Full Opinion

J-S30033-26 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: L.D., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: M.R., FATHER : : : : : : No. 472 WDA 2026 Appeal from the Order Entered March 24, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at No: CP-04-DP-0000002-2025 IN THE INTEREST OF: X.R., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: M.R., FATHER : : : : : : No. 473 WDA 2026 Appeal from the Order Entered March 24, 2026 In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Juvenile Division at No: CP-04-DP-0000001-2025 BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: October 20, 2026 In these consolidated appeals, M.R. (Father) challenges the orders which changed the permanency goals for his dependent children, L.D. and X.R. (Children), from reunification to adoption or permanent legal custody.1 ____________________________________________ 1 Children’s mother (Mother) died in a car accident in June of 2025. J-S30033-26 Upon review, we affirm on the basis of the juvenile court’s opinion filed on May 4, 2026. L.D. was born in March of 2022 and X.R. was born in May of 2024. As Father explains, this case originated with the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (ACCYF) in September of 2024, when “a physician observed bruising on X.R.,” and Mother and Father “were indicated [for abuse], as they were unable to provide an explanation for [X.R.’s] bruising.” Father’s Brief at 17. Father was charged with endangering the welfare of children, but the charges “were reduced and ultimately withdrawn after Father completed parenting classes and anger management.” Id. Children were adjudicated dependent in Allegheny County on November 22, 2024. On December 2, 2024, the case was transferred to Beaver County, “as the parents were residing in Beaver County.”2 Id. Beaver County Children and Youth Services (BCCYS) became involved with the family in January of 2025. The court explained: A Permanency Review Order was issued on April 24, 2025, following a Permanency Review Hearing held on April 23, 2025. At that time, the placement goal for Children was reunification with parents, and a concurrent placement plan of adoption. The court specifically ordered “Father is to begin to work with CareerLink at the Beaver Valley Mall, or any other location, to help obtain employment.” ____________________________________________ 2 The Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure provide that after a dependency adjudication, “a court may consider the transfer of a case to another county if the transfer is best suited to the safety, protection, and physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child.” Pa.R.J.C.P. 1302(A). -2- J-S30033-26 *** On June 29, 2025, Mother was involved in a car accident which resulted in her death. [A] Permanency Review Hearing occurred on August 4, 2025. Father’s compliance with the permanency plan was stated as “moderate compliance with the permanency plan, in that he has shown a history of a lack of initiative to identify and engage in needed services.” The court found “there has been moderate progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement, in that lack of initiative is hampering his chances at fully completing services.” On October 21, 2025, L.D. and X.R. were transferred to kinship foster care and began living with their maternal great aunt [(Foster Mother)] and great uncle [(Foster Father)]. Following a hearing on November 13, 2025, the court found that placement of L.D. and X.R. continued to be necessary and appropriate. At this point, L.D. and X.R. had been in placement for 14 months. Father was found to have been in moderate compliance with the permanency plan, “in that he is complying but slowly,” and he had made moderate progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement by obtaining housing. The court found additional services would need to be made available to Father as a result of a recent autism diagnosis of L.D.[, and] specifically, “[i]t would be helpful if that type of service was introduced into his visits sooner than later.” During the November 13, 2025 Permanency Review Hearing, Father made a misrepresentation to the court that he had obtained new employment. As a result of Father’s misrepresentations (which were unknown to the court until the March 2026 Goal Change Hearing), the following finding was included “Father visits regularly and when he misses scheduled visits, the court finds that his schedule makes it hard to do everything that is required of him. He now has a new job that should provide a schedule that will accommodate his current visiting schedule.” On March 4, 2026, BCCYS filed a Petition for Permanency Hearing which resulted in a Permanency Review and Goal Change Hearing being scheduled on March 19, 2026. Specifically, [BCCYS] sought to change the primary goal from Reunification to Adoption and -3- J-S30033-26 change the concurrent goal of Adoption to Permanent Legal Custodian (relative). Juvenile Court Opinion (JCO), 5/4/26, at 4-8 (footnotes omitted). The court held the goal change hearing on March 19, 2026. The court heard testimony from BCCYS caseworker, James Kimbrough; Children’s Institute visitation supervisor, Kelly Rice; Children’s Foster Mother, and Father. After the conclusion of evidence, the court made extensive findings on the record. See id. at 15-23 (citing N.T., 3/19/26, at 202-219). On March 24, 2026, the court entered orders memorializing its findings and changing Children’s permanency goals from reunification to adoption or permanent legal custody. On April 2, 2026, Father filed timely notices of appeal and concise statements of errors pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father presents the following issues for review: I. Whether the [juvenile c]ourt abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in changing the permanency goal from reunification to adoption where the evidence was insufficient to establish that reunification was no longer appropriate or feasible. II. Whether the [juvenile