A Blair County mother has lost her challenge to a proposal by the county’s child welfare agency changing the goal from unification to adoption for two of her children who are now in separate foster care homes.

The mother’s problems began on Jan. 7, 2023, when Blair County Children, Youth and Families removed one of the children in question from her apartment “due to deplorable home conditions” that led to the mother’s arrest on multiple charges of endangering the welfare of children.

According to a Superior Court opinion handed down in the case, authorities found the entrances to the home were blocked by clothing and garbage.

The stove in the home was inoperable. The refrigerator also did not work and, according to the juvenile court report, it had “bugs and rotten food inside.”

The crib of one of her children “had food, clothing, and garbage all around it and the mother’s apartment was infested with flies.”

Toys that were considered “choking hazards” were scattered about, and older children in the home had no beds and slept on seat cushions.

The report by the Superior Court concluded “there were cigarette butts everywhere without any working fire alarm.”

The young child in the home, aged 2 at the time, was eventually placed in foster care while two other children were reunified with their birth fathers.

The appeals court judges indicated the mother had three other children who were not in her custody at the time.

The mother eventually was placed in the Blair County Court’s Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program.

She was sentenced to perform community service, complete a parenting class and follow through on referrals for drug and alcohol counseling and mental health services.

The mother’s child in the protective custody of child welfare was eventually placed in a foster home.

In early 2024, the woman began a new relationship and became pregnant, eventually having a child with a new dad in November 2023.

The mother and the father, it was pointed out by the Superior Court panel reviewing the case, were using drugs, and that led to a safety plan involving the newborn.

He too was placed in a foster home.

The agency established, as a goal for two children in foster care, reunification with the mother.

The plan indicated the mother was to continue with reunification services with a focus on mental health services, housing and employment.

The mother separated from the father of the youngest child and eventually entered a domestic violence shelter called Huntingdon House.

She was able to make some progress toward reunification with her children while with Huntingdon House but, the Superior Court decision indicated, was asked to leave the facility “due to noncompliance.”

During this time, the agency maintained its protective custody of the older child due to the mother’s lack of appropriate housing.

That child remained in a separate foster care home.

Testimony during the ongoing hearings in the case before Blair County President Judge Wade A. Kagarise indicated the foster parents of the youngest child were also caring for the mother’s older child on weekends and the foster parents expressed their desire to serve as adoptive parents of both her children.

The court on Jan. 8 of this year authorized the goal change from reunification to adoption.

In his ruling, the judge noted that the mother had been in “moderate compliance” with her reunification goals but stated she had made “no progress” toward alleviating the circumstances that brought the children into care in the first place.

The mother, through attorney Ashley N. Passarello, challenged the judge’s determination.

The defense argued the mother had shown progress while participating in reunification services, and, the appeal noted, the court abused its discretion by not placing the children with relatives of the father of her youngest child.

The Superior Court panel that included Judges Alice B. Dubow, Carolyn Nichols and Correale Stevens however disagreed with the defense’s position, stating, “A child’s life cannot be put on hold in the hope the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.”

The Superior Court panel outlined that Kagarise in his decision highlighted the mother’s “unpredictable housing and tumultuous lifestyle since her separation from Huntingdon House, and it found no merit to the mother’s argument that she had made progress to forestall goal change.

As to her contention that the youngest child should have been placed with relatives of the father, the Superior Court explained that the foster family where he is now is the only family he has ever known.

The child’s foster mother stated he is very attached to her family and explained, “He feels like a son to us.”

The child’s foster care family has also been providing weekend respite care for the older child, who is now four. The foster parents expressed a desire to adopt him as well.

The appeals court concluded, “We affirm the orders changing the children’s permanency goals from reunification to adoption.”

In its summation, the Superior Court panel stated it found no abuse of discretion by Judge Kagarise.