J-S14017-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: G.I.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: E.T., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 2708 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
No(s): CP-51-AP-0000701-2016
BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2018
E.T. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his
daughter G.I.M. (“Child”). Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
We affirm.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court aptly summarized the factual
and procedural history of this case, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal.
See Trial Court Opinion, filed Oct. 11, 2017 (1925(a) Op.), at 1-16.
By way of background, Child (d.o.b. January 2008) is the daughter of
Father and D.M. (“Mother”).1 Child has never resided with Father. Child was
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1Mother also filed an appeal (docketed in this Court at 2651 and 2652 EDA
2017) regarding both G.I.M. and another child I.G.M.D., whose father is
another individual, K.D.
J-S14017-18
first adjudicated dependent in December 2014. Mother indicated to the
Department of Human Services (“DHS”) that she did not know the
whereabouts of Father. After DHS obtained an address for Father via a Parent
Locator Service (“PLS”) search in December 2015, a letter was sent to him.
Father did not respond to the letter but did attend a hearing in August 2016,
where he acknowledged knowing that Child was under the care of DHS. After
this hearing, Father began attending visitation with Child. Father’s parental
reunification objectives included obtaining appropriate housing for Child,
completing parenting classes, and attending visitation.
On August 5, 2016, DHS filed Petition for Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights. Following a hearing on July 20, 2017, the trial court granted
the petition. Father filed this timely appeal.
Father raises five issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental
rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(1)?
2. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental
rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(2)?
3. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental
rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(5)?
4. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental
rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(8)?
5. Whether the trial court erred by finding, under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(b), that termination of Appellant [Father] parental
-2-
J-S14017-18
rights best serves the child’s developmental, physical and
emotional needs and welfare?
Father’s Brief at 5.
When considering an appeal from an order involuntarily terminating
parental rights, we accept as true the trial court’s findings of facts so long as
they are supported by the record, and then determine whether the trial court
made an error of law or abused its discretion in rendering its decision. In re
Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). A trial court’s decision
constitutes an abuse of discretion only if it is manifestly unreasonable or is the
product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
The party petitioning for termination bears the burden of proving all
elements of the termination petition by clear and convincing evidence. In re
C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). Clear and convincing
evidence is evidence 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.” Id. (quoting Matter of Adoption of
Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).
The termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511,
which requires a two-step analysis. In the first step, the party seeking
termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s
conduct meets at least one of the 11 grounds for termination set forth in
Section 2511(a). In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). If the court
determines that the petitioner has proven at least one of the provisions of
-3-
J-S14017-18
Section 2511(a), only then does it proceed to the second step of the analysis.
Id. In the second step, the court must determine whether, considering the
child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare, termination
is in the best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); In re Adoption of
S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 830 (Pa. 2012). In conducting this analysis, the court
should examine the emotional bond between parent and child, with close
attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.
Father argues that the termination of his parental rights was not
appropriate under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), or (a)(8). See
Father’s Brief at 13-15. To this end, Father presents the overarching argument
that once he became aware of Child’s placement and the potential termination
of his parental rights, he began attending court hearings and completed his
parental reunification objections including: attending visitation, completing
parenting classes, maintaining employment, and establishing a housing plan.
Id. at 14. He also asserts that the trial court erred by terminating his parental
rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b), because the evidence presented at trial
established that a growing bond exists between Child and himself. Id. at 15-
16.
The trial court rejected Father’s arguments. It explained that clear and
convincing evidence established that Father’s parental rights were properly
terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(1) & (a)(2) because he
demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental rights. The court
-4-
J-S14017-18
noted testimony establishing that Father initially failed to respond to
correspondence from the DHS and failed to obtain and maintain appropriate
housing for Child, instead proposing that Child live with Father’s mother. See
1925(a) Op. at 19-21. Further, the trial court specifically determined Father’s
parental rights were properly terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) because
the testimony established that Father’s bond with Child was only just
beginning and Child is strongly bonded with her foster mother. Id. at 21-22.
After reviewing the trial court’s opinion, the record, the parties’ briefs,
and relevant law, we see no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly,
we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Allan L.
Tereshko, which we adopt and incorporate herein. See id. at 17-23.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/11/18
-5-
Circulated 03/19/2018 09:16 AM
THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
IN THE INTEREST OF: FAMILY COURT DIVISION
JUVENILE BRANCH-DEPENDENCY
G.I.M., a Minor CP-51-AP-0000701-2016/CP-51-DP-0002734-20,4:
d/o/b: 1/24/2008
Appeal of: Superior Court Nos. 2708 EDA 2017�
E.T., Father -I :�
OPINION �-
E.T. (.. Father"), Appeals from the Decree and Order entered by this Court on July
20, 2017. granting the Petition to Involuntarily Terminate Father's Parental Rights to his
minor child: a female, G.I.M., (d/o/b January 24, 2008), and changing the Child's
Permanency Goal to Adoption, filed by the Department of Human Services ( .. DHS .. ) on
August 5, 2016, and served on all parties.
