Case Name: In the Interest of Ronald James COAST and Melissa Jane Coast, Minors. (Two Cases) Appeal of James and Sarah COAST, the Natural Parents. (Two Cases)
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1989-06-27
Citations: 385 Pa. Super. 450
Docket Number: Nos. 698 and 699
Parties: In the Interest of Ronald James COAST and Melissa Jane Coast, Minors. (Two Cx`ases) Appeal of James and Sarah COAST, the Natural Parents. (Two Cases)
Judges: Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and CAVANAUGH, BROSKY, McEWEN, OLSZEWSKI, BECK, TAMILIA, POPOVICH and JOHNSON, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 385
Pages: 450–492

Head Matter:
561 A.2d 762
In the Interest of Ronald James COAST and Melissa Jane Coast, Minors. (Two Cx`ases) Appeal of James and Sarah COAST, the Natural Parents. (Two Cases)
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Feb. 27, 1989.
Filed June 27, 1989.
Anthony Piatek, New Castle, for appellants.
David Henderson, New Castle, for appellees.
Sydney W. Paul, New Castle, for Children Services, participating party.
Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and CAVANAUGH, BROSKY, McEWEN, OLSZEWSKI, BECK, TAMILIA, POPOVICH and JOHNSON, JJ.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, Judge:
This is an appeal from the final decree terminating the parental rights of appellants James R. Coast and Sara Jane Coast and the final decree denying the Coasts visitation with their two children, Ronald James Coast, born February 23, 1973, and Melissa Jane Coast, born November 21, 1974. We are asked to decide whether a "best interests of the child" balancing test is appropriate in a termination proceeding, and, if it is not, whether the trial court erroneously applied such a test. In addition, the Coasts challenge whether the record supports the trial court's conclusion on both the termination and the visitation issues. Finding that the trial court did not apply a "best interests" standard, which would have been inappropriate for this determination of whether the parents were unable or unwilling to provide for the children's needs and welfare, and finding that the record supports the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights and the trial court's previous decision to deny visitation, we affirm.
I.
The root of the disruption of the Coast family home is the alcohol problem of both parents. This has led to the Coasts' abdication of their parental roles; they have ceased to provide for their children both physically and emotionally. Ronnie is retarded and requires special care. Melissa has had pervasive emotional problems because her parents have neglected her. Originally the Coasts lived in Butler County, where, as early as 1979, Children and Youth Services (CYS) had received reports from the police regarding the couple's marital disputes. Butler County CYS removed the children for a 16 month period, until the spring of 1981, due to unsatisfactory home conditions. The children were again removed for a four-month period in 1981-82 upon a finding that the condition of the home was unsanitary, and that the parents were walking out on each other and leaving the children unsupervised.
The family then relocated to Lawrence County, where in April of 1984 CYS was notified by the school district in which the children were enrolled that their attendance was extremely poor. Upon investigation, the children were found at home unsupervised. CYS again determined that the home was unsuitable, and the children were removed, placed into foster homes and were adjudicated dependent pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302 and 6341(c) on April 23, 1984. The children had structured visits with their parents until March 13, 1986, when it was determined that the visits upset the children to the extent that their behavior regressed for weeks afterward. On this date CYS filed a petition to terminate the Coasts' parental rights, and all visitation was halted. Hearings on the petition were held on July 16 and December 28, 1986. The children were represented throughout the proceedings by their own counsel.
The Coasts began treatment for their alcoholism at the Irene Stacy Health Center in Butler in 1985; they had been in treatment for eighteen months at the time of the termination hearing. At the termination hearing the court heard conflicting testimony; the Coasts' therapist testified that the couple told him that they had not been drinking, and yet Melissa testified that she smelled alcohol on her mother's breath during a visit within this period. Following Melissa's testimony, the court conducted an in camera examination of Melissa, with all counsel present. Melissa testified that she was afraid to return to her parents because she feared that they would resume their former drinking habits and would again neglect her. The psychologist for the Human Services Center, who had conducted a parenting evaluation of the Coasts, testified that the Coasts had made little progress since 1979 when the children were first taken from them and that therefore his prognosis was guarded concerning whether the Coasts could care for the children in the future.
