In the Interest of: C.B., Appeal of: I.Q.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an order changing the permanency goal for C.B. from reunification to subsidized permanent legal custodianship. The court granted appointed counsel’s application to withdraw under Anders and held that the appellant’s challenges to the dependency adjudication, removal, alleged evidentiary errors, reasonable efforts, and constitutional rights were frivolous or not properly before the court.

Holdings

1. Counsel complied with the Anders requirements, including the additional notice requirements applicable to dependency proceedings, after submitting a corrected letter advising Stepfather of his right to counsel in subsequent dependency or termination proceedings and his ability to seek new appointed counsel.
2. The challenge to C.B.'s dependency adjudication and removal was unavailable because the adjudication was a final, immediately appealable change of status and Stepfather did not timely appeal it; he could not mount a collateral attack in the later goal-change appeal.
3. The constitutional challenge was frivolous because parental control is not absolute and the Commonwealth may intervene to protect a child's welfare; C.B.'s safety, permanency, and well-being could take precedence over Stepfather's asserted familial-integrity interests.
4. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that continued placement was necessary and appropriate, that Stepfather had made no appreciable progress toward alleviating the circumstances causing placement, that reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan were made, and that placement with a legal custodian rather than reunification or adoption was best suited to C.B.'s safety, protection, and welfare.
5. The bond challenge was frivolous because the juvenile court considered the evidence and reasonably inferred that no bond existed between C.B. and Stepfather after their prolonged lack of contact, while the evidence showed a secure attachment between C.B. and Foster Mother.

Questions Presented

1. Whether appellate counsel satisfied the Anders and dependency-specific withdrawal requirements.
2. Whether the juvenile court relied on inaccurate or fabricated evidence in changing C.B.'s permanency goal.
3. Whether Stepfather could collaterally challenge the 2023 dependency adjudication and removal order in an appeal from the later goal-change order.
4. Whether the goal change violated Stepfather's asserted federal and Pennsylvania constitutional rights to familial integrity.
5. Whether the evidence supported the juvenile court's findings under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)-(f.2), including the necessity and appropriateness of placement, progress toward alleviating the conditions causing placement, reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan, and the selection of legal custodianship.
6. Whether the juvenile court adequately considered the bond between C.B. and Stepfather.

Disposition

affirmed