After Termination/Goal Change Hearing on July 20, 2017, this Court found that
clear and convincing evidence was presented to terminate the parental rights of Father.
E.T., ( .. Father.. ) as to the Child. and to terminate the parental rights of Mother, D.J.M. In
response to the Order of July 20. 2017. terminating his parental rights, Father, filed an
appeal on August 20, 2017. Mother also filed Appeals on August 18. 2017 to the Orders
of July 20, 2017, which will be addressed by the Court in a separate opinion filed under
Superior Court Nos. 2651 EDA 2017 and 2652 EDA 2017.
1
STATEMENTS OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
In his Statements of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Father raises the
following issues:
1. Appellant, Eric Taylor (hereinafter E.T.) is the
Father of G.I.M .. a minor.
2. By Order dated July 20. 2017. Appellant, E.T."s
parental rights to G.I.M. were involuntarily
terminated by Judge Allan L. Tereshko.
3. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion and commit
legal error in terminating Fathers parental rights
since the Department of Human Services did not
meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence of
establishing sufficient grounds that Father has
evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing claim
to a child or has refused or failed to perform
parental duties under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)( 1 ).
4. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion and commit
legal error in terminating Father's parental rights
since the Department of Human Services did not
meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence of
establishing sufficient grounds under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§2511 (a)(2) that Father lacks the present capacity
to perform his parental responsibilities.
5. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion and commit
legal error in terminating Father's parental rights
under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(5) because the
Department of Human Services failed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence the present and
continued incapacity of Father to provide essential
care necessary for Child's physical and mental
wellbeing.
6. The Trial Court abused its discretion and committed
legal error in terminating Father's parental rights
under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(8) because the
Department of Human Services failed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the conditions
which led to Child's placement continue to exist.
7. The Trial Court did err in terminating Father's
parental rights since the Department of Human
Services did not meet its burden by clear and
convincing evidence of showing that the best
2
interest of the Child was served by terminating
Father's parental rights pursuant to Section 2511 (b)
of the Adoption Act.
8. The Trial Court abused its discretion and committed
legal error in terminating Father's parental rights
under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (b) because the
Department of Human Services did not present
competent evidence regarding the nature of the
bond between parent and Child in order to assess
the best interest of the Child.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
D.J.M. is the Mother of both Children: l.G.M.D. and G.l.M. (Exhibit .. A,.
Statement of Facts, attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 8/05/2016, �..a").
E.T. is the putative/presumptive Father of G.I.M. (Exhibit .. A,. Statement of
Facts. attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed
8/05/2016. �··c"').
On October 31, 2014, the Department of Human Services (OHS), received a
General Protectives Services (OPS) Report alleging that the Children's Mother, D.J.M.,
was with the Children on a street comer and asked their Maternal Uncle. M.S. to help her
inject drugs; that when he refused, Mother injected the drugs herself; that the Children
began to wander off so M.S. took the Children to the home of their Maternal
Grandmother, S.S.; and that G.I.M. was found holding Mother's purse which had needles
in it. The Report also alleged that the Children were with Maternal Grandmother, S.S.
where they were to remain according to Safety Plan that was completed on October 31.
2014. The Report also alleged that the family was residing in a shelter; that G.I.M.'s
Father, E.T., was incarcerated; and that G.I.M. attended Lawton Elementary School in the
I st grade and had missed several days of school. The Report further alleged that Mother
3
had ongoing drug and alcohol issues and was in a methadone program, but was allegedly
abusing methadone by attending more than one clinic daily; and that E.T. had a criminal
history and that the family was currently receiving In Home Protective Services (IHPS)
through Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) Turning Points for Children. This Report
was substantiated and determined as valid. (Exhibit .. A"' Statement of Facts, attached to
OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016, �..d .. ).
On October 31, 2014, OHS visited the home of Maternal Grandmother, S.S. and
found it safe and appropriate. Both S.S. and her paramour. J.M .. passed all necessary
clearances. A Safety Plan was implemented. (Exhibit ··A·· Statement of Facts. attached
to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016, ,i··e"').
On November 3, 2014, S.S. found needles in her home after Mother had visited
the Children. S.S. found needles in Mothers purse. (Exhibit ··A .. Statement of Facts,
attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016,
,i··f").
