J-S41016-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF G.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 375 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 114 AD 2014
CP-22-DP-0000009-2013
*****
IN THE INTEREST OF J.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 376 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 115 AD 2014
CP-22-DP-0000004-2013
*****
IN THE INTEREST OF S.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 377 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 113 AD 2014
J-S41016-15
IN THE INTEREST OF P.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 378 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 112 AD 2014
*****
IN THE INTEREST OF D.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 379 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 111 AD 2014
CP-22-DP-0000010-2013
*****
IN THE INTEREST OF H.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 380 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 110 AD 2014
CP-22-DP-0000012-2013
-2-
J-S41016-15
IN THE INTEREST OF F.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 381 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 107 AD 2014
CP-22-DP-0000008-2013
*****
IN THE INTEREST OF N.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 382 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 108 AD 2014
CP-22-DP-0000006-2013
*****
IN THE INTEREST OF J.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.E., FATHER
No. 383 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 109 AD 2014
-3-
J-S41016-15
BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 08, 2015
S.E. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order granting a goal
change to adoption and involuntarily terminating his parental rights 1 to his
nine minor children, J.S.E., G.E, S.E., P.E, D.E., H.E., J.J.E., N.E., F.E. 2
(collectively, Children), ages 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17, respectively.
After careful review, we affirm.
Father and Mother are the parents of 16 children; nine of the sixteen
are the subject of this termination appeal. Father is a Fundamentalist
Christian whose beliefs center around his supreme authority and the
absolute requirement that his family submit to his strict interpretation of the
Bible. From 2007 to 2011, Dauphin County Social Services for Children and
Youth (CYS) received referrals that Children’s needs were not being met at
home; those deficiencies included lack of food, heat and running water. In
August 2012, CYS received a referral that some of the Children were having
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental rights
for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563
(Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether
the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence. Id.
2
Another of Father’s children, B.E., was born in September 2011 with
minimal brain activity following a home birth. Father and Mother voluntarily
terminated their parental rights to B.E. on June 29, 2012, based upon their
inability to parent a child with special needs and the fact that Mother also
had 15 other children at home.
-4-
J-S41016-15
suicidal thoughts as a result of Father’s behavior, that Father had been
physically aggressive toward one of his adult sons, and that Mother fled to a
motel with 10 of the Children due to the disturbing domestic situation at
home. In November 2012, CYS received another referral regarding Children
and their relationship with Father. Days later, Mother asked CYS to take
custody of Children after she was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. On
December 7, 2012, Mother and Father met with CYS and agreed to have
Children temporarily reside with Charles B. and Elizabeth B. (the B’s).
On December 10, 2012, Mother moved in with maternal grandmother
where she received hospice care, due to a decline in her health. On January
29, 2013, Children were adjudicated dependent and placed under court-
ordered third-party protective supervision with the B’s. Mother passed away
on February 28, 2013. In March 2013, CYS received another referral that
F.E. was the victim of emotional abuse at the hands of Father; Father was
indicated for emotional abuse of F.E. On June 13, 2013, CYS took custody of
Children. Children were divided among three kinship homes, one of those
being the B’s.3 While Children were in the kinship homes, the court ordered
weekly supervised visitation between Father and CYS facilitated family group
conferences.
____________________________________________
3
Specifically, J.J.E., N.E. and J.S.E. remained with the B’s, F.E. and H.E.
moved into the G’s home and P.E., G.E., D.E., and S.E. moved in to the U’s
home.
-5-
J-S41016-15
CYS listed the following service objectives for Father with regard to
reunification: (1) cooperate and comply with Agency; (2) attend all court
hearings, Agency meetings, and treatment plan meetings; (3) sign all
release information forms requested by Agency to ensure compliance in
meeting identified service objectives; (4) notify Agency within 24 hours of
any new residence or contact information; (5) obtain a psychological
evaluation and follow through with any recommendations; (6) provide
Agency with medical documentation regarding his physical condition to
determine his capability of meeting Children’s needs; (7) participate in and
comply with reunification services provided by Agency; (8) display
knowledge and understanding of each child’s educational needs and
requirements and establish a plan to fulfill those needs; (9) demonstrate
ability to feed Children appropriately; (10) demonstrate knowledge of
appropriate medical care for Children;4 (11) demonstrate ability to read and
respond to Children’s physical and emotional needs; (12) establish
reasonable rules and expectations for each child; (13) provide nurturing,
loving environment in which Children feel welcomed and valued; (14)
demonstrate above skills during visitation with Children; (15) participate in
bonding assessment; and (16) complete parenting class.