Also testifying was Christine Kidd, the 19-year-old daughter of Mrs. Coast. Christine testified at the first hearing that her parents had made considerable progress and had stopped drinking. However, after that hearing but before the trial court reached a decision, Christine repudiated her testimony. Therefore, upon petition by CYS, the court ordered another hearing, which was held on December 23,1986. At this second hearing Christine testified that her parents were having considerable trouble managing their household, which now included Mrs. Coast's 17-year-old daughter Cindy, who had also been in foster care but had been returned to the Coast's home, and two infant children of Sarah Coast's oldest daughter, Mary Ann. Christine testified that, because of her mother's neglect of Cindy, she now felt the need to take responsibility for her sister, to transport her to school and to buy her clothes and personal items. She also expressed doubts about whether her parents had, in fact, stopped drinking, because she had often seen them walking home late at night from the area of a bar and had noticed visitors bringing alcohol into their home. The court also heard extensive testimony from several social workers and counselors who had been involved with the Coast family case over long periods of time. The court found that the implication of this testimony was that conditions in the Coast home were unlikely to change. On that same day, December 23, 1986, the court denied the Coasts visitation.
On July 31, 1987 the Honorable Glenn McCracken, Jr. filed the Adjudication and Decree Nisi terminating the Coasts' parental rights. The decree incorporated the prior denial of visitation on the grounds that visitation presented a clear and present danger to the welfare of the children. The decree also provided for custody to remain with CYS, which had placed the children with the foster families that now seek to adopt the children. On August 10, 1987, the Coasts filed separate petitions asking the court to reverse its decision on visitation and on termination. In his opinion accompanying the denial of the petition to reverse the denial of visitation, Judge McCracken outlined the facts that led him to conclude that both children were terrified of their parents and that they both visibly regressed for a time after the visits. Melissa had, in fact, told the social worker, at the time of the visitation hearing when she was 13 years of age, that she did not want to return to her parents. The court also noted that, although both parents and their counsel were present at the hearing, no evidence was offered in their favor.
Again on November 12, 1987 the Coasts filed a motion to modify and reverse the visitation decision, which was de nied. Following this, the Coasts filed Exceptions to the court order denying visitation. The exceptions were dismissed by the trial court on April 6, 1988. Notice of appeal to this court was filed on May 5, 1988 from the termination of parental rights and on May 16, 1988 from the denial of visitation. On June 10th, 1988 this Court ordered the entering of a final decree in both actions, which were entered on June 28, 1988. A panel of this court decided the case in an Opinion filed on December 15, 1988 that was subsequently withdrawn. Because other cases from this Court refer to "the child's best interests" when reviewing an order terminating parental rights, the panel certified these appeals to the Court en banc to allow us to determine the role, if any, of the "best interests" balancing analysis in a termination of parental rights proceeding.
II.
On appeal the Coasts argue that the trial court, in deciding whether the statutory requirements for termination were present, improperly weighed the environment that they themselves could provide to their children against the environment of the potential adoptive homes. The Coasts are joined by counsel for the children in this argument. As we determine, such a "best interests" balancing analysis is improper, and the trial court in fact took great care not to engage in such an analysis. While it is true that the court considered a wide range of testimony, a thorough review of the record, the Adjudication and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glenn McCracken, Jr. refutes the Coasts' contention that the court employed a best interests standard in deciding to terminate their parental rights.
The court never discussed the foster homes. Rather, the trial court based its decision to terminate the Coasts' parental rights upon the correct legal standard as set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. This determination was reached only after the trial court conducted a commendably exhaustive and exemplary inquiry into all the ramifications of this sensitive case. Once the trial court found that the requisites of termination were met, it then decided to terminate parental rights. No issue was raised that additional factors existed that would render termination adverse to the children's interests, nor did the trial court address any.