On November 4, 2014, Mother began receiving in-patient drug and alcohol
treatment and counseling at SOAR. (Exhibit .. A., Statement of Facts. attached to OHS
Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016, �.. g").
Mother was denied service from her methadone clinic on 10/16/2014 due to
higher than normal levels of methadone in her blood, suggesting she was attending more
than one clinic on a daily basis. (Exhibit ··A'' Statement of Facts, attached to OHS
Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016, ,i··h'}
4
On 11/24/2014, DHS filed an urgent dependent petition. (Exhibit .. A,. Statement
of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed
8/05/2016, �··i").
Adjudicatory Hearings for the Children were held on December 3, 2014. before
the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Court found that legal custody of the Children to
transfer to DHS and physical custody of the Children to remain with Maternal
Grandmother. DHS has completed home evaluation on Grandmother's home. Mother is
referred to CEU for a forthwith full drug and alcohol screen. assessment, and monitoring.
Father is referred to the CEU unit for a forthwith drug screen, assessment, and monitoring
once he avails himself. CUA to refer for kinship. Mother is to have supervised visits
with the Children, and Father is to have supervised visits if they avail themselves.
Children are safe as of 12/01/2014. (Orders of Adjudication and Disposition-Child
Dependent=Amended, 12/03/2014 ).
On January 15, 2015, CUA held a SCP meeting for the family. The parental
objectives for Mother were: 1) Mother will participate in drug and alcohol treatment until
fully completed: 2) Mother will continue mental health treatment and comply with
medication management; 3) Mother will locate suitable housing with space for the
Children; 4) Father, E.T., will make his whereabouts known and participate in planning
for the Children's needs; and 5) E.T. will contact CUA and provide valid contact
information and respond to CUA correspondence. (Exhibit .. A,. Statement of Facts,
attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016,
�-·1").
5
A Continuance was granted on March 24, 2015 for both Children's cases. DHS
commitments to stand. Cases to remain status quo. (Continuance Orders, 3/24/2015).
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on May 20, 2015.
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Orders were entered that legal custody of the
Children to remain with DHS, and placement to continue in Foster Care JJC. Children to
remain committed. Mother is incarcerated 1, and CUA to arrange supervised visits at the
prison for Mother. Children may be moved to Kinship Home of Grandmother prior to
next court date by agreement of the parties. l.G.M.D. referred to Children's Crisis
Treatment Center for services. Her Father. K.D.'s visits are suspended until further order
of the court and after Child's evaluation at CCTC. (Permanency Review Orders,
5/20/2015).
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on August 13, 2015.
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Orders were entered that legal custody of the
Children to remain with DHS, and placement of l.G.M.D. to remain in Foster Care
through JFCS-supervised by CUA Turning Points for Children. Child is enrolled in
therapy services through JJPI. however the therapist canceled on the family three times
and services are switched to Bethanna. Child is to continue to receive therapy and is up-
to-date with her medical and dental. G.I.M. to remain in Foster Care through CUA
Turning Points for Children. Child has intake appointment through the Wedge scheduled
for 8/14/2015, and is up-to-date with medical and dental. Mother is referred to CEU for
assessment, forthwith drug screen with three random drug screens and dual diagnosis.
1
Secure Court Summary: D.J.M., d/o/b: 07/14/1984.
6
Mother is not to have visitation with the Children unless recommended by the Children's
therapist. I.G.M.D.'s Father. K.O:s visits are suspended until further order of the court.
(Permanency Review Orders. 8/13/2015).
On September 17, 2015, Mother was referred to ARC for anger management,
housing, mental health. and parent education. (Exhibit ··A·· Statement of Facts. attached
to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016, 1'·p").
A CEU Report for Mother dated 10/29/2015, reflected the following: Mother
tested positive for opiates on 10/14/2015: tested negative for all substances on 8/13 &
8/15/2015; Mother scheduled an appointment with the CEU for 9/15/2015 to provide
verification for her enrollment in treatment. She was a no call/no show to the
appointment. CEU, therefore. could neither confirm nor deny Mother's treatment status.
(Exhibit '·A'. Statement of Facts, attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights. filed 8/05/2016, ,i··o ").
On October 22, 2015. CUA held a SCP meeting for the family. The parental
objectives for Mother were: 1) Mother will participate in drug and alcohol treatment and
comply with recommendations; 2) Mother will comply with her court-ordered random
drug screens to maintain sobriety; 3) Mother to comply with her dual diagnosis treatment:
4) Mother will participate in courses through ARC as referred; 5) Mother will locate
suitable housing with space for the Children; 6) Father. E.T., will make his whereabouts
known and participate in planning for the Children 's needs; and 7) E.T. will contact CUA
and provide valid contact information and respond to CUA correspondence. Mother
attended this meeting. (Exhibit .. A·· Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016. ,i-·q··).