____________________________________________
4
Father testified that he “was kind of the doctor of the house. So whatever
happened, I always felt and told the children the Lord gives us what we
need.” N.T. Termination Hearing, 1/27/2015, at 128.
-6-
J-S41016-15
Six permanency review hearings were held over the course of twelve
months, from June 2013 through June 2014. When Father was unsuccessful
in fulfilling the goals of the Agency’s service plan, CYS filed nine separate
petitions, in November 2014, to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental
rights to Children, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5),
(a)(8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.5 On January 27, 2015, the court held a
termination hearing, after which it granted the petitions. This appeal
follows.
On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our review:
(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by
determining that Father’s parental rights should be
involuntarily terminated to the minor children.
(2) Whether the trial court erred by determining that the best
interest[s] of the Child[ren] would be served by
involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights.
In his first issue on appeal, Father contends that the trial court
erroneously concluded that he “showed a settled purpose to relinquish his
parental claim.” Appellant’s Brief, at 38. Father supports this contention by
claiming that he has attended every visit with Children since they have been
removed from his care, has made every effort to see his children and have
them returned to the family residence, and that CYS “tricked him into
voluntarily removing the [C]hildren from the household.” Id. at 39.
____________________________________________
5
23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.
-7-
J-S41016-15
CYS caseworker Morgan Goodling testified that three or four of the
nine children regularly attended weekly visits with Father. N.T. Termination
Hearing, 1/27/2015, at 20. The remaining children did not wish to visit with
Father because they were afraid of him due to his aggressive and abusive
behaviors. Id. at 19. Goodling testified that Father took no responsibility
for his actions and blamed the children’s negative feelings toward him on
their deceased Mother being manipulative and Father’s adult children. When
the Children were initially placed with the B’s, a majority of the Children
needed extensive dental work, two of the Children required medical testing
beyond routine physical examinations, N.E. needed medication and
treatment for his Lyme Disease and arthritis, all Children were behind
educationally, several Children had mental health issues, and three of the
Children needed to be tested for learning disabilities. Id. at 18.
At the termination hearing, CYS admitted a psychological evaluation of
Father conducted by Howard S. Rosen, PhD., a clinical psychologist. 6 Dr.
Rosen diagnosed Father with antisocial personality disorder, recommending
individual therapy with a focus on problem solving skills and anger
management. Specifically, Dr. Rosen found that Father “lacks empathy and
tends to be callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights and
sufferings of other. He has an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal [and]
____________________________________________
6
Dr. Rosen also testified at the June 13, 2013 permanency review hearing
with regard to his psychological evaluation of Father.
-8-
J-S41016-15
tends to be irresponsible and exploitative.” Psychological Evaluation,
4/11/13, at 6. Dr. Rosen also noted that the recommended therapy has
poor efficacy and that at least a year of therapy will be necessary to notice
any change in Father’s behaviors. Father’s progress with his recommended
therapy “stagnated,” N.T. Permanency Review Hearing, 9/16/2013, at 10,
and he stopped receiving outpatient mental health services in November
2013 after more intensive services were recommended. Father did not
agree with the recommendation and, as a result, did not seek intensive
group therapy. Father did, however, begin outpatient therapy again in
February 2014 and was still attending on a weekly basis at the time of the
termination hearing.
Candra Chang, a family therapist who provided reunification services
to Father, testified that she made no progress with Father as he denied any
need for her services, demeaned the therapy team, and continued to place
blame for Children’s issues on his deceased wife and CYS. See Pressley
Ridge Closing Summary, 1/6/2014, at 283-85; see also N.T. Permanency
Review Hearing, 1/9/2014, at 56-57. Larry Steward, a family services
worker, testified that Father “repeatedly insulted and ridiculed . . .
providers, had difficulty remaining focused on his goal plan . . . and has not
been engaged in the change process.” Keystone & Family Services Family
Preservation/Reunification Services Goal Development Plan/Service Support
Plan, April-May 2014, at 291. Steward also noted that Father has severe
mental health issues that impede his ability to “have appropriate dialogue to
-9-
J-S41016-15
make a real plan for the safety of his children coming back into his care.”