Judge Tamilia, in his scholarly Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, explains in great detail that, should the court find that the statutory requirements of termination — that the parents cannot or will not provide for the child's needs and welfare — are met, the court, in light of additional factors, still has the power not to terminate parental rights. It is this consideration of additional factors that Judge Tamilia defines as consideration of the child's best interests. We do not quarrel with this proposition, nor do we now conclude that consideration of the child's best interests, thus defined, is forever foreclosed, or that termination must be decreed once findings are legally conclusive. Rather, we focus our discussion on the issue raised by the Coasts, whether the trial court improperly balanced the virtues of two homes in deciding that the statutory requisites of termination were met. Thus, our respective positions each actually speak to different issues in termination proceedings. Given the facts of this case and the scope of the issue before us on appeal arising out of these facts, we found it neither necessary nor expedient to reach the issue that Judge Tamilia so ably examines.
First, the Coasts are correct in asserting that a best interests balancing analysis has no place in a determination of whether the statutory requisites of termination of parental rights have been met. Both the statute and case law confirm the validity of this proposition. Because this question has been an understandable source of confusion, we will set forth how the "best interest" test conflicts with the purpose of a termination action. Initially we will characterize the parent's right with regard to children.
The United States Supreme Court explains that a parent's interest in children is a:
fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child [which] does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394-1395, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 606 (1982). The state, too, has an interest in promoting the welfare of the child. However, it should be remembered that this interest favors preservation, not severance, of family bonds; the state's interest in finding the child another home therefore arises only when it is clear that the natural parent cannot or will not provide sufficient care for the child. Santosky, 455 U.S. at 766-767, 102 S.Ct at 1401-1402, 71 L.Ed.2d at 615.
A termination court's inquiry, then, focuses on whether the parents are capable of performing the parental duties required of them by society. If the parents cannot fulfill these duties, only then must they relinquish the rights of a parent. The Santosky court held that, because the parental interest is so fundamental, due process requires the party seeking termination to demonstrate by the standard of clear and convincing evidence that the parent can no longer perform parental duties and is thus not entitled to parental rights. In its discussion of the factfinding process in a termination action, the Santosky court explained that:
[t]he factfinding does not purport — and is not intended— to balance the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child. Nor does it purport to determine whether the natural parents or the foster parents would provide the better home. Rather, the factfinding hearing pits the State directly against the parents.
Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759, 102 S.Ct. at 1398, 71 L.Ed.2d at 610 (emphasis added).
This Commonwealth has, by statute and by caselaw, consistently adhered to these principles. Historically, a determination of relinquishment of parental rights without consent could be made only by establishing abandonment. Abandonment as defined in the 1925 Adoption Act consisted of "conduct on the part of a parent which evidences a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to the child and of refusing or failing to perform parental duties." This was a matter largely of the parents' intention, to be determined from the evidence. In re Gunther's Adoption, 416 Pa. 237, 206 A.2d 61 (1965).
In 1970 the legislature passed a new adoption act which in effect bifurcated adoption proceedings. Act of July 24, 1970. An initial proceeding determined whether parental rights should be extinguished. The act titled this portion of the procedure a "Proceeding Prior to Petition to Adopt." This portion of the Act contained the requirements for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights and involuntary termination of parental rights. If the requirements of one of these sections is met, then the adoption proceeding may take place. Most significant is that the 1970 act introduced new grounds for termination of parental rights. Parental rights could be involuntarily terminated if:
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;
1 Pa.S. § 311(2) (repealed). The Official Comment distinguished this concept from abandonment by explaining that it centered judicial inquiry on the welfare of the child rather than on the fault of the parent. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, Comment — 1970; In re Adoption of Michael J.C., 506 Pa. 517, 486 A.2d 371 (1984). In other words, the focus shifted from the parents' behavior to the effect of parents' actions or omissions upon the child. The parents' behavior still constitutes the operational fact, but in a broader sense. This effect upon the child has subsequently been expressed as the "needs and welfare" of the child. It follows, then, that judicial inquiry necessarily looks at whether the needs of the child, both physical and emotional, are being served, for the purpose of determining whether or not the parent is performing his function. See Adoption of R.I., 468 Pa. 287, 361 A.2d 294 (1976); cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1032, 97 S.Ct. 722, 50 L.Ed.2d 743 (1977).
