Opinion ID: 4549156
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Domestic Violence and Personal Relationships

Text: Respondent-mother next contests the trial court’s findings of fact regarding her tendency to fall victim to abusive and unsafe relationships. Specifically, she challenges findings of fact 31, 32, 37, and 42 in which, in part, the trial court voiced its concerns regarding a new online relationship into which she had recently entered. The trial court made the following findings regarding respondent-mother’s online relationship with a former high school classmate, Milton Leon Westray, who lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 31. . . . In December 2017, GCDHHS confirmed with the Mother that the Mother was in a new relationship. The Mother explained she was involved in an online relationship with a former high school classmate by the name of Milton Leon Westray. When GCDHHS researched Mr. Westray using the name, date of birth and place of birth provided by the Mother, GCDHHS received a report indicating that Milton Leon Westray was deceased. After receiving this information, the Mother conducted an independent search and obtained the same result. The Mother ultimately decided that the deceased was her classmate’s father. However, Mr. Westray and his father do not share the same birth date. The Mother could not account for this discrepancy and continues to pursue this online relationship. 32. The Mother cannot account for the discrepancy in birth dates because she has not demanded an explanation from Mr. Westray. The Mother’s actions are singularly focused on her romantic pursuits. She married -11- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court her third husband [, respondent-father,] eighteen months after divorcing her second husband. She entered into th[e] relationship [with Mr. Westray] prior to ending the marriage with [respondent-father] and describes her current relationship as “developing.” Perhaps, the Mother has not questioned Mr. Westray because she would then be required to make a decision. The Mother is deserving of a logical and verifiable response. If such a response is not forthcoming, the Mother should end the relationship, period. The Mother does not appear motivated to forego romantic liaisons until her circumstances are stable. .... 37. . . . The Mother has shown a selfish preoccupation with her romantic attachments even when those attachments are unhealthy and harmful to the Mother and her children. The Mother’s mindless attachments will in all likelihood subject [Kirk] to repeated harm and result in [his] eventual removal. . . . .... 42. . . . Although the Mother initiated divorce proceedings, obtained a 50-B Domestic Violence Protective Order and renewed the protective order twice, the [c]ourt is concerned about the Mother’s involvement in yet another relationship since the juvenile’s removal in 2016 without addressing adverse issues from her prior relationships. The concerns and red flags raised in this new relationship causes the Court to question the Mother’s judgment. . . . The trial court relied heavily on the existence of this online relationship as a basis for its determination that respondent-mother was likely to repeat her prior neglect of Kirk. Respondent-mother objects to these findings of fact, arguing that they are unsupported by the evidence of record, insofar as they (1) depict her response to the concerns raised by GCDHHS about Mr. Westray, and (2) extrapolate more -12- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court broadly about her judgment and priorities. We agree with respondent-mother that key portions of the trial court’s findings of fact concerning Mr. Westray—and the inferences drawn by the trial court therefrom—are unsupported by the evidence. Because of the great weight placed by the trial court on this relationship, we deem it appropriate to discuss this issue in some detail. The evidence shows that, upon being informed of respondent-mother’s new online relationship, GCDHHS obtained from her the man’s full name, Milton Leon Westray, and date of birth, which was in August 1966. Using this information, GCDHHS requested a nationwide criminal record check and received a report indicating that a Milton Westray, a/k/a, inter alia, “Westray, Milton L Jr.,” died on 19 May 2012. We note, however, that the report lists two different dates of birth for the deceased Milton Westray: “08/XX/1966” and “03/1959.” Moreover, the report purports to be based on information derived from credit reporting services, such as Experian, as well as e-mail and phone records and an obituary—rather than from any official government source.2 2 Despite GCDHHS’s repeated references during the termination hearing to a “death certificate,” there is no evidence suggesting that GCDHHS ever obtained the deceased Mr. Westray’s death certificate or any other official record to confirm its belief that respondent-mother had fallen victim to an online impostor. Aside from the results of the criminal record search, which are based on unofficial sources and list two different birthdates for the deceased Mr. Westray, the record contains only a two-line death notice for “Milton Westray” published on Philly.com. This notice makes no reference to the decedent’s date of birth or any other identifying information. -13- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court When respondent-mother was presented with GCDHHS’ concerns, she “conducted an independent search” into the death of Milton Westray but did not obtain the same result as GCDHHS. To the contrary, respondent-mother’s research led her to conclude that the Milton Westray who died in May 2012 was her friend’s father—Milton L. Westray, Sr. Her search revealed that although the two men “[had] the same name,” they were two different individuals with different birthdates.3 In addition, she testified that she did, in fact, confront her online correspondent with GCDHHS’s concerns. In response, he provided her with copies of his driver’s license and birth certificate, and she provided these items to GCDHHS. Respondentmother also stated that she asked Mr. Westray to appear at the termination hearing in order to prove his identity but that he could not afford to travel to North Carolina. Her counsel also offered to have Mr. Westray testify by telephone from a local department of social services office in Philadelphia, but both GCDHHS and the guardian ad litem objected to the use of this procedure. In addition to the lack of any official record that would have enabled the trial court to definitively conclude that respondent-mother’s online correspondent was an impostor, we are of the view that the larger inferences drawn by the trial court about 3The trial court was, of course, not required to accept respondent-mother’s testimony as credible. However, the termination order does not contain any indication that the trial court chose to disbelieve her testimony on this issue or as to the other issues relied upon by the trial court in concluding that termination was warranted. Instead, at times, the termination order either ignores respondent-mother’s testimony altogether or fails to characterize it accurately. -14- IN RE K.L.T. Opinion of the Court respondent-mother’s character, motivations, and judgment do not flow from the evidence in the record. The record is devoid of any indication that respondentmother’s online communications with Mr. Westray posed any risk to Kirk. Respondent-mother testified that Mr. Westray has not asked her to provide any financial or other private information, Mr. Westray has never tried to take advantage of her in any way, and that the two have no current plans to meet in person. GCDHHS lacks the authority to prohibit respondent-mother from engaging in social interaction in the absence of any legitimate basis for believing that such interaction was likely to cause harm to Kirk, and such evidence was absent here. Moreover, the evidence shows that respondent-mother did, in fact, take steps to address the concerns that GCDHHS had about Mr. Westray. Accordingly, we agree with respondent-mother that the evidence regarding this issue does not support the trial court’s conclusion that there was a likelihood of future neglect.