7
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on October 30, 2015,
before Juvenile Court Hearing Officer. William T. Rice. Court Orders were entered that
legal custody of the Children to remain with DHS, and placement of l.G.M.D. to remain
in Foster Care through Bethanna. Child attends daycare. and is medically up-to-date.
She has eczema and is being treated. Child had intake at JJPI and was referred to CCTC.
She has telephone contact with her sibling. G.I.M. attends Pennypacker School in the 2nd
grade. and is medically up-to-date. Child receives weekly individual therapy at the
Wedge, and has telephone contact with her sibling. Mother is attending Parenting and
anger management at ARC. and will begin Job Training. Whereabouts of both Fathers
are unknown. Children to remain in therapy, and CUA to explore kinship resources.
Mother referred to CEU forthwith for full drug and alcohol screen dual diagnosis.
assessment and monitoring and 3 randoms prior to next court date. Mother referred to
BHS for consultation/evaluation. Both Fathers referred to CEU forthwith for full drug
and alcohol screen. dual diagnosis and assessment and monitoring, when they avail
themselves. (Permanency Review Orders, 10/30/2015).
On January 20. 2016, a revised SCP meeting was held concerning the family.
The parental objectives were: 1) Mother will participate in drug and alcohol treatment
and comply with recommendations; 2) Mother will comply with her court-ordered
random drug screens to maintain sobriety; 3) Mother will update the CUA case manager
as to any new medications prescribed for her; 4) Mother will participate in parenting.
anger management. and employment courses through ARC; 5) Mother will locate
suitable housing with operable utilities; 6) Father, E.T., will make his whereabouts
known and participate in planning for the Children's needs; and 7) E.T. will contact CUA
8
and provide valid contact information and respond to CUA correspondence. 8) Father,
K.D., will comply with court orders; 9) K.D .. will attend a drug and alcohol treatment
program and comply with treatment recommendations; 10) K.D., will obtain suitable
housing with operable utilities; 11) K.D., will complete a parenting education course.
Mother and Father. K.D., participated in the meeting by telephone. (Exhibit .. A··
Statement of Facts. attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 8/05/2016, 1··s"·).
A CEU Report for Mother dated I /26/2016. reflected the following: Mother
participated in a drug and alcohol assessment at Family Court on 12/03/2015 and was
referred to Intensive Outpatient Dual Diagnosis Treatment at Parkside Recovery; Mother
failed to attend her intake appointment on 1/02/2016, as per Tyrone Frazier at Parkside
Recovery; CEU recommended that Mother reschedule an intake appointment with
Parkside Recovery and stay until the success completion of the program. (Exhibit .. A,.
Statement of Facts. attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 8/05/2016, �·V').
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on January 27. 2016,
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Court Orders were entered that legal custody of
the Children to remain with OHS. and placement of I.G.M.D. to remain in Pre-Adoptive
Home through JJC. Visitation with her sibling is occurring at least twice a month.
Mother and Father have supervised visits with the Child at the Agency, visits are to
continue as arranged. Child attends TOPS Day Care, and receives individual therapy
through JJPI. G.I.M. to remain in a Pre-Adoptive Home through JFCS. Visitation with
her sibling is occurring at least twice a month. Mother has supervised visits with the
9
Child at the Agency, visits are to continue as arranged. Child attends Pennypacker
School, 2nd grade, and receives individual therapy through The Wedge. A Report from
CEU for Mother is incorporated into the record. Mother is re-referred to CEU for
assessment and forthwith drug screen. All services for the Children to continue. CUA to
explore a potential resource for the Children. Children may be moved prior to the next
court date by agreement of the parties. (Permanency Review Orders, 1/27/2016).
On April 12. 2016, Mother tested positive for Phencyclidine (PCP) at Parkside-
Frankford. (Exhibit .. A·· Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights. filed 8/05/2016. 1··w·}
A CEU Report for Mother dated 4/19/2016. reflected the following: Mother was
then attending substance abuse treatment at Parkside-Frankford: as per Mothers
counselor at Parkside-Frankford, Mother had made efforts during the past period to
further her recovery, and specifically, that she attended group and individual sessions and
expressed a desire to reunite with her Children; Mother was taking prescribed Suboxone
to stabilize her Opiate use disorder. Mother rendered negative drug screen on 1 /27/2016,
at Family Court and 4/07/2016, at Parkside Frankford; Mother tested positive for PCP on
4/12/2016, at Parkside-Frankford. (Exhibit ..A'· Statement of Facts, attached to DHS
Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 8/05/2016, 1··x .. ).