In this sense, the child's welfare is and always has been considered in Pennsylvania, and "the welfare of the child is of paramount importance in adoption matters." In re Adoption of List, 418 Pa. 503, 515, 211 A.2d 870, 877 (1965) (decided under the 1925 Act). Our courts never meant by this kind of language that a "best interests of the child" balancing test was to be employed; the analysis has, rather, always been an intensive factfinding inquiry into whether the statutory provisions for termination had been met. A best interest of the child analysis, employed traditionally in custody proceedings between two parents, is a balancing of the relative virtues of the two homes in question. It is a presumption in a best interests analysis that the parents, as adverse parties in a custody action, have equal rights regarding the subject child, the question for the court being to determine which home is better for the child. The focus and purpose of a termination hearing, in contrast, is whether parents have so failed in their duty that the State, because of its interest in the child's well-being, must strip the parents of their fundamental right.
A consistent line of cases has elaborated upon this point, beginning with In Re Schwab's Adoption, 355 Pa. 534, 50 A.2d 504 (1947). The court wrote:
Consideration of what is beneficial for the child is vital in custody cases, but cannot be regarded as evidence of abandonment. The child's happiness and well being is the paramount consideration in custody cases. Under the Adoption Act the welfare of the child is weighed only after the necessary consents have already been given or forfeited.
"The fact that the adoption asked for may be advantageous to the children and for their material welfare is not to be considered by the court until the necessary prerequisites for such action exist."
In Re Schwab's Adoption, 355 Pa. at 540-541, 50 A.2d at 508 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). Citing Schwab's Adoption and subsequent cases, the supreme court wrote in 1975 that "... in the absence of sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements for involuntary termination, the question of the best interest of the child never arises." In re Adoption of McAhren, 460 Pa. 63, 70, 331 A.2d 419, 422 (1975).
In 1980 the legislature amended the Involuntary Termination provision of the Adoption Act of 1970 by adding the underscored sections below. The legislature made no substantive changes in the text of the original language of 1 Pa.S. § 311(l)-(3), now § 2511(a)(1), (2) and (3):
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(a) General rule. — The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental 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.
(3) The parent is the presumptive but not the natural father of the child.
(4) The child is in the custody of an agency, having been found under such circumstances that the identity or whereabouts of the parent is unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent search and the parent does not claim the child within three months after the child is found.
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent 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 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 a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(b) Other considerations. — The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the 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.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.
The amendments broadened grounds for termination by requiring that the social agencies take an affirmative role in keeping the family together. The statute does not introduce a new test for termination of parental rights merely by use of the phrase "needs and welfare of the child." In fact, this language conforms to the older cases cited above. The comment to the new section (b) states that:
"Subsection (b) directs the court to give primary consideration to the child's needs and welfare. See Adoption of R.I., 468 Pa. 287, 361 A.2d 294 (1976). Furthermore, the court is directed not to terminate parental rights solely on the basis of environmental factors."
Source and Official Comment — 1980. Justice Roberts, writing for the Adoption of R.I. court, explicitly rejected a balancing approach:
A child cannot be declared 'neglected' merely because his condition might be improved by changing his parents.
