In the Int. of: J.V.D., Appeal of: A.D.

J-A20023-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.V.D., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.D., NATURAL FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 278 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 6, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000143-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.M.D., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.D., NATURAL FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 279 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 6, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000144-2019
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
A.D. (“Father”) appeals from the decrees entered on February 6, 2020
granting the petitions filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth
and Families (“OCYF”) to terminate his parental rights to his minor children,
J.D. a/k/a J.V.D. (a male born in December 2015) and N.D. a/k/a N.M.D. (a
male born in May 2017) (collectively, “the Children”), pursuant to the Adoption
Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). We affirm.
J-A20023-20
The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history of this case
as follows.
OCYF[’s] first contact[] with the family [was] in October [] 2014
and January 2015. The basis for these referrals were allegations
that [N.G. (“Mother”)] was abusing drugs. At that time, Mother
had two older children in her care and the subjects of this appeal
were not yet born. It was unclear to this court how these referrals
were resolved or if the cases became court active. It appears that
OCYF had no contact with the family again until J.D. . . . was born
[in] December [] 2015. OCYF received reports that [J.D.] tested
positive for Suboxone at birth. OCYF spoke with both Mother and
Father and they confirmed that the child had in fact tested positive
for Suboxone at birth. OCYF began a more thorough investigation
of the family and determined that Mother had a history of
substance abuse and mental health concerns. During the
investigation, Father reported that he was a recovering heroin
addict and had a criminal history with multiple incarcerations. He
also reported a history of mental health issues. The parents
claimed that they were receiving the appropriate level of services
for their substance abuse and mental health concerns. OCYF was
able to substantiate the parents[’] claims that they were in
treatment and addressing their drug[,] alcohol and mental health
issues. As a result, OCYF closed their case.
N.D. was born [in] May [] 2017. OCYF received a referral on
August 9[,] 2017 regarding reports that N.D.'s medical needs
were not being met by the parents. The reports also alleged
substance abuse concerns for both parents. From August until
December [] 2017, OCYF attempted to engage with the family and
provide services to the parents. OCYF reported that the parents
were unresponsive to their attempts to contact them and were not
cooperative with services. OCYF filed a [d]ependency [p]etition
on December 2[,] 2017 alleging that the [C]hildren were without
proper parental care or control. OCYF sought and was granted an
[o]rder for [e]mergency [p]rotective [c]ustody on January 18[,]
2018. [The Children then] were removed from the parent's care.
The parties appeared for a [s]helter [h]earing on January 19[,]
2018. [Following the hearing, the C]hildren were returned to
Father[. Mother] was permitted to remain in the family home so
long as Father supervised all contact between [Mother] and the
[C]hildren. The court ordered OCYF to institute in-home services
to assist the family. The parties appeared for another hearing on
-2-
J-A20023-20
January 30[,] 2018. The case was continued but the court ordered
the parents to cooperate with OCYF [as well as] in-home services
and to submit to random urine screens. Father was ordered to
complete a screen that day.
An [a]djudicatory [h]earing was held on February 13[,] 2018 and
[the C]hildren were adjudicated dependent. Mother appeared
visibly intoxicated at the hearing and the court ordered the
[C]hildren be removed from Father's care and placed into foster
care with paternal grandmother and great-grandmother. Father
was ordered to continue working with in-home services, to
continue participating with drug and alcohol and mental health
treatment, to comply with random urine screens, and to undergo
forensic evaluations. The court ordered Father's visits to be
supervised until he could provide two consecutive negative drug
screens.
Dr. Neil Rosenblum was the court-appointed psychologist
assigned to conduct forensic evaluations of the family. On April
26[,] 2018, he conducted an individual evaluation with Father and
an interactional evaluation with the [C]hildren and both parents.
Dr. Rosenblum diagnosed Father with Cannabis Use Disorder,
Opioid Use Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance
of Emotions and Conduct, History of Adult Antisocial Behavior,
Antisocial Personality Disorder, Unspecified Anxiety Disorder,
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Parent/Child Relational
Problems. He did not believe that Father was putting forth a
sincere effort to address his longstanding substance abuse
concerns and related mental health difficulties. Dr. Rosenblum
concluded that [F]ather "remains in denial regarding his continued
difficulties with anger, irritability, and very pervasive lack of
self-control in his personal functioning[.”] Dr. Rosenblum opined
that the parents did well during the interactional evaluation and
introduced the [C]hildren to age appropriate activities. He noted
that they did a "very adequate job of maintaining" the [Children’s]
interest and focused on the [Children] throughout the evaluation.
