J-S20016-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: M.M., FATHER, : No. 1326 WDA 2015
:
:
Appeal from the Order Entered July 29, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Civil Division at No. CP-65-DP-0000123-2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON, and PLATT,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED APRIL 15, 2016
M.M. (“Father”) appeals from the order entered on July 29, 2015,
granting the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau’s (“WCCB’s”) motion to
prohibit visitation between Father and his son, J.M. (“Child”), born in June
2014. We affirm.
The factual background and procedural history of this case are as
follows. Father is involuntarily committed, on a continuing basis, to
Torrance State Hospital (“TSH”) for his sexual disorders. Father sexually
abused a four-year-old child on 30-40 occasions. Child is the product of
Father’s sexual relationship with S.M. (“Mother”), who was a patient at TSH.
On September 30, 2014, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1), and ordered Child removed from
Mother’s home, with reunification as a permanency goal. Child was placed in
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court
J-S20016-16
kinship foster care with his maternal grandparents. Subsequently, Father
expressed a desire to visit with Child. On April 9, 2015, WCCB filed a motion
to prohibit visitation between Father and Child.
On June 1, 2015, a hearing was held on WCCB’s motion. At the
hearing, WCCB presented the testimony of Dr. Danielle Adamsky, the
director of psychological services at TSH. Prior to her promotion to director
of psychological services, Dr. Adamsky was Father’s therapist beginning in
2008. Dr. Adamsky explained that Father admitted to sexual arousal to
certain children, and he refers to his desire to violate rules and engage in
negative behaviors as his “beast.” According to Dr. Adamsky, Father has
stated that the beast often wins out in his decision-making. On July 29,
2015, the trial court granted WCCB’s motion to prohibit visitation between
Father and Child. This timely appeal followed.1
Father presents one issue for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding there was clear
and convincing evidence of a grave threat to [C]hild sufficient to
deny [Father] supervised visitation with [Child]?
Father’s Brief at 4.
Our Supreme Court set forth our standard of review for dependency
cases as follows:
1
On August 26, 2015, Father filed a concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal contemporaneously with his notice of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i). Appellant’s lone issue on appeal was included in his concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal.
-2-
J-S20016-16
[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an
appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility
determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the
record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the
lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. Accordingly, we
review for an abuse of discretion.
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).
“[T]he standard against which visitation is measured also depends
upon the goal mandated in the family service plan. Where, as here,
reunification still remains the goal of the family service plan, visitation will
not be denied or reduced unless it poses a grave threat.” In re L.V., 127
A.3d 831, 839 (Pa. Super. 2015). This Court explained that:
The grave threat standard is met when the evidence clearly
shows that the parent is unfit to associate with his or her
children; the parent can then be denied the right to see them.
This standard is satisfied when the parent demonstrates a severe
mental or moral deficiency that constitutes a grave threat to the
child.
In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287, 293-294 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 871
A.2d 187 (Pa. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
WCCB bears the burden of proving that Father poses a grave threat by clear
and convincing evidence. In re Mary Kathryn T., 629 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa.
Super. 1993), appeal denied, 639 A.2d 32 (Pa. 1994).
Father argues that there was no clear and convincing evidence of a
grave threat of harm to Child. He states that Dr. Adamsky testified that
there was no risk of physical harm to Child if visitations were supervised.
Additionally, Father states that Dr. Adamsky was unable to give an opinion
-3-
J-S20016-16
regarding whether there might be any emotional or psychological harm to
Child. Accordingly, Father argues that since there is no evidence of a risk of
any harm, much less severe harm, to Child, he is entitled to have
appropriately supervised visitation with Child. Father states that his
offenses with a child occurred over a decade ago, while Father was still a
minor. Father claims that he loves Child and wishes to have a relationship
with him. The guardian ad litem (“GAL”) supports Father’s interest in
maintaining contact with Child. GAL states that, because Child is only 21
months old, he supports supervised visits at TSH, as it is unlikely that such
visits would cause Child psychological harm. GAL posits that, if the visits
would become a grave threat to Child, the trial court could immediately
terminate Father’s visitation.
We agree with the trial court that Father poses a grave threat to Child.
Although supervision of visits between Father and Child may decrease the
risk of physical harm to Child, the trial court found that there is a high risk of
emotional or psychological harm. This finding is supported by the record. In
the past, Father sexually abused a four-year-old child approximately 30-40
times. Dr. Adamsky testified that Father had a moderate to high risk of
sexually abusing a young child in the future. Father admitted that he
attempted to groom other young children in order to sexually abuse them.
Thus, there was a very high risk that Father would attempt to groom Child
so that he could sexually abuse him in the future. Even if Father does not
-4-
J-S20016-16
intend to cause this harm, his “beast” may take over and cause the harm
during his visits with Child. Furthermore, as the trial court stated, “Father’s
concomitant lack of investment into treatment of his sexual urges towards
children, despite seven years of his psychiatric commitment, only enhances
this possibility.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/29/15, at 4.
Father attempts to distinguish C.B. and Green v. Sneeringer, 635
A.2d 1074 (Pa. Super. 1993), in which this Court held that the grave threats
posed by the fathers in those cases justified denial of visitation, from the
case sub judice. Assuming arguendo that C.B. and Green are
distinguishable from the case at bar, however, this does not indicate that
Father is entitled to visitation with Child. Father cites to no case in support
of his argument that he does not pose a grave threat to Child. As noted
above, permitting Father to visit with Child poses a grave threat to Child’s
psychological and emotional welfare. There would be no way for the trial
court to “unring the bell” if such harm occurred. Thus, GAL’s contention that
supervised visitation would eliminate the risk of any harm to Child is without
merit.
In sum, Father’s previous sexual abuse of a minor, and his continuing
ideations involving minors, demonstrates “a severe mental or moral
deficiency that constitutes a grave threat to Child.” L.V., 127 A.3d at 840.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
granting WCCB’s motion to prohibit visitation between Father and Child.
-5-
J-S20016-16
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/15/2016
-6-