In Re: A.M., A Minor, Appeal of: J.P.

J-S78029-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: A.M., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.P., BIOLOGICAL :
FATHER : No. 1094 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Order July 7, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000055-2017
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED DECEMBER 26, 2017
J.P. (“Father”) appeals from the Order entered July 7, 2017, in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County involuntarily terminating his
parental rights to his minor son, A.M. (“Child”).1, 2
Because the record
supports the trial court’s decision, we affirm.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Child came to the attention of the Allegheny County Office of Children,
Youth and Families (“CYF”) in May 2015 when he tested positive for opioids
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
The initials of the Child’s name appear on his birth certificate as “A.P.”
Elsewhere in the record, his name appears with the initials A.P., A.M., and
A.P.-M.
2
In its order, the trial court also terminated the parental rights of Child’s
mother, A.L.M. (“Mother”). Mother did not appeal the termination of her
parental rights, nor did she file a brief in connection with the instant appeal.
J-S78029-17
at birth and Mother admitted to using heroin during the pregnancy and on
the morning of his birth. N.T., 7/7/17, at 51-52. Despite Mother’s
admission, Child remained in the care of Mother and Father. Id. at 52-53.
However, on July 14, 2015, a CYF caseworker visited the family’s home, and
discovered that “there was a possible medical situation for mom, which left
[Child] not in the care of mom or dad.” Id. at 53. CYF obtained an
emergency custody authorization, and placed Child in the care of Mother’s
cousin. Id.; CYF Exhibit 2 (dependency orders). On July 17, 2015, the trial
court entered a shelter care order granting CYF permission to return Child to
Father, who was now living separately from Mother in the home of Child’s
paternal grandmother. N.T., 7/7/17, at 53-54; CYF Exhibit 2. Father
“stayed through the weekend,” and then left the paternal grandmother’s
home. N.T., 7/7/17, at 54. CYF obtained another emergency custody
authorization on July 27, 2015, and placed Child in the care of the paternal
grandmother. Id.; CYF Exhibit 2. The court adjudicated Child dependent
on August 18, 2015.3 CYF Exhibit 2.
Following Child’s adjudication of dependency, Father failed to comply
with his family plan goals. Father attended only five of thirty-one requested
drug screens. N.T., 7/7/17, at 14. Although he received treatment at a
____________________________________________
3
Child remained with paternal grandmother until March 2017 when CYF
placed him in his current, pre-adoptive foster home. CYF Exhibit 1
(psychological evaluations).
-2-
J-S78029-17
drug and alcohol rehabilitation center, he later tested positive for controlled
substances. Id. at 15, 74-75.
Father failed to maintain consistent contact with CYF, failed to
complete a parenting program, and failed to obtain stable housing, in part
due to periods of incarceration. Id. at 71-74, 75, 84-86. He also failed to
maintain consistent contact with Child. Father had one documented visit
with Child during all of 2016.4 Id. at 73-74. On February 28, 2017, the trial
court entered an Order finding aggravated circumstances due to Father’s
failure to maintain substantial and continuing contact with Child for a period
of six months, and relieved CYF of its obligation to provide reunification
efforts. CYF Exhibit 2.
On March 31, 2017, CYF filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental
rights to Child involuntarily. The trial court conducted a termination hearing
on July 7, 2017. Following the hearing, the court entered an Order
terminating Father’s parental rights. Father timely filed a Notice of Appeal
on July 26, 2017, along with a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal.5
____________________________________________
4
Because Child was living with his paternal grandmother in 2016, it is
possible that Father had additional visits of which CYF was not aware. N.T.,
7/7/17, at 84-85.
5
Father’s counsel filed a docketing statement in this Court on August 8,
2017. In the docketing statement, counsel failed to indicate that she filed a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. As a result, this Court
issued a per curiam order on August 10, 2017, directing counsel to file a
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S78029-17
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Father now raises the following issue for our review: “Did the trial
court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that
[]CYF met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of [Father’s] parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §[]2511(b)[?]” Father’s Brief at
8.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
We review Father’s issue mindful of our well-settled standard of
review.
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases
requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an
abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely
because the record would support a different result. We have
previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often
have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple
hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
concise statement by August 21, 2017. Counsel filed her previous concise
statement for a second time on August 15, 2017.
-4-
J-S78029-17
Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938, governs
the termination of parental rights, and requires a bifurcated analysis.
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory
grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if
the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants
termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in
the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b):
determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the
standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the
needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the
emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention
paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such
bond.
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
In this case, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), which provides as
follows.
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child
may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of
at least six months immediately preceding the filing
of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose
of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has
refused or failed to perform parental duties.
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child
to be without essential parental care, control or
subsistence necessary for his physical or mental
well-being and the conditions and causes of the
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will
not be remedied by the parent.
-5-
J-S78029-17
***
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement
with an agency for a period of at least six months,
the conditions which led to the removal or placement
of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or
will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable
period of time, the services or assistance reasonably
available to the parent are not likely to remedy the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child within a reasonable period of time and
termination of the parental rights would best serve
the needs and welfare of the child.