c]ourt abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in holding that [Father] failed to remedy the conditions which lead to placement where the [c]ourt failed to properly consider [Father’s] compliance with services, efforts toward reunification, and progress made during the pendency of the case. III. Whether the [juvenile c]ourt abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in determining that [C]hild[ren]’s continued placement and adoption best serve [C]hild[ren]’s needs and welfare, where the [c]ourt failed to properly consider the parent- child bond and the impact of severing that relationship. IV. Whether the [juvenile c]ourt abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law where its findings and conclusions were not -4- J-S30033-26 supported by clear and convincing evidence of record and were against the weight of the evidence. Father’s Brief at 15-16. Father’s issues all pertain to the court’s assessment of the evidence. The essence of Father’s claims is that the court’s “findings go directly against the weight of the evidence and therefore constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 39.3 We disagree. As Father recognizes, this Court reviews goal change orders for an abuse of discretion. See Interest of K.C., 319 A.3d 596, 599 (Pa. Super. 2024). We must accept the juvenile court’s factual findings and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record. Id. at 599-600. This Court has explained: Not only are our [juvenile court] judges observing the parties during the hearing, but usually ... they have presided over several other hearings with the same parties and have a longitudinal understanding of the case and the best interests of the individual child involved. Thus, we must defer to the judges who see and hear the parties and can determine the credibility to be placed on each witness and, premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of the success of the current permanency plan. Even if an appellate court would have made a different conclusion based on the cold record, we are not in a position to reweigh the evidence and the [court’s] credibility determinations…. Id. at 600 (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 3 Although BCCYS and Children’s guardian ad litem (GAL) have not filed briefs, BCCYS has stated that the “decision to change the goal to adoption should be affirmed,” and the GAL is “in agreement with and supportive of” the goals “changed to adoption and not to remain reunification.” BCCYS Letter, 6/24/26, at 2; GAL Letter, 6/22/26, at 2. -5- J-S30033-26 Permanency goals are governed by the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-65. The Juvenile Act seeks “to prevent children from languishing indefinitely in foster care, with its inherent lack of permanency, normalcy, and long-term parental commitment.” Interest of K.C., 319 A.3d at 600 (citation omitted). The child is the focus in goal change proceedings, where the “[s]afety, permanency, and well-being of the child must take precedence over all other considerations, including the rights of the parents.” Id. (emphasis in original). Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, when considering ... a goal change for a dependent child, the juvenile court is to consider, inter alia: (1) the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement; (2) the extent of compliance with the family service plan; (3) the extent of progress made towards alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement; (4) the appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the children; (5) a likely date by which the goal for the child might be achieved; (6) the child’s safety; and (7) whether the child has been in placement for at least fifteen of the last twenty-two months. The best interests of the child, and not the interests of the parent, must guide the trial court. Id. Here, Father claims the court “mainly focused on Father’s failures, as opposed to the actual progress that Father made.” Father’s Brief at 24. He faults the court for “focusing mainly on two issues when making its decision in this case, Father’s ‘lack of parenting skills’ and Father’s visitation record.” Id. According to Father, he “testified credibly” about his financial constraints. Id. at 28. He also states that BCCYS “failed Father.” Id. These claims are unavailing, as the record supports the court’s determination that “the decision -6- J-S30033-26 to change the goal to adoption was made in the best interest of X.R. and L.D.” JCO at 32. Notably, the court has provided a detailed recitation of the evidence and has thoroughly discussed applicable law in explaining why it decided to change Children’s permanency goals. In its analysis, the court states: This court does not agree that Father has made substantial progress toward achieving the goals of his permanency plan. Throughout the pendency of this case, Father’s lack of initiative, participation, and progress has been pointed out by the Permanency Review Orders of the court. While Father did attend parenting classes and anger management for the purpose of resolving his criminal case in Allegheny County, he has made little progress with the recommendations made by BCCYS. Father has consistently failed to attend visitation with his children. Father has not found steady employment, despite his representations to the court and resources offered to him, such as CareerLinks. Father has not attended medical appointments, or adequately acknowledged the individual needs of L.D. Father is unaware of where his children attend daycare. Father consistently goes through his three-hour supervised visitation without recognizing that L.D. or X.R. need a diaper change. Id. at 32-33. Upon review, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion, and we adopt the court’s comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion in affirming the orders which changed Children’s permanency goals from reunification to adoption or permanent legal custody. Orders affirmed. -7- J-S30033-26 DATE: 10/20/2026 -8-