The parties appeared for a [p]ermanency [h]earing on June 5[,]
2018. The court ordered the [C]hildren to remain in the care of
their paternal relatives. Father was found to be in minimal
compliance with this permanency plan as he had not engaged in
drug and alcohol treatment or mental health treatment nor had
he attended [a] parenting [program] or cooperated with in-home
services on a consistent basis. The court further found that
[Father did] not attend random drug screens consistently. Father
-3-
J-A20023-20
was ordered to engage in drug and alcohol treatment, mental
health treatment, to cooperate with in-home services and to
attend a parenting program. Visits were to remain supervised.
The parties appeared for a [p]ermanency [h]earing on September
4[,] 2018. The court ordered the [C]hildren to remain in foster
care placement. Father was found to be in minimal compliance
with his permanency plan and to have made minimal progress in
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement of the [C]hildren. The court found that he had not been
attending his random drug screens nor had he been meeting with
in-home services. Father was ordered to undergo an updated
drug and alcohol evaluation and to follow all recommendations.
He was also ordered to submit to random urine screens and to
continue mental health treatment.
On November 20[,] 2018, the [C]hildren were placed in the foster
home of J.E. and L.M. The parties appeared for a [p]ermanency
[h]earing on November 29[,] 2018. Father was found to be in
moderate compliance with his permanency plan as he [was]
engaged in drug and alcohol treatment, [] signed releases and
[submitted] to drug screens. He was ordered to attend a
parenting program and anger management classes. Visitation
was to remain supervised.
The parties appeared for a [p]ermanency [h]earing on February
21[,] 2019. The court ordered the [C]hildren to remain in their
foster care placement. Father was found to be in moderate
compliance as he was engaged in drug and alcohol treatment, []
signed releases, and was submitting to random drug screens. The
court ordered [F]ather to continue drug and alcohol treatment and
to continue attending random drug screens. [Father] was also
ordered to attend anger management classes and to continue
mental health treatment.
Dr. Rosenblum conducted a[ second] individual evaluation of
Father on February 27, 2019 and an interactional evaluation with
Father and the [C]hildren on February 28[,] 2019. During the
individual evaluation, Dr. Rosenblum diagnosed Father with Opioid
Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder, Unspecified Bipolar and
Related Disorder, Unspecified Trauma and Stressor Related
Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of
Emotions and Conduct, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Panic
Disorder with Agoraphobia and Parent Child Relational Problems.
He noted that Father had done a "somewhat better job" at
-4-
J-A20023-20
controlling his irritability and anger. Father [again suggested]
that marijuana was the method he chose to treat his mental health
issues. Dr. Rosenblum concluded that Father was too reliant on
chemical solutions or treatment for his mental health and
substance abuse concerns as opposed to being willing to "invest
himself in much needed intensive treatment for these
problems[.”] He concluded that Father appeared "to be content
to maintain a dysfunctional lifestyle that essentially leaves him
handicapped and unable to establish needed independence or an
improved level of functioning[.”] Dr. Rosenblum also expressed a
concern with the co-dependent relationship between the parents
and its effect on their long-standing substance abuse issues.
During the interactional evaluation, Dr. Rosenblum noted that the
[Children] were both comfortable with Father but that he
struggled to keep them interested. Dr. Rosenbloom opined that
the [Children] did not respond well to direction from Father and
that he was not effective in setting limits for them. He concluded
that the [Children] displayed short attention spans and far less
disciplined behaviors while with Father as compared to the foster
parents.
The parties appeared for a [p]ermanency [h]earing on April 18[,]
2019. The court ordered the [C]hildren remain in foster care
placement. Father was found to be in moderate compliance with
his permanency plan. The court found that [Father] was engaged
in drug and alcohol treatment, [] attended drug screens and
[began] anger management therapy.
In early May, the foster parents notified OCYF that they were
relocating to Texas. The [C]hildren were removed from their
home and placed in the foster home of K.S. (hereinafter "[F]oster
[M]other")[.] The parties appeared for a [p]ermanency [h]earing
on July 9[,] 2019. The court ordered the [C]hildren to remain in
foster care placement. Father was found to be in minimal
compliance with the permanency plan as he had not attended any
drug screens and [was not] working with in-home services. [In
addition, Father was not] attending visits consistently. Father was
ordered to engage in dual diagnosis treatment, comply with
random urine screens, to attend anger management and [to] work
with in-home services and coached visitation.
On August 1[,] 2019, OCYF filed a [p]etition to involuntarily
terminate Father's parental rights. The parties appeared for a
[p]ermanency [h]earing on October 8[,] 2019 and the court
ordered the [C]hildren to remain in their foster home. Foster
-5-
J-A20023-20
Mother [was] granted educational and medical decision-making
rights. Father was found to be in minimal compliance as he [was
not] attending dual diagnosis treatment [or] submitting to drug
screens consistently. The court found that he had only recently
re-engaged in mental health treatment and anger management
therapy. The court ordered him to work with in-home services, to
engage with a parenting program, to attend drug and alcohol and
mental health treatment and to submit to random drug screens.