Adoption of R.I., 468 Pa. 287, 295, 361 A.2d 294, 298 (1976). This language was excerpted from an opinion of this Court written by Judge Woodside, In re Rinker, 180 Pa.Super. 143, 117 A.2d 780 (1955). The complete Rinker passage so cogently summarizes the principles under discussion here that it is worth reproducing in its entirety:
The family is an institution which preceded governments. Its sanctity was universally recognized before judges or statutes or constitutions or welfare organizations were known to man. The right of a child to a mother and a mother to a child are rights created by natural law. They are rights attributable to the nature of mankind rather than to the enactments of law.
It is a serious matter for the long arm of the state to reach into a home and snatch a child from its mother. It is a power which a government dedicated to freedom for the individual should exercise with extreme care, and only where the evidence clearly establishes its necessity. Yet, of course, there are cases where such authority must be exercised for the protection and welfare of children.
Under our system of government children are not the property of the state to be reared only where and under such conditions as officials deem best. On the other hand the state is interested in establishing a minimum standard of care for a child's physical, intellectual and moral well being. But this minimum standard must be viewed in the light of experience. Although there are many very good homes, there is no such thing as a "perfect home."
A child cannot be declared "neglected" merely because his condition might be improved by changing his parents. The welfare of many children might be served by taking them from their homes and placing them in what the officials may consider a better home. But the Juvenile Court Law was not intended to provide a procedure to take the children of the poor and give them to the rich, nor to take the children of the illiterate and give them to the educated, nor to take the children of the crude and give them to the cultured, nor to take the children of the weak and sickly and give them to the strong and healthy.
The power of the juvenile court is not to adjudicate what is for the best interests of a child, but to adjudicate whether or not the child is neglected.
In re Rinker, 180 Pa.Super. at 147-148, 117 A.2d at 783-784 (emphasis added). The "minimum standard of care for the child's physical intellectual and moral well-being" amounts to what Judge Woodside termed the "protection and welfare of children" and what the statute terms "the child's needs and welfare." The term "child's needs and welfare" denotes neither a discrete factor which a court must consider, nor a discrete step in a termination adjudication. Rather, it denotes the minimum standard of care that is required of parents by the state. If the standard is not met, the courts must decide that the child is neglected.
The Adoption ofR.I. court recognized the "child's needs and welfare" standard of care by explicitly relying on key portions of the above-quoted portions of In re Rinker, and it also recognized the long-standing principle that the best interests of the child cannot be considered until after a finding that the statutory requirements had been met. Adoption of R.I., 468 Pa. at 299 n. 12, 361 A.2d at 300 n. 12. By incorporating the Adoption ofR.I. approach, the legislature was clearly not adopting a new test for termination of parental rights but rather was reaffirming the approach taken by the courts of this Commonwealth. We reiterate that the language directing the court to give primary consideration to the child's needs and welfare is found in the old cases. See, e.g., In re Adoption of List, supra.
In 1984 this Court, sitting en banc, addressed the precise issue of whether, by way of the 1980 amendments, the legislature intended to introduce a radical departure in the law and change the test for a termination of parental rights determination. We held that the legislature had no such intention. Acknowledging that the "best interests" standard traditionally has been applied to custody disputes, we distinguished "best interests" from "needs and welfare:"
[needs and welfare] denotes certain minimum requirements that all children are entitled to — adequate housing, clothing, food and love — whereas [best interests] connotes a weighing of two adequate but unequal situations (traditionally, the respective households of mother and father). Our supreme court has, in the past, refused to sanction the termination of parental rights where the children are fed and clothed, are in generally good health, and are not abused although the home is "submarginal" and the children might suffer from cultural deprivation.
In re Adoption of Michael J.C., 326 Pa.Super. 143, 159, 473 A.2d 1021, 1029 (1984); rev'd on other grounds, 506 Pa. 517, 486 A.2d 371 (1984). We also held that § 2511(b) "does not contain an additional ground for terminating parental rights; such grounds are contained in § 2511(a) only. Thus, until the requirements of § 2511(a) are met, there is no need to consider § 2511(b)." In re Adoption of Michael J.C., 326 Pa.Super. at 159, 473 A.2d at 1030.