***
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement
with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed
from the date of removal or placement, the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child continue to exist and termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child.
***
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the
child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on
the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing,
furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be
beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition
filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not
consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions
described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the
giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).
-6-
J-S78029-17
On appeal, Father concedes that “there is a basis in the record to
support the finding of the trial judge that grounds for termination under
[Section 2511(a)](1), (2), (5), and (8) were proven by sufficient evidence.”
Because he makes no effort to challenge the trial court’s findings with
respect to Section 2511(a), we need only consider whether the court abused
its discretion by terminating his parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b).
The requisite analysis is as follows.
Section 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental
rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and
emotional needs and welfare of the child. As this Court has
explained, Section 2511(b) does not explicitly require a bonding
analysis and the term ‘bond’ is not defined in the Adoption Act.
Case law, however, provides that analysis of the emotional bond,
if any, between parent and child is a factor to be considered as
part of our analysis. While a parent’s emotional bond with his or
her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-
interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be
considered by the court when determining what is in the best
interest of the child.
[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court
can equally emphasize the safety needs of the child,
and should also consider the intangibles, such as the
love, comfort, security, and stability the child might
have with the foster parent. Additionally, this Court
stated that the trial court should consider the
importance of continuity of relationships and whether
any existing parent-child bond can be severed
without detrimental effects on the child.
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011)) (quotation marks and
citations omitted).
-7-
J-S78029-17
Father contends that continued contact between him and Child “may
best serve” Child’s needs and welfare, and that the only way to ensure this
contact is to preserve his parental rights. Father’s Brief at 13. Father
argues that the “bonds that exist between Father and [C]hild are evident[,]”
and further asserts that terminating his parental rights will eliminate “any
chance Father may have for forming a strong bond and loving relationship
between himself and the child.” Id. at 10, 13.
In its opinion, the trial court found that CYF presented clear and
convincing evidence that terminating Father’s parental rights would best
serve Child’s needs and welfare. Trial Court Opinion, dated 8/30/17, at 22.
The court reasoned that Child does not have a meaningful or beneficial
relationship with Father, and that Father has made no progress toward
having Child returned to his care. Id. The court further reasoned that Child
is bonded to his pre-adoptive foster parents, who provide Child with the
permanency he requires. Id. Our review of the record supports the trial
court’s findings.
At the termination hearing, psychologist Neil Rosenblum, Ph.D.,
testified that over the period from December 2016 to May 2017, he
conducted a series of evaluations at the request of CYF, including an
interactional evaluation of Child and Father, and of Child and his pre-
-8-
J-S78029-17
adoptive foster parents. N.T., 7/7/17, at 20; CYF Exh. 1.6 Based on these
evaluations, Dr. Rosenblum testified that Child is “in the process of forming
a very comfortable relationship and attachment to his foster parents[.]”
N.T., at 33. Child is very happy and secure in his interaction with his foster
parents, and refers to them as “mommy and daddy.” Id. at 33, 36. See
also Psychological Evaluations of Neil Rosenblum, Ph.D., CYF Exh. 1.
In contrast, Dr. Rosenblum testified that Child did not display any
significant degree of attachment to Father. N.T., at 33. Child appeared to
recognize Father, and Father made a positive and appropriate effort to
interact with him. Id. However, Child attempted to return to his foster
parents in the waiting room on three separate occasions during the
evaluation. Id.; CYF Exhibit 1.
Dr. Rosenblum further testified that Father lacks the stability
necessary to care for Child. N.T., at 30. He emphasized Father’s lengthy
history of addiction and criminal activity, and his high level of dependency
on other people. Id. at 29-31. Dr. Rosenblum summarized his conclusions
as follows.
Well, [Child] is now two years of age. He has been in care
for the majority of his life and initially with paternal grandmother
and then subsequently now more recently with [his foster
parents].
____________________________________________
6
CYF rescheduled two of Father’s scheduled evaluations with Dr. Rosenblum
after Father failed to appear. CYF Exh. 1.
-9-
J-S78029-17
I believe there’s a reason why he has attached so strongly
to foster parents. He’s at a period where he is eager for stability
and someone [whom he] can connect with in order to feel safe in
the world and move on in [his] development.
And I would say that both birth parents, particularly
[M]other, show potential, but unfortunately, they have struggled
during the two years that [Child] has been in care, close to the
two years that [Child] has been in care, and based on his need
for stability, my recommendation to the Court is that a goal of
adoption fits within his needs and welfare at this time.
Id. at 36.
Thus, the record confirms that terminating Father’s parental rights will
best serve Child’s needs and welfare. Child is developing a strong bond to
his pre-adoptive foster parents, and already refers to them as “mommy and
daddy.” Child has no bond with Father, and it is clear that ending their
relationship will not cause Child to suffer any detriment. Father is in no
position to care for Child due to his chronic instability, and adoption will
allow Child to obtain the benefits of a permanent and loving home.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child.
Therefore, we affirm the court’s July 7, 2017 order.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/26/2017
- 10 -
J-S78029-17
- 11 -