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on April 20, 2016,
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Court Orders were entered that legal custody of
the Children to remain with DHS, and placement ofl.G.M.D. to remain in Foster Home
through Tabor. Remain as committed. G.I.M. to remain in Foster Home through JFCS.
10
Mother's counsel failed to appear. case continued. (Permanency Review Orders,
4/20/2016).
On May 7. 2016. Mother and Father, K.D .. attended a scheduled visit with the
Children. CUA Case Manager. Iesha Irwin. observed both Mother and K.D. under the
influence of a mind-altering substance. She observed that Mother and K.D. displayed
slurred speech. bloodshot and glassy eyes. and constant back and forth to the bathroom.
Mother and K.D:s state prohibited them from being able to effectively interact with the
Children. During the visit. the Children appeared uncomfortable and kept asking to
leave. (Exhibit ··A·· Statement of Facts. attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights. filed 8/05/2016, ,r··y .. ).
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on May 25. 2016,
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Court Orders were entered that legal custody of
the Children to remain with DHS, and placement of l.G.M.D. to remain in Foster Home
through Turning Points, and G.I.M. to remain in Foster Home through JFCS. Weekly
supervised visits with Mother and Father, K.D .. are to continue. Remain as committed.
Mother referred to CEU for assessment, monitoring, forthwith drug screen and 3 randoms
prior to next court date. Father. K.D. is referred to CEU for assessment. monitoring.
forthwith drug screen and 3 randoms prior to next court date. Mother and Father. K.D.
are to sign consents for I.G.M.D. to be moved to the home of Amber Kelly by agreement
of DHS and Children Advocate, and to sign consents for the Child at Tree of Life. Father,
K.D. was referred for parenting. I.G.M.D. is receiving services through Tree of Life.
(Permanency Review Orders. 5/25/2016).
11
-
On July 15, 2016. Mother was discharged from her drug and alcohol programs at
NHS Parkside due to inconsistency with the treatment. (Exhibit .. A·' Statement of Facts,
attached to OHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights. filed 8/05/2016,
�!"aa'·).
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on August 24, 2016,
before the Honorable Richard J. Gordon. Court Orders were entered that legal custody of
the Children to remain with DHS. and placement of I.G.M.D. to remain in Foster Home
through Turning Points, and G.I.M. to remain in Foster Home through JFCS. Children
are doing well. CEU submitted Report as to Mother. G.1.M.'s Father, E.T., address is
1115 South 54 Street, and mailing address is 1412 South Addison Street. Mother and
Father. K.D., are referred back to CEU for assessment, full drug and alcohol screens, and
3 random screens prior to next court date, once they avail themselves. ACS to do PLS on
Mother. CUA Turning Points for Children to explore Paternal Grandmother of G.I.M. as
possible placement/kinship resource and do home assessment on Father. E.T.'s home.
Continuance Granted. (Permanency Review Orders, 8/24/2016).
Continuance was granted on December 14, 2016 for both Children's cases. OHS
commitments to stand. Request by ACS, and cases to remain status quo. (Continuance
Orders. 12/14/2016).
Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children on April 27, 2017.
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Court Orders were entered that legal custody of
the Children to remain with OHS, and placement of Children to remain in Foster Home
through Turning Points. Children are safe as of 4/06/2017. Mother and Father, K.D ..
referred to CEU forthwith for full drug and alcohol screen, assessment and monitoring
12
and 3 randoms prior to next court date. DHS to do PLS on Mother and prison search.
CUA to contact Father, K.D., probation officer to find out his address. Father, E.T ..
resides at 1115 South 54 Street, Philadelphia, PA 19143. Legal Liaison Unit to
administratively appoint counsel for each Child and Clair Michelle Stewart to remain as
GAL for both Children. Next listing is a Contested Goal Change hearing. (Permanency
Review Orders. 4/27/2017)
TERMINATION HEARINGS
This Court held the Contested Termination and Goal Change Hearing for both
Children on July 20. 2017, regarding Mother and both Fathers· parental rights. Mother.
D.J.M. did not attend the hearing, but was represented by counsel. Nghi Duong Vo.
G.I.M. 's Father, E.T., attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. Daniel
Silver. 1.G.M.D. 's Father. K.D., did not attend the hearing, but was represented by
counsel, Neal Masciantonio. (N.T. 7/20/2017. p.3 at 10-18).