Most recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has addressed this issue and has come to the same conclusion. In holding that grounds existed for termination of a disabled father's parental rights, the court wrote:
[23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) ] makes it clear that grounds for termination can consist of lack of capacity and not just affirmative misconduct. Judicial inquiry is to be centered on the best interest of the child, rather than the fault of the parent. But this is only after the parent's incapacity is proven by clear and convincing evidence. Absent sufficient evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements for involuntary termination, the question of best interests of the child never arises.
In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. 590, 607, 515 A.2d 883, 892 (1986); on remand to 366 Pa.Super. 94, 530 A.2d 908 (1987) (emphasis added); see also In re Adoption of Michael J. C., 326 Pa.Super. at 159, 473 A.2d at 1026. We conclude that the legislature did not, by the amendments of 1980, intend to bring about a sharp departure from an established precept of the law and permit termination of parental rights, "one of our basic civil rights," In re Adoption of J.C., supra, by permitting the "best interests" balancing test.
The Coasts correctly cite to In re Adoption of A.N.D., 360 Pa.Super. 157, 520 A.2d 31 (1986), appeal denied, 516 Pa. 638, 533 A.2d 710 (1986) as support for their position that "the best interest of the child, rather than the fault of the parent" does not mandate the application of a "best interests" analysis. Our Court in A.N.D. applied the correct analysis. We examined whether the trial court had before it sufficient clear and convincing evidence to warrant its termination of the parent's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. Despite dicta at the close of the opinion that best interests must be considered, the A.N.D. court demonstrably did not use a best-interests balancing test. This closing dicta insofar as it implies that 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 requires a best interests balancing analysis is to be disregarded.
Similarly, in In re Adoption of Hamilton, 379 Pa.Super. 274, 549 A.2d 1291 (1988), this Court properly conducted an inquiry into whether there was clear and convincing evidence warranting termination of parental rights where a father, following an initial abandonment, evidenced an affirmative demonstration of his intention to assume parental responsibilities toward his daughter. We held that the trial court erred in not evaluating the father's post-abandonment behavior, and that, in effect, his post-abandonment efforts negated the existence of clear and convincing evidence to support termination of his parental rights. However, we included language serving as a buttressing rationale that could be read as suggesting, incorrectly, that the trial court must conduct a "best interests" weighing analysis. As with A.N.D., any such suggestion should be disregarded.
III.
We will now continue with the disposition of the appeal before us by articulating our standard of review:
In cases where there has been an involuntary termination of parental rights by the Orphan's Court, the scope of appellate review is limited to the determination of whether the decree of termination is supported by competent evidence, (citation omitted). If the decree is adequately supported by competent evidence, and the chancellor's findings are not predicated upon capricious disbelief of competent and credible evidence, the adjudication of the Orphan's Court terminating parental rights will not be disturbed on appeal, (citation omitted). It is established that, in a proceeding to involuntarily terminate parental rights, the burden of proof is upon the party seeking termination to establish by "clear and convincing" evidence" the existence of grounds for doing so. Santosky v. Kramer, supra.
In re Adoption of J.J., 511 Pa. at 593-594, 515 A.2d at 885-886. Further, the trial court is the sole judge of credibility, conflicts are to be resolved by the trier of fact, and absent an abuse of discretion, its findings are given the same weight as a jury verdict. Id.
An exhaustive review of the record and the trial court's adjudication of July 31, 1987, in which Judge McCracken set forth his findings of fact, as well as the Opinion of April 6, 1988, establishes that the court's conclusion was supported by clear and convincing evidence that the Coasts' parental rights should be terminated. The trial court found, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(5), that:
Lawrence County Children's Services has met its burden of proof. It has shown that the conditions that led to the removal of the children remain substantially unaltered; that the natural parents cannot remedy those conditions within reasonable time despite the services and assistance available to them, and that termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children.
Adjudication of July 31, 1987, p. 8.