On January 10[,] 2020, Dr. Rosenblum conducted his [third and]
final set of evaluations. After the individual evaluation of Father,
Dr. Rosenblum diagnosed him with Opioid Use Disorder, History
of Cannabis Use Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Order, Unspecified
Bipolar and Related Disorder, Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia,
Personality Disorder with Antisocial and Paranoid Features and
Parent/Child Relational Problem. [Dr. Rosenblum] noted that
Father had difficulty acknowledging any degree of fault or past
mistakes on his part. Dr. Rosenblum also reported that Father
was quick to project blame for problems onto others and "finds it
difficult to engage in any form of self-evaluation in a more open
and honest manner[.”] During the interactional evaluation, Dr.
Rosenblum opined that Father was patient with the [Children] but
tended to focus on [J.D.]. Dr. Rosenblum noted that Father
struggled to set limits for [N.D.] and was content to allow him to
"do his own thing[.”] Dr. Rosenblum concluded that Father
displayed personality characteristics that would make it difficult to
establish confidence that he was on the right track and honest and
genuine in his commitment to change.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/20, at 2-8 (footnote omitted).
The trial court conducted a termination hearing on January 31, 2020.1
The following individuals testified during the hearing: Nina Wiebalk,
Supervisor of Family Resources Unification Services; Maria Duranti, OCYF
____________________________________________
1 Attorney Diann McKay represented the Children as their legal interests
counsel and Attorney Cynthia Moore served as guardian ad litem (“GAL”) to
represent the Children’s best interests. See In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161
A.3d 172, 179-180 (Pa. 2017).
-6-
J-A20023-20
caseworker; Christie Ross, Wesley Spectrum Family Services’ Foster Care
Coordinator; Mother and Father. N.T. Hearing, 1/31/20, at 1-164. All three
of Dr. Rosenblum’s evaluation reports were admitted into evidence during the
hearing. Id. at 82-83. At the close of the hearing, the trial court indicated
that it would take the matter under advisement. Id. at 163. Ultimately, the
trial court terminated both Mother’s2 and Father’s parental rights to the
Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511 (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8) and (b). This
timely appeal followed.3
Father raises the following issue on appeal:
Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion by
finding that [OCYF] met their burden of proof and proved by clear
and convincing evidence that terminating the parental rights of
[Father] best [met] the needs and welfare of [the Children]
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?
Father’s Brief at 6.
Herein, Father argues that OCYF failed to present clear and convincing
evidence to support the termination of his parental rights under Section
2511(b). Specifically, Father claims that the trial court erroneously “focused
____________________________________________
2 Mother did not appeal the trial court’s decree terminating her parental rights.
3Father filed separate notices of appeal on February 25, 2020 as required by
Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018) (holding that “where
a single order resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate
notices of appeal must be filed for each of those cases” pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
341 and its note). On that same day, Father filed two concise statements of
errors complained of on appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On March
10, 2020 this Court, acting sua sponte, consolidated the appeals. Order,
3/10/20, at 1. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
on April 20, 2020.
-7-
J-A20023-20
on [his] fault[s]” and “lack of progress” to justify termination and ignored
testimony regarding the “undeniable” bond between Father and the Children.
Father’s Brief at 12-13.
Our standard of review is as follows.
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).
Section 2511 of the Adoption Act governs termination of parental rights.
In general, it 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).
-8-
J-A20023-20
In this instance, however, Father does not challenge the trial court’s
determination under Section 2511(a). See Father’s Brief at 6 and 11-14.
Instead, Father focuses solely on the court’s decision that termination served
the Children’s best interest under Section 2511(b). Id. Section 2511(b)
states:
(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.A. § 2511(b).
Therefore,
Section 2511(b) “focuses on whether termination of parental
rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and
emotional needs and welfare of the child.” In re Adoption of
J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010). 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. In re K.K.R.–S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.
Super. 2008). “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.” In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super.
2011)[,] citing K.K.R.–S., 958 A.2d at 533–[5]36[.]
[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can
equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should
-9-
J-A20023-20
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.
Id.[,] quoting In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 483 (Pa. Super. 2010)[];
see also In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910, 920–[9]23 (Pa. Super. 2008),
appeal denied, 970 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 2009) (affirming the
termination of parental rights where “obvious emotional ties exist
between T.D. and Parents, but Parents are either unwilling or
unable to satisfy the irreducible minimum requirements of
parenthood,” and where preserving the Parents' rights would
prevent T.D. from being adopted and attaining permanency).
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parallel
citations omitted).
