In the Interest of R.J.T.

J.T. (Father) and R.T. (Mother) (defendant) were the parents of R.J.T., who was removed from Mother and Father’s custody one month after he was born. Mother and Father had a history of domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. R.J.T. was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care. Mother and Father began reunification services. Regular permanency-review hearings were held. After R.J.T. had been in foster care for two years, a permanency-review hearing was held at which the county filed a motion to change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. After considering the evidence of Mother’s and Father’s progress and remaining goals, and concerns regarding R.J.T.’s foster-care placement, the trial court denied the motion to change R.J.T.’s permanency goal to adoption. The trial court listed several reasons for its decision in its opinion. The trial court did not specifically set a concurrent goal or a desired permanency date. The county appealed, arguing that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion not to change the goal for a child who had been in placement for 22 months. Indeed, Pennsylvania law required that if a child’s foster-care placement had exceeded 15 of the past 22 months, the trial court was required to make certain determinations, which the court did not make. However, Pennsylvania law did not mandate a goal change simply because a child had been in foster care for 15 of 22 months. The length of placement was one of many factors. At any rate, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion in not changing the goal, stated incorrectly that the trial court had failed to provide reasons for denial, and used negative testimony that supported a goal change that the trial court had not relied on. The superior court also misread the law to require a goal change from reunification to adoption once a child’s placement reached 15 of the past 22 months and reunification was not imminent. The superior court ordered the trial court to make adoption the goal. Mother sought permission to appeal, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review. R.J.T. was nearly four years old when the supreme court ruled.