J-S32015-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: H.J.A.M AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
M.F.M. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.M., NATURAL FATHER : No. 103 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered December 16, 2013,
Court of Common Pleas of Warren County,
BEFORE: PANELLA, DONOHUE and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED AUGUST 28, 2014
which granted the petition filed by the Warren County Children and Youth
minor female child, H.J.A.M. (born in June of 2005), and to his minor female
child, M.F.M. (born in Septem
pursuant to section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a) and
(b).1
procedural history of this case in its opinion and we have attached a copy of
that decision to this memorandum. See Memorandum Opinion and Findings
of Fact, 12/16/13, at 1-17.
1
terminated on December 16, 2013. Mother has not appealed from the
order.
J-S32015-14
In his brief, Father raises the following issues:
I. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in concluding Dr. Peter
VonKorff, the Children and Youth Services expert, saw
for the children where Dr. VonKorff did not use that term and, in
fact, did not offer an opinion on the ultimate issue of
termination?
II. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in failing to consider
rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
environmental facts such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
III. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in failing to address
Mother in providing services to promote reunification?
ef, at 8.
ecause, according to Father, Dr. Von Korff never
-17.
hypothetically, [Children] were to be given permanency within an
environment where they do feel security, in relation to their care givers [sic]
that would certainly be a net plus
-2-
J-S32015-14
(emphasis added).2 The record further reflects that Children are in a home
where they can be given permanency and appear to feel secure in relation to
her husband are an adoptive resource for Children. See N.T., 10/30/13, at
foster parents hugs and kisses and say that they love them; have a
-
appropriately and get along better with each other since coming to the foster
home. See id., at 29-30, 42-43, 98. The
failing to address the factors contained in section 2511(b)3 of the Adoption
2
This portion of the transcript was corrected on March 17, 2014 pursuant to
Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926(b). See
see also Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b). The transcript previously stated, in relevant
so their care givers that would certainly be in that plu
supplied).
3
Section 2511(b) provides:
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
-3-
J-S32015-14
Act and, in violation of that section, by terminating his parental rights to
Children solely on the basis of environmental factors beyond his control.
See -19.
Father is correct that the
Memorandum Opinion and Findings of Facts to address section 2511(b).
issues raised on appeal, see 103 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super., filed 7/24/14)
(
-written opinion, has specifically addressed
section 2511(b).
Under section 2511(b), the court must inquire whether termination of
parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical and emotional
needs and welfare of the child. See In Re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87
as love, comfort, security, and stability
Id., at
and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on
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).
-4-
J-S32015-14
the child of permanently severing that bond. Id. Common sense dictates
that courts considering termination must also consider whether the children
are in a pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
Beginning with his claim that his rights were terminated based only on
environmental factors beyond his control, (i.e., his lack of housing and
incarceration; his going months without having any contact with Children;
his prior refusal to take drug screens, which delayed any attempt CYS could
make to reunify him with Children; his failure to advance beyond supervised
visits to have unsupervised time with Children; his initial denial of paternity;
his sporadic participation in drug and alcohol treatment; his refusal to take
medical appointments or meetings regarding their education. See Opinion
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), 8/11/14, at 9-11. According to the orphans
court, all of these factors, taken together, resulted in the conclusion that
Father has not made significant steps towards remedying the circumstances
that led to the initial placement.
p
-5-
J-S32015-14
healthy placement in their foster home, and have a positive relationship with
their foster parents, siblings,
Id.
provision of more services to Mother than to Father to promote reunification
with Children. See -20. Although Father is correct that
Mother received attachment therapy with Children and that CYS provided
Mother with financial assistance to help her secure an apartment, the record
attempt to reunify Children with Mother over Father. With respect to the
financial assistance, the CYS caseworker testified that Father was aware that
financial assistance for an apartment was also available to him once he
found an apartment and had employment, but Father never followed
through. See N.T., 9/17/13, at 364; N.T., 10/30/13, at 67. As for the
attachment therapy with Children, the CYS caseworker testified that
attachment therapy with Children, and that her bonding assessment
occurred several months before Father participated in his bonding
assessment, which recommended that he also participate in attachment
therapy with Children. See N.T., 10/30/13, at 70. The CYS caseworker
-6-
J-S32015-14
testified that the attachment therapy provider indicated that if parents were
not going to be together, Children could only participate in such therapy with
one parent at a time. See id. As Children were already enrolled in
attachment therapy with Mother, CYS did not initiate the therapy for
provided reunification services to Mother over Father is without merit.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/28/2014
-7-
In Re: Adoption of: H.M. & M.M., Appeal of: M.M.
Combined Opinion