Court Opinion

ID: 9945313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 18:10:38.411378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.480471
License: Public Domain

J-S43001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO R.L.B., A              :        PENNSYLVANIA
  MINOR                                        :
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: R.L.B., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1025 MDA 2023

               Appeal from the Decree Entered June 29, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Orphans' Court at No(s):
                                2023-4624

BEFORE:      McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                  FILED: FEBRUARY 27, 2024

       R.L.B. (“Father”) appeals from the decree terminating his parental rights

as to his child, R.L.B. (“Child”).1 We vacate and remand for further

proceedings.

       Given our disposition, we briefly summarize the facts of the case. In

September 2019, Centre County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) obtained

an emergency order of protective custody of A.R.B.2 due to a report of

Mother’s homelessness, drug use, and inappropriate discipline. N.T., 3/22/23,

at 12, 18. A.R.B was adjudicated dependent and placed in a kinship foster

home. Id. at 22-23. R.L.B. was born in December 2020. Id. at 57. Shortly
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of R.L.B.’s mother and her

appeal is pending separately at Nos. 1055 MDA 2023 and 1056 MDA 2023.

2 A.R.B. is Child’s half-sibling and is not Father’s biological child.
J-S43001-23

after R.L.B.’s birth, CYS obtained an emergency order of protective custody of

her. Id. at 57-58. This was due to Mother’s ongoing housing instability,

substance abuse, and failure to cooperate with CYS. Id. at 58-61. Father was

incarcerated at that time. Id. at 62. R.L.B. was placed in the same foster

home as her half-sibling, A.R.B. Id. at 68. Father was released from prison in

May 2021. N.T., 6/22/23, at 125.

      CYS filed petitions for the involuntary termination of Mother’s and

Father’s parental rights in January 2023. The court held hearings on the

petitions on March 22, 2023, March 23, 2023, and June 22, 2023. The trial

court found that CYS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s

and Father’s parental rights should be terminated under Sections 2511(a)(2),

(5), and (8) and Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act. This appeal followed.

      Father raises the following issues:

      I.     Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or
             error of law in finding that clear and convincing evidence
             existed to justify termination of biological Father’s rights
             pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5) and (a)(8)?

      II.    Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or
             error of law in determining that the Child’s developmental,
             physical and emotional needs and welfare were being
             advanced by terminating biological Father’s parental rights?

      III.   Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion and/or
             error of law in that insufficient evidence existed to assess
             the bond between the Child and biological Father so as to
             ensure that termination would best serve the needs and
             welfare of the minor Child?

Father’s Br. at 6 (trial court answers and some capitalization omitted).

                                     -2-
J-S43001-23

      We review an order involuntarily terminating parental rights for an

abuse of discretion. In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa.Super. 2018). In

termination   cases,   we   “accept   the   findings   of   fact   and   credibility

determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record.” In re

T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (quoting In re Adoption of S.P., 47

A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012)). “If the factual findings have support in the record,

we then determine if the trial court committed an error of law or abuse of

discretion.” In re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa.Super. 2018).

We will reverse a termination order “only upon demonstration of manifest

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” In re Adoption of

S.P., 47 A.3d at 826 (citation omitted).

      A party seeking to terminate parental rights has the burden of

establishing grounds for termination by “clear and convincing evidence.” In

re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d at 473 (citation omitted). Clear and convincing

evidence means evidence “that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as

to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of

the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Id. (quoting In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d

726, 728-29 (Pa.Super. 2008)).

      Termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). Under this

provision, the trial court must engage in a bifurcated analysis prior to

terminating parental rights:

                                      -3-
J-S43001-23

      Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
      seeking termination must prove by clear and 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.

Id. (citations omitted).

      We only address Father’s third issue as it is dispositive. Father argues

that there was no evidence presented of the bond between Father and Child

and the effect on Child of severing that bond. Father’s Br. at 12. Father

therefore contends that the court was unable to conduct a proper analysis

under Section 2511(b). Id. We agree.

      The focus under Section 2511(b) is not on the parent, but on the child.

In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 508 (Pa.Super. 2006). Under

Section 2511(b), the trial court must consider “the developmental, physical

and emotional needs and welfare of the child” to determine if termination of

parental rights is in the best interest of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

This inquiry involves assessment of “[i]ntangibles such as love, comfort,

security, and stability[.]” In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa.Super.

2005).

      The court must also examine the parent-child bond, “with utmost

attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.” Id. It

                                      -4-
J-S43001-23

must determine whether severing the bond “would destroy an existing,

necessary and beneficial relationship.” In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103