The Coasts argue that this conclusion was based on evidence that was erroneously considered by the trial court, evidence that was "best interests" evidence rather than "termination" evidence. All the evidence considered could be relevant to either analysis. None of this evidence carries independent characteristics that place it in one category or the other. There is no way to distinguish evidence that goes to best interests from evidence that goes to determining whether the statutory requirements are met. The trial court fed the evidence into the correct analytical process. To put it another way, viewing the "totality of the circumstances" is entirely proper and is not the same thing as applying a balancing analysis. See In the Matter of K.L.P., 354 Pa.Super. 241, 511 A.2d 852 (1986). Ronnie's retardation and Melissa's emotional problems require special care. The trial court did not determine that foster homes could better provide for these needs, but that the Coasts have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot provide for even the children's minimal needs.
In a separate appeal, the Coasts challenge the order denying visitation. In reviewing a trial court's denial of visitation, we look to whether there exists clear and convincing evidence that visitation would present a grave threat to the child. In Interest of Rhine, 310 Pa.Super. 275, 456 A.2d 608 (1983). When making this determination, we must take into consideration the express legislative policy of preservation of the family. See the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq. Therefore, the trial court is required to consider options such as structured visitation with the aid of an agency; only where there are no practicable visitation options can visitation be denied. In Interest of Rhine, supra. Thus, the standard to apply to visitation cases comports with that to be applied in termination cases; the "best interests" standard is not the correct principle to apply to either. In re Adoption of Michael J.C., 326 Pa.Super. 143, 473 A.2d 1021 (1984).
The record in this case establishes that the trial court considered and implemented visitation options. Following the adjudication of dependency and the removal of the children from the Coasts' home, the court permitted structured visitation with the aid of CYS over a two year period. Only after both children evidenced marked ill effects from these visits did the court deny visitation. In the opinion accompanying the order denying visitation, Judge McCracken diligently summarized the facts which led him to conclude that there was:
clear and convincing evidence that visits with the parents would present a grave threat to the emotional, mental, physical and psychological welfare of both children which cannot be remedied by a structured or supervised setting.
Opinion, November 2, 1987, pp. 3-4. We do not agree with the Coasts that the evidence before the trial court consisted of speculation and unsupported facts. Conflicts in testimony were properly resolved by the trial court. After our own close review of the testimony, we conclude that the trial court was correct. Thus, we affirm the denial of visitation.
Where the trial court so carefully and thoroughly performs its factfinding function, absent an error of law, and where the court's determinations of credibility leads to the conclusion that parental rights should be terminated and that visitation should be denied, we will affirm the trial court's decisions.
Orders affirmed.
BECK, J., files a concurring opinion.
TAMILIA, J., files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which OLSZEWSKI, J., joins.
BROSKY, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which CIRILLO, P.J., joins.
. "Dependent Child." A child who:
(1) is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his physical, mental or emotional health, or morals;
42 Pa.C.S. § 6302.
. Act of April 4, 1925, P.L. 127.
. Social agencies were first recognized as having a role in the termination and adoption process in the Act of April 4, 1925 as amended December 21, 1959, P.L.1955.
. Although Pa.R.C.P. 1915.10 states that no motion for post trial relief may be filed on visitation issues, in this case the court issued a decree nisi, which required the filing of exceptions in order for the Coasts to preserve their appeal rights. Most important, throughout the process of this determination, both the termination and the visitation issues were properly handled as one case, in one set of proceedings. We do not believe that the rule should be applied to deny appellate review under these circumstances. Therefore, the filing of exceptions on the visitation issue will not work to defeat appellate review, either with regard to propriety of the motions themselves or with their effect on the timing of filing an appeal to this Court. See Palladino v. Dunn, 361 Pa.Super. 99, 521 A.2d 946 (1987); Storti v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, 331 Pa.Super. 26, 479 A.2d 1061 (1984). Our review of the record satisfies us that the trial court's order denying visitation had no adverse impact on the rights of the Coasts in the termination issue.