In the Interest of: D.N. Appeal of: J.C.M.N.

J-S52015-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.N. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: J.C.M.N., FATHER No. 288 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Decree entered January 2, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family
Court, at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000315-2013; CP-51-DP-0000156-2012,
FID 51-FN-001196-2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2014
I respectfully dissent. I depart from the majority’s analysis with
respect to the reliance upon Ms. McCloud’s testimony that no bond existed
between Father and Child and I would remand for further proceedings.
At the termination hearing, Ms. McCloud stated that Child did not have
a bond with Father. N.T., 1/2/14, at 13. In support thereof, she testified as
follows:
Q: [D]o you believe that [Child] has a parent/child
bond with Father?
A: No.
Q: Why is that?
A: Father, while he was out [of prison], he did visit
with [Child] but I don’t believe there is a bond between the
two.
Q: And why is that?
* Former Justice specially assigned to Superior Court.
J-S52015-14
A: Well, according to the agency─
Id. (emphasis added). Father’s counsel objected1 and the court sustained
the objection. Id. We further note that Ms. McCloud did not supervise the
visits with Child. Id. at 21.
The trial court opined that “the testimony established that [Child]
did not have a bond [sic] her father.” Trial Ct. Op., 4/16/14, at 5 (emphasis
added) (unpaginated). However, the trial court did not hear any evidence
concerning Child’s interactions with Father during the supervised visits, only
Ms. McCloud’s bald assertion that Child did not have a parent/child bond with
Father. Ms. McCloud was about to testify only as to what the agency
informed her, and in any case the court sustained an objection before she
could complete her response. In the circumstances of the instant case, I
would find there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding
that the testimony established that Child did not have a bond with Father.
See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa.
Super. 2010).
1
Counsel did not state a basis for his objection.
-2-