N.T. Permanency Review Hearing, 6/3/2014, at 45. Additionally, CYS
permanency caseworker, Eric Walters, testified that when he attempted to
review the family service and Children’s permanency plans with Father,
Father went off topic and said that his rights had been violated because he
did not have a part in developing the service plan. Id. at 70-71. Father,
who “[did] not take ownership of his behavior” id. at 72, failed to make any
progress with Walters.
All in all, Father has refused to take responsibility for how his actions
and emotionally abusive behavior have negatively impacted Children. He
has not demonstrated that he is capable of properly parenting Children. F.E.
testified at the termination hearing that she hates Father. N.T. Termination
Hearing, 1/27/2015, at 10. After being in the B’s home for six months,
Children still remained fearful of Father. Id. at 26.
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the
burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish
by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for
doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is
defined as testimony that is so "clear, direct, weighty and
convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear
conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in
issue." It is well established that a court must examine the
individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all
explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence
in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants
termination.
In re adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
omitted). See also In C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party
- 10 -
J-S41016-15
seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination under
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs
and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)).
Here, we find that the trial court properly terminated Father’s parental
rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(2). Although Father may have agreed to
complete several of CYS’s service objectives and regularly attended
scheduled visitations with Children, his combative and hostile attitude with
regard to the services offered him and consistent deflection of any blame for
Children’s emotional, social and educational issues support CYS’s conclusions
that: Father failed to positively progress toward the goal of reunification;
Father’s abusive actions toward Children continue to exist; and, most
critically, Father is incapable of parenting Children. See 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a) (2) (termination appropriate where “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.”).7
____________________________________________
7
We can affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the termination of
parental rights with regard to any singular subsection of section 2511(a). In
re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).
- 11 -
J-S41016-15
Father next contends that the trial court erred in concluding that
terminating his parental rights is in the best interest of the Children,
pursuant to section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act. Again, we disagree.
[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a
court "shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). The emotional needs and welfare of the child
have been properly interpreted to include "[i]ntangibles such as
love, comfort, security, and stability." In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781,
791 (Pa. Super. 2012). In In re E.M., [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa.
1993)], this Court held that the determination of the child's
"needs and welfare" requires consideration of the emotional
bonds between the parent and child. The "utmost attention"
should be paid to discerning the effect on the child of
permanently severing the parental bond. In re K.M., 53 A.3d at
791.
In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).
Father provides no legal argument to support his claim that the trial
court erroneously concluded that termination was proper under section
2511(b). His sole argument consists of the following four sentences:
As was stated in the proceedings, the children continued to
struggle while at the B[‘s] household. The caseworkers had to
hold meetings with all the children because they continued to
have educational concerns. The trial court overlooks the fact the
Agency assisted the [] B[‘s] in caring for the children in an effort
to assist the children in their education. If Father had the same
level of commitment by the Agency with the children in his
household, the children would be where they are today.
Appellant’s Brief, at 46-47.
A section 2511(b) analysis consists of a determination as to whether
termination will serve the needs and welfare of the child, giving primary
- 12 -
J-S41016-15
consideration to the emotional bonds between the parent and child. In re
K.K.R. S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008). Father’s argument centers
around the services provided to the B’s; he makes no mention of any bond
he has with Children or what effect severing that bond would have on
Children.
Despite Father’s misplaced argument, the record clearly demonstrates
that severing any bonds, were they even to exist, would be in the Children’s
best interests. As the trial court notes, “the children were so emotionally
abused by Father that they would run to the second floor of the home to
escape him when he would lose his temper and [] the children would avoid
being around him.” Trial Court Opinion, at 35. Moreover, the court stated
that “the children had no conception of three meals a day [when they lived
with Father]. [In fact,] one of the children told [Mrs. B] that they liked living
[with her] because she feeds them.” Id. at 36. See In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d
1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles such as love, comfort, security,
and stability are involved in section 2511(b) needs and welfare of child
inquiry). Here, we believe that termination of Father’s rights will not
negatively affect Children. Since being placed into foster care, Children are
up-to-date on their medical and dental appointments, are making strides in
their education, are emotionally bonding to their foster parents, and their
essential needs are being met.
- 13 -
J-S41016-15
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/8/2015
- 14 -