother’s situa- file for are not relevant reasons not to tion. consequences particular interpretation; contemporaneous legislative history; legislative and administrative interpre- tations of statute. *18 case,
In I majority instant could not from the discern opinion one 1 is being Pa.C.S.1921’s subsections applied to determine 28 meaning. Pa.C.S. 6351’s I conclude that the Fayette County Children Youth Services correct (f)(9), ly argues the words used subsection matters court is to determine a permanency hearing, (f.l), and in subsection as to the additional determinations that follow, are to clearly state that a
rights may be filed to a 23 adoption. (See 6315(f)(9),(f.1). 581-82, Majority Opinion at 901 1025-26). Therefore, A.2d at I believe that this Court’s interpretation of 42 Pa.C.S. 6351 should focus the statute’s language according Pa.C.S.1921(b) to the rule set in 1 out construction statutes that are clear and unambiguous. view, In my majority opinion should not include a consid Pa.C.S.1921(c) eration of statutory factors for the construction of statutes whose words are not explicit. See Packer; 481, Commonwealth v. 192, 568 Pa. 798 A.2d (2002) (observing only when language statute ambiguous statutory Pa.C.S.1921(c) does construction under necessary). become reason,
For this I concur.
v. Appellant. Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
July