Herein, during the termination hearing, multiple witnesses testified that
the Children were, in fact, bonded to Father. Specifically, Maria Duranti
stated:
They are bonded. They look to their parents. They sit on their
parents' laps. They talk to their parents. They appear to be
comfortable with their parents.
N.T. Termination Hearing, 1/31/20, at 89. In addition, when asked whether
the Children “love [Father]” and whether Father “loves [the C]hildren” Christie
Ross answered in the affirmative. Id. at 116. Lastly, in Dr. Rosenblum’s
evaluation, he stated that “the [Children] had a positive emotional connection
to Father.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/20, at 9-10. Thus, the record supports
the existence of a bond between Father and the Children.
- 10 -
J-A20023-20
The trial court concluded, however, that the bond between Father and
the Children is “not necessary and beneficial.” Id. at 10. In reaching this
conclusion, the trial court explained:
Father has a long history of substance abuse and mental health
issues. Father has never made enough progress to secure
unsupervised visitation with the [C]hildren. Father has been
unable to make any meaningful progress to alleviate the concerns
which brought the [C]hildren into care and it is likely that he will
never be able to remedy this incapacity. This incapacity has
prevented Father from being able to provide the [C]hildren with
the permanency that they so desperately need. In contrast, []
[F]oster [M]other has provided the [C]hildren with safety and
security. She has worked diligently to address their physical,
mental and developmental needs since they were placed in her
care. The [C]hildren share a close bond with their [F]oster
[M]other. She [displays] a commitment to provide for their
developmental, physical and emotional needs [as well as their]
welfare.
Through no fault of their own, the [C]hildren have been removed
from multiple foster care placements. Permanency for the
[C]hildren cannot be held in abeyance in the hopes that Father
will make the changes necessary to provide the [C]hildren with
the safety and stability that they require. The [C]hildren are in a
pre-adoptive placement with an excellent caregiver who can
provide the permanency that [they] need presently and into the
future.
Id. at 10-11.
Upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
conclusion that the Children’s needs and welfare are best served by
termination. A review of the record indicates that, prior to OCYF filing the
termination petitions on August 1, 2019, Father made “minimal” progress
toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement. See Trial Court Order, 6/6/18, at 1; Trial Court Order, 9/4/18, at
- 11 -
J-A20023-20
1; Trial Court Order, 7/9/19; and Trial Court Order, 10/8/19, at 1. Indeed, in
Dr. Rosenblum’s evaluation, he opined that “Father had not displayed
significant progress with his treatment goals or an ability to successfully
address the problems which brought the [Children] into care.” Trial Court
Opinion, 4/20/20 at 9. Both Nina Wiebalk and Maria Duranti also testified
during the hearing that Father inconsistently complied with treatment. See
N.T. Termination Hearing, 1/31/20, at 39-42 and 72-73. In addition, Maria
Duranti testified that Father’s lack of progress resulted in his failure to attain
unsupervised visits. Id. at 84. Further, Duranti explained that Father failed
to attend several visits with the Children. Specifically, she stated that
[f]rom July 2018 to May 2019, there were 78 scheduled visits, and
the parents attended 59 of those visits. And then from May 2019
until [the present,] there were 80 scheduled visits and . . . 27 of
those visits were canceled.
Id. at 85. Accordingly, the record demonstrates the Children’s bond with
Father is not beneficial as he consistently failed to comply with his
court-ordered goals to address and resolve the circumstances which gave rise
to placement in the first place.
Testimony during the termination hearing also demonstrated that the
Children are bonded with Foster Mother. Specifically, Duranti testified that
the Children call Foster Mother “mom.” N.T. Termination Hearing, 1/31/20,
at 108. In addition, Dr. Rosenblum provided the following analysis of the
Children’s relationship with Foster Mother.
- 12 -
J-A20023-20
[F]oster [M]other [is] very patient and calm in her interactions
with the [Children]. [The C]hildren [have] a "very comfortable
attachment" with [F]oster [M]other and [are] eager to receive
attention from her. [In addition,] there [is] "clearly a very
comfortable rapport and positive emotional connection which the
[Children] evidence with [F]oster [M]other at this time, with both
[Children] appearing to be very settled and secure in their present
home environment[.” F]oster [M]other ha[s] a remarkably
mature and well-developed understanding of the [Children’s]
emotional needs. [T]he [C]hildren [are] "currently enjoying a
very safe, secure, and stable family environment which [is]
meeting their needs exceptionally well[.”]
Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/20, at 10. Thus, the record demonstrates that the
Children’s bond with Father is not necessary as they are bonded with Foster
Mother who consistently provides for their needs.
Based upon the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discern and affirm
the trial court’s termination decree.
Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/16/2020
- 13 -