The first witness to testify was Iesha Erwin, Case Manager from CUA-Turning
Points for Children. Ms. Erwin stated she has been the Case Manager for both Children
since the fall of 2015 to December 2016. She noted the Children came into care when
they were left wandering the street while Mother was using drugs. The Children were
removed from Mother's care and placed at the Maternal Grandmother's house. She noted
the Children were never in the care of their Fathers. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.10 at 5-25; p.11
at 1-25).
Ms. Erwin testified the Single Case Plan objectives for Father, E.T., were for him
to make his whereabouts known. At that time, she noted that the only information they
13
had was his name, and did not get an address until a PLS was completed in December of
2015, which was 1412 South Allentown Street. Philadelphia, PA. She sent a letter to
Father at that address and did not receive a response. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.14 at 21-25; p.
15 at 1-20).
Ms. Erwin stated she met Father at the court hearing on August 2016. when he
acknowledged that he knew his Child was under OHS care but was under the impression
that she was going to get the Children back. He told her he was trying to contact Mother
on social media because he did not have her phone number, but she would not give him
the agency's contact information. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.15 at 21-25; p.16 at 1-25).
She further testified that Father told her he did not have appropriate housing for
reunification with his Child, and told her he was employed as a cab driver but did not
provide documentation of employment. Father began having supervised visits with the
Child at the Agency after August 2016. and the visits were appropriate, and he would
either do homework with the Child or color with her and overall, positive interactions.
The Child did not have any particular reaction when visitation terminated with Father.
(N.T. 7/20/2017,p.17at 15-25;p.18at l-25;p.19at 1-16).
Ms. Erwin testified the SCP was updated and the objectives for Father were to
maintain housing, complete parenting classes and attend visitation with the Child. There
were no drug or alcohol or mental health requirements in the SCP for Father. Father's
visits were consistent, once they began. She referred Father to ARC for parenting
classes. however she did not know if he completed the classes. She finally stated she
believed Father was building a bond with the Child. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.28 at 1-25; p.29
at 1-5).
14
-
Regarding the Father's bond with the Child, Ms. Erwin opined that she was
uncertain if the Child would suffer irreparable harm if Father's parental rights were
terminated because at the time she stopped managing the case, the Child was just getting
to know Father. (N.T. 7/20/2017. p.30 at 5-24).
Ms. Erwin stated that the Children were placed with the current foster parent that
is present in the court hearing and their behavior has been pretty pleasant. They were
gradually getting better. and they were stable, doing well. and were bonding with their
caregiver. (N.T. 7/20/2017.p.20at 1-11).
Catherine Devine, CUA Case manager, was the next witness to testify. She
became the Case Manager in December 2016, and remains as Case Manager for both
Children to the present. Regarding Father's case plan objectives, she testified that when
she took over the case the objectives for Father were to complete a home assessment,
provide documentation of employment, and to comply with court orders regarding
visitation and parenting classes. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.35 at 21-25: p.36 at 1).
Ms. Devine noted that Father did complete the parenting course, and she obtained
a copy of the certificate. Regarding employment, Father told her he drives for Uber,
however, could not provide receipts to prove the employment but did show her his
telephone where rides were listed. Regarding housing. she stated that Father did not have
appropriate housing and instead wanted his mother to take the Child into her home
instead of himself. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.36 at 2-17).
She further testified that she has supervised Father's visits with the Child and has
observed that they have positive interactions. Father has had 12 visits with the Child that
she has observed, which occur once per week. She noted they interact a lot, and he
15
provides her with clothing and shoes. He does homework with her and they play games.
However, she opined she does not believe the Child would suffer irreparable harm if
Father's parental rights are terminated because the bonding with Father has just begun,
and the Child has expressed to her that she wants to remain with the foster mother. The
Child knows who her Father is. however. sometimes does not want to attend the visits
and does not like the back and forth process. Therefore, she believes the best interests of
the Child would be served if she was adopted by the foster parent because both Children
need stability and consistency. and they receive that with the current foster parent. (N.T.
7/20/2017, p.36 at 18-25: p.37 at 1-25; p.39 at 7-23).
Ms. Devine further testified she has observed the interactions between the
Children and their pre-adoptive foster parent. They call the foster parent Mom, and both
stated to her that they do not want to leave her house and want to stay there. She further
testified, it is a parent-child relationship they have with the foster parent. I.G.M.D. has
been with foster parent. Tamika Nelson, since 5/4/2016 and G.I.M. has been with her
since 10/19/2016. Both Children are doing very well in the foster home, and especially
I.G.M.D. is progressing. The foster mother works very hard with her, and both Children
have a positive relationship with her. (N.T. 7/20/2017, p.34 at 22-25; p.35 at 1-20).
