permanency review hearing in Pennsylvania

2018In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). ____________________________________________ 2Additionally, the trial court’s Order stated, inter alia, that Child was “adamant that he wants to remain in the foster home[,]” Order, 4/11/18, at 6, and a permanency review hearing would take place in three months.

2016See also In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 , 1186-87 n.10 (Pa. 2010) (setting forth the factors and observing that a trial court is obligated to consider them at a permanency review hearing); id. at 1198 (Orie Melvin, J., dissenting) (opining that “[n]owhere in its opinion did the trial court either acknowledge its duty pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f) . . . nor did it explain its evaluation of the considerations enumerated therein.

2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of - 23 - J-S01016-24 A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption).

2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption).

2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of - 23 - J-S01016-24 A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption).

2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption).

2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of - 23 - J-S01016-24 A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption).

2024See D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an issue before a court is moot if in ruling upon the issue the court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Super. 2002)) see also In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that a decision to affirm the orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the dependency court’s decision to change a child’s goal to adoption).

2023See id. at 18–19.

2023D.C.D., 105 A.3d at 672-73 (citations omitted); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 cf. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f)(9) (concerning matters to be determined at the permanency review hearing, including whether the agency has provided the family with necessary services).

2022Interest of L.B., 229 A.3d at 974-75.

2022Id. at 974-75.

2020See In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 12 (Pa. Super. 2003); In re G.T., supra at 873; see also Interest of S. M.

2020See In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 12 (Pa. Super. 2003); In re G.T., supra at 873; see also Interest of S. M.

2020See In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 12 (Pa. Super. 2003); In re G.T., supra at 873; see also Interest of S. M.

2020See In re R.W.J., 826 A.2d 10, 12 (Pa. Super. 2003); In re G.T., supra at 873; see also Interest of S. M.

2019See M.B., 565 A.2d at 806 .

2019See M.B., 565 A.2d at 806 .

2019See In re T.R., 665 A.2d 1260, 1263 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding that juvenile court’s order of psychological evaluation of parent of dependent child and release of such report to interested parties “is separable and collateral to the main cause of action, namely the disposition of T.R.”), rev’d on other grounds, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999) (plurality) (agreeing that the order was collateral to disposition).12 More recently, in N.M., the parents appealed from an order following a permanency review hearing that occurred almost eight months after then seven-month-old N.M. was removed from her parents

2019See In re T.R., 665 A.2d 1260, 1263 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding that juvenile court’s order of psychological evaluation of parent of dependent child and release of such report to interested parties “is separable and collateral to the main cause of action, namely the disposition of T.R.”), rev’d on other grounds, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999) (plurality) (agreeing that the order was collateral to disposition).12 More recently, in N.M., the parents appealed from an order following a permanency review hearing that occurred almost eight months after then seven-month-old N.M. was removed from her parents

2019See In re T.R., 665 A.2d 1260, 1263 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding that juvenile court’s order of psychological evaluation of parent of dependent child and release of such report to interested parties “is separable and collateral to the main cause of action, namely the disposition of T.R.”), rev’d on other grounds, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999) (plurality) (agreeing that the order was collateral to disposition).12 More recently, in N.M., the parents appealed from an order following a permanency review hearing that occurred almost eight months after then seven-month-old N.M. was removed from her parents

2019See In re T.R., 665 A.2d 1260, 1263 (Pa. Super. 1995) (holding that juvenile court’s order of psychological evaluation of parent of dependent child and release of such report to interested parties “is separable and collateral to the main cause of action, namely the disposition of T.R.”), rev’d on other grounds, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999) (plurality) (agreeing that the order was collateral to disposition).12 More recently, in N.M., the parents appealed from an order following a permanency review hearing that occurred almost eight months after then seven-month-old N.M. was removed from her parents

2019See In re L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017); see also In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080 , 1092 (Pa. Super. 2018). -3- J-S25018-19 caseworker; and K.B., Child’s foster mother, testified for CYS.

2019This Court extended the requirements of In re Adoption of L.B.M., 639 Pa. 428, 432 , 161 A.3d 172, 174 (2017), and its progeny to dependency actions generally.

2019See In re H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d 908 , 911 (Pa. 2003).4 Accordingly, we review the merits of Mother’s appeal. ____________________________________________ 4 In In re J.S., 795 A.2d 985 (Pa. Super. 2001), following a permanency review hearing, the trial court entered an order that “did not change the placement goal or order a change in custody.” In re J.S., 795 A.2d at 986 - -4- J-S05029-19 Initially, although her brief raises five issues, Mother’s arguments are intertwined and may be grouped into three categories.

2019By permitting review of this permanency review order, which occurred following a permanency review hearing in which no new evidence or requests were made and which occurred in the midst of ongoing hearings 4 _______________________ (Footnote Continued) child at risk,” id., since appealable orders (i.e., the orders from the termination and goal change hearings) were pending. 4 It is concerning that the termination and goal change hearings have stretched out for such an extended period, leaving the children and Mother in a state of limbo.

