J-S66016-16
J-S66017-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: H.A., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 621 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree Entered March 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-21-DP-0000012-2015
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: L.A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: H.A., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 622 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered March 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 14 Adoptions 2016
BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
Appellant, H.A. (“Father”) appeals1 from the decree and order entered
on March 18, 2016, which, respectively, involuntarily terminated his parental
rights to his female child, L.A., (“Child”), born in January 2015, pursuant to
____________________________________________
1
We consolidated these appeals sua sponte.
J-S66016-16
J-S66017-16
the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (b), and changed the
permanency goal to adoption pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §
6351.2
The trial court aptly set forth the factual background and procedural
history of this appeal, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion,
5/26/16, at 1-8. On February 29, 2015, Cumberland County Children and
Youth Services (“CYS”) filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s
parental rights. The trial court held a hearing on March 16, 2016, and
terminated Father’s rights on that same date. Father timely filed notices of
appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
Father asserts the trial court erred in finding: 1) CYS presented
evidence that met its burden of proof; 2) Child’s best interest would be
served by termination of Father’s parental rights; and 3) Child’s best
interests would be served by changing the goal to adoption and terminating
Father’s parental rights, when the evidence indicated that the original
reasons for Child’s placement no longer exist or have been substantially
eliminated. Father argues he has met the most significant goal of his family
____________________________________________
2
In a separate decree entered March 18, 2016, the trial court voluntarily
terminated the parental rights of Child’s mother, J.H. (“Mother”). Mother has
not challenged the termination of her parental rights, nor is she a party to
this appeal.
-2-
J-S66016-16
J-S66017-16
service plan, and now is able to provide stable housing for Child, with the
assistance of his sister, who previously presented as a resource for Child.
As this Court may affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the
termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of §
2511(a), we focus on subsections (a)(2) and (b). See In re B.L.W., 843
A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). With regard to the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the termination under those subsections of the
Adoption Act and the change of goal under the Juvenile Act, based on our
review of the testimonial evidence, we discern no abuse of discretion or
error of law by the trial court. See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817,
826-27 (Pa. 2012) (setting forth the standard of review for termination and
goal change).
Regarding § 2511(b), Father failed to visit Child, and his visits were
discontinued. Thus, although the trial court did not expressly find an
absence of a bond between Father and Child, Child has been in placement
for nearly the entirety of her life, so the evidence supports such a finding.
See In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that no bond
that is worth preserving is formed between a child and parent where the
child is in foster care for most of the child’s life, and the resulting bond with
the parent is attenuated). Child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) observed Child
in the home with the pre-adoptive kinship foster parents, and testified Child
appeared to be very bonded with the foster parents, and the household
-3-
J-S66016-16
J-S66017-16
seemed appropriate for Child. The foster mother testified that Child is
bonded to the other kinship foster child in the home. The trial court
thoroughly discussed the best interests of Child in its opinion. See In re
T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm the decree and
order based on the trial court’s May 26, 2016 opinion.
Decree and order affirmed. Motion to consider brief granted.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2016
-4-
Circulated 09/12/2016 11:50 AM
IN THE INTEREST OF L.A, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
a Minor, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Appeal of H.A., Father NO. CP-21-DP-0000012-2015
Born 1/09/2015
IN THE ADOPTION OF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
L.A., ClTh.IBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Born 1/09/2015 : ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
· : NO. 14 ADOPTIONS 2016
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA.RA.P. 1925
Peck, J., May 25, 2016-
0n March 30, 2015, L.A. was adjudicated dependent and placed with kinship
caregivers.1 At a hearing held on September 10, 2015, the Agency's request for a finding
of aggravated circumstances was granted and the Agency was not directed to continue
with reunification services.2 A Goal Change and Termination of Parental Rights Hearing
was scheduled for March 16, 2016.3 On February 26, 2016, Cumberland County
Children and Youth Services (CCCYS, or the Agency), by and through its solicitor,
Lindsay D. Baird, Esquire, filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights
of Appellant, H• A•H J ?, in regards to LA. 4 A hearing was held regarding the
Petition on March 16, 2016. 5 After the hearing and receipt of evidence, this Court issued
a Final Decree terminating the parental rights of Appellant on March 16, 2016.6 On April
I
Report of Intention to Adopt, 03/08/2016
2
CCCYS Exhibit 1, Judicial Conference Report, 2/10/2016.
3
Id.
4
On March 7, 2016, the Agency filed an Amended Motion to correct an error in the original Order
regarding the time scheduled for the hearing. The Court issued an Amended order reflecting the correct
time on March 8th, The original Order gave the time of the hearing as 3 :30pm, while the Amended Order
gave the correct time of 1 :30pm. See RE: Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of the
Alleged Appellant, H• A Under Section 2512 of the Adoption Act; Amended Order of the
J-
Court, March 16, 2016. (Peck, J.)
'CCYS filed the same motion with regard to Mother's parental rights simultaneously. After a hearing,
Mother's rights were terminated. She does not contest the termination. See RE: Petition for Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights of Mother, Hm, Order of the Court, March 8, 2016. (Peck, J.)
6
RE: Petition for Involuntary Termination; Final Decree, March 16, 2016. (Peck, J.)
1
15, 2016, Appellant filed a Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, complaining
that:
1. This Honorable Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion
in changing the goal for this child to adoption and terminating
Appellant's parental rights in that Appellant is able to provide the child
with essential parental care, control, and subsistence.
2. The Honorable Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion
in terminating Appellant's parental rights in that the conditions which
led to the removal or placement of the child no longer existed or were
substantially eliminated.
3. This Honorable Court was in error in determining the best interest of the
child would be served by terminating Appellant's parental rights. 7
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), thisopinion is written in support of this Court's judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant is the biological father of L.A~, born January 9, 2015. On March 30,
·I ; -;
2015, CCCYS attempted to provide in-home services and found that Mother had
overdosed on heroin in the presence of L.A. and other children. 8 Appellant was not
present at the overdose but was in a relationship and living with mother at the time. 9
Appellant initially engaged with CCCYS and presented himself as a resource, but he was
not able to provide stable housing or ensure L.A.' s safety.10 There were also questions
about his ability to provide supervision and concerns about domestic violence between
7
RE: Petition for Involuntary Termination; Appellant's Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal,
. April 15, 2016. .
8
CCYS Exhibit 1, Judicial Conference Report, 2/ l 0/2016; Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Petition for
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, March 16, 2016 (Peck, J. )(hereinafter "N.T., 3/ 16/2016 at
") at 12.
9N.T.,
3/16/2016 at 12.
10
M,,, CCYS Exhibit 1, Master's Recommendation- Permanency Review, 6/ 1/2015. Appellant, Mother,
L.A., and other children were living in a hotel at the time of the overdose and placement.
2
him and Mother.11 On March 30, 2015, L.A. was placed in the Bair Foundation formal
kinship home of her maternal aunt, the home of S TI H• and J