On cross-examination by Mary A. Galeota, the Child Advocate. Ms. Erwin
testified that I.G.M.D. is now 6 years old, and G.I.M. is 9 years old. She noted the
Children told her they want to stay in the foster home, and there are other Children living
there, Ms. Nelson's biological daughter and two nephews, who are in Kinship with her.
(N.T. 7/20/2017, p.40 at 22-25; p.41 at 1-15).
16
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, an appellate
Court is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by
competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion. an error of law. or insufficient
evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial
court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, an appellate court
must accord the hearing judges decision the same deference that it would give to a jury
verdict. The Pennsylvania Superior Court need only agree with a trial court's decision as
to any one subsection under 23 P.C.S.A. §2511 (a) in order to affirm a termination of
parental rights. In re D.A.T 91 A.3d 197 Pa.Super.201-1).
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 oflaw 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. 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., 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013) (citations
and quotation marks omitted) In re Adoption of C.D.R., 2015 PA Super 54, 111 A.3d
1212, 1215 (2015).
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act
23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus is
on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and
17
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). In re Adoption ofC.J.J.P., 2015 PA Super 80, 114 A.3d 1046. 1049-
50 (2015). The Court need only agree with the orphans' court as to any one subsection of
Section 251 l(a), as well as Section 251 l(b). in order to affirm. In re Adoption of
C.J.J.P., 2015 PA Super 80, 114 A.3d 1046, 1050 (2015).
These Children became known to DHS in October 2014, when information was
received that the Mother and the Children, then ages 6 Yi and 3 years, were on a street
comer and Mother asked the Children's Maternal Uncle, M.S. to help her inject drugs;
that when he refused. Mother injected the drugs herself; that the Children began to
wander off so M.S. took the Children to the home of their Maternal Grandmother, S.S.
Further. G.I.M. was found holding Mother's purse which had needles in it. Both
Children were in Mother's care at the time. The Children are now 9 Yi and 6 years old,
and are safe and all of their needs are being met by their foster mother.
18
A. The Trial Court Properlv Found the Department of Human Services Met
Its Burden by Clear and Convincing Evidence To Terminate Father's
Parental Rights Pursuant to 23 Pa.CS.A. §251l(a)(l), and (2)2
On Appeal, Father alleges the Court erred by terminating his parental rights based
on sections of23 Pa.C.S.A. §251 l(a)(l), (2), (5), and (8). This Court's based its ruling
on 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(l ), and (2), and will only address those sections in this opinion.
Father first alleges the Trial Court abused its discretion and committed legal error
in terminating Fathers parental rights since the Department of Human Services did not
meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence of establishing sufficient grounds that
Father has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing claim to a child or has refused or
failed to perform parental duties under 23 Pa.CS.A. §2511 (a)(l ).
2
(a) General Rule. +rhe rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any
of the following grounds:
(I) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding
the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parenting
claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.
(2) The 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.
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parents by the court or under a voluntary
agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the
removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those
conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the
parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child
within reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs
and welfare of the child.
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under voluntary
agreement with an agency. 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or
placement. the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and
termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
19
The focus of the termination proceedings is on the conduct of the parent. This
Court heard credible, compelling evidence from the CUA Case Managers that showed
Father failed to perform his parental duties and revealed a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to his Child. When Ms. Erwin took over the case in the fall
of 2015, Father's whereabouts were unknown to DHS. A PLS was conducted and she
obtained an address for Father, and sent a contact letter to the address at 1412 Allentown
Street. She never received a response. and Father, ultimately, presented himself to the
Court and DHS in August of 2016. He then began visits with the Child, and since he did
not have appropriate housing for reunification. he recommended the Child live with his
Mother. He told her he was employed as a driver by Uber, and she referred him to ARC
for a parenting course. This Court found clear and convincing evidence that Father failed
and refused to perform parental duties. failed to address the conditions which brought the
Child into placement, and lacks the capacity to adequately provide care and control and a
stable environment necessary for the Child's well-being.
Next. Father alleges that the Court abused its discretion and committed legal error
in terminating Father's parental rights since the Department of Human Services did not
meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence that Father lacks the present capacity to
perform his parental duties.
This Court relied on credible testimony by both CUA Case Managers, Ms. Iesha
Erwin and Catherine Devine. who both testified that the SCP objectives for Father were
to obtain and maintain housing, provide documentation of employment, complete
parenting, and comply with visitation with the Child. Credible evidence was presented
20
that Father did not anticipate the Child living with him, and instead wanted DHS to
consider his Mother to take the Child in. not himself.