2020The reviewing . court is bound by the trial court's determination of facts, but not by the trial court's "inferences, deductions and conclusions." Id. '7 r, {ii \.Pl "[T]he focus of dependency proceedings is upon the best interest of the children and that those considerations supersede all other concerns, 'including the conduct and the rights of the parents." Id. "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id. · Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 635l(f), the following matters are to be determined at a p

2020The reviewing . court is bound by the trial court's determination of facts, but not by the trial court's "inferences, deductions and conclusions." Id. '7 r, {ii \.Pl "[T]he focus of dependency proceedings is upon the best interest of the children and that those considerations supersede all other concerns, 'including the conduct and the rights of the parents." Id. "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id. · Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 635l(f), the following matters are to be determined at a p

2019See In re H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d 908 , 911 (Pa. 2003).4 Accordingly, we review the merits of Mother’s appeal. ____________________________________________ 4 In In re J.S., 795 A.2d 985 (Pa. Super. 2001), following a permanency review hearing, the trial court entered an order that “did not change the placement goal or order a change in custody.” In re J.S., 795 A.2d at 986 - -4- J-S05029-19 Initially, although her brief raises five issues, Mother’s arguments are intertwined and may be grouped into three categories.

2019See In re H.S.W.C.-B., 836 A.2d 908 , 911 (Pa. 2003).4 Accordingly, we review the merits of Mother’s appeal. ____________________________________________ 4 In In re J.S., 795 A.2d 985 (Pa. Super. 2001), following a permanency review hearing, the trial court entered an order that “did not change the placement goal or order a change in custody.” In re J.S., 795 A.2d at 986 - -4- J-S05029-19 Initially, although her brief raises five issues, Mother’s arguments are intertwined and may be grouped into three categories.

2026See id. at 71 .

2025See In re Adoption of B.R.S., 11 A.3d 541 , 545 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating: permanency planning for dependent children proceeds in the juvenile court under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387; while the termination of parental rights matters proceed in Orphans’ Court under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938; and the same trial judge may preside over both matters); see also In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-A03035-25 At a permanency review hearing on May 1, 2024, DHS requested the Children be removed from Grandmother’s ca

2025See In re Adoption of B.R.S., 11 A.3d 541 , 545 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating: permanency planning for dependent children proceeds in the juvenile court under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6387; while the termination of parental rights matters proceed in Orphans’ Court under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938; and the same trial judge may preside over both matters); see also In re J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 906 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Footnote Continued Next Page) -2- J-A03035-25 At a permanency review hearing on May 1, 2024, DHS requested the Children be removed from Grandmother’s ca

2025See id. at 182 . ____________________________________________ 6 We note that salient to the Interest of S.W. holding was the Court’s decision to overrule a 1989 Superior Court decision, Mitch v. Bucks County Children & Youth Social Service Agency, 556 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 1989), which predated the 1998 enactment of section 6336.1(a).

2025In re J.R., 333 A.3d 446 , 452-53 (Pa. Super. 2025) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also N.S., 237 A.3d at 552 (holding that “[n]either the 10-page transcript of the permanency review hearing, nor the trial court’s 3-page opinion, exhibits the comprehensive inquiry required in a removal case, or explains why removal of [the child] from [the] mother’s custody promotes [the child’s] best interests or welfare” (citations omitted and some formatting altered)).

2025Therefore, “[i]n order for - 27 - J-A09020-25 the court to declare the custodian a ‘permanent legal custodian[,]’ the court must find that neither reunification nor adoption is best suited to the child’s safety, protection[,] and physical, mental[,] and moral welfare.” In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973, 978 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations omitted).

2025See id. at 182 . ____________________________________________ 6 We note that salient to the Interest of S.W. holding was the Court’s decision to overrule a 1989 Superior Court decision, Mitch v. Bucks County Children & Youth Social Service Agency, 556 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 1989), which predated the 1998 enactment of section 6336.1(a).

2023See In re C.J., 729 A.2d 89, 95 (Pa. Super. 1999). -2- J-S43016-22 In March 2022, the juvenile court held a permanency review hearing and found Mother’s compliance to be minimal.

2023See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9); In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085 , 1108 & n.19 (Pa. 2023) (discussion of enactment of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9) in accordance with federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 269 (same).

2021See In re R.C., 945 A.2d 182, 184 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explaining that the order finding aggravated circumstances and ending reunification services was “by definition . . . an appeal as of right from a collateral Order”). -5- J-S22005-21 Before beginning our review, we address Father’s defective presentation of his claims on appeal.

2019See In re L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017); see also In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080 , 1092 (Pa. Super. 2018). -3- J-S25018-19 caseworker; and K.B., Child’s foster mother, testified for CYS.

2019“The right of a litigant to in-court presentation of evidence is essential to due process; in almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.” M.O. v. F.W., 42 A.3d 1068, 1072 (Pa.Super. 2012). -6- J-S72008-18 In In Interest of L.T., 158 A.3d 1266, 1278 (Pa.Super. 2017), this Court confronted a similar challenge to a juvenile court’s sua sponte goal change based, in part, upon the best practices espoused in the Dependency Benchbook, and we concluded that the Juvenile Act not only fore