Ms. Devine noted that Father did complete a parenting course. and has visited
with the Child twelve times since December 2016. and she has observed the visits. She
testified she does not believe a parent-child relationship exists between Father and the
Child. however. the Child is just getting to know him. She further testified that the Child
expressed to her that she wants to remain with the Foster Mother, T.N. Ms. Devine noted
that the Child needs stability and consistency and she gets that with the Foster Mother
and is safe, with all her needs being met.
B. Trial Court Properly Found that Termination of Father's Parental
Rights was in the Child's Best Interest and that OHS Met Its Burden
Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(b).3
After the Court finds that the statutory grounds for termination have been
satisfied, it must then determine whether the termination of parental rights serves the best
interests of the children pursuant to 251 l(b) In re Adoption ofC.L.G., 956 A2d 999
(Pa.Super 2008). In terminating the rights of a parent. the Court .. shall give primary
consideration to the development, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the
child." 23 Pa.C.S.A. §251 l(b). One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis
4
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)(l),(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.
21
•
concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child. In re
T.S.M .. 71 A3d.
This Court heard credible evidence presented by both CUA Case Managers. who
testified that the Child was positively bonded to the foster parent. and referred to her as
.. Mother." The Child looks to her for safety and to meet her needs. Ms. Devine also
observed how the Child interacts with Father at the supervised visits, and notes that
generally the visits are positive. but the Child sometimes does not want to go to the visits.
She noted that the Child expressed to her that she wants to continue to live with the foster
mother.
Ms. Devine noted that the Child needs the safety and security that Father cannot
provide. and she would not suffer irreparable harm if Fathers parental rights were
terminated and it would be in her best interest to be adopted.
The Court found credible the evidence that the Child, although just getting to
know the Father. is not bonded to him, and therefore. this Court reasoned that the Child
would not suffer irreparable harm if Fathers parental rights were terminated, and it
would be in the Child's best interests to be adopted.
CONCLUSION:
At the conclusion of the Hearing the Court stated:
Now the more complex case is the case of E.T., where he
presents as a Father who desires to establish a relationship
in the future but the stark reality is that he has failed to
remedy the issues that brought this Child into care. He is
not in a position to parent this Child. His suggestion that
22
·.
he can use his mother as a substitute to parent for the Child,
and use her residence as a substitute residence for the Child
suggests that he is not in a position to care for this Child
today nor does he have any plan to care for the Child other
than some long term plan that someday he may get a house.
But the lack of ability to provide parenting for this Child
now and over the course of the last 32 months supports a
finding that he has failed to remedy those same issues that
brought this Child into care, and will not be able to remedy
those issues going forward. This placement extending over
a period of 32 months makes even more poignant the need
for some permanency in these Children's lives. they have
established a permanent relationship, parental relationship
with the caretaker.
And the need for this Child to have permanency. safety.
someone who is consistent in the care for the Child going
forward and would provide that consistency going forward
requires that I terminate Mr. Taylor's parental rights.
Although there is a bond, there is no parental bond and the
testimony is uncontradicted that the Child would not suffer
any irreparable harm if the bond is severed: the clear
testimony is that the parental relationship emotionally
intellectually is with the caregiver and not with Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor's rights are terminated pursuant to 2511 (a) (I)
and (2) and 2511 (b ). Having now terminated the parental
rights, the goal for both Children is changed to adoption.
(N.T., 7/20/2017,p.56at 13-25;p.57at l-11,25;p.58at 1-
15).
for the foregoing reasons. this Court respectfully requests that the Order of July
20. 2017, Terminating Father. E.T."s Parental Rights to G.I.M. and changing the Childs
Permanency Goals to Adoption be AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
ALLAN L. TERESHKO, Sr. J.
DATE
23
CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing OPINION has been
served upon the following parties by the manneras designated:
Family Court Delivery Mail Box
Daniel Silver, Esq.
1845 Walnut St., Ste. 1199
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellant, Father, E.T.
BridgetM. Warner, Esq. ACS,
Phila Solicitor's Office
One Parkway, 1515 Arch St, 15th tlr.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
DHS Counsel
Clair Michelle Stewart, Esq.
100 S. Broad St., Ste. 1523
Philadelphia, PA 19110
GAL for Child, G.l.M.
Mary A. Galeota, Esq.
1551 Market St., Ste. 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Child Advocate for Child, G J.M.
Nghi Duong Vo, Esq.
1500 Walnut St., Ste. 2000
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Mother, D.M.
ALLAN L. TERESHKO, Sr. J.
�· '1
12017 ·
DAT I
--··------·-··--········ . .. --- ..- --'·.;.:s,,-:::_:_�·::·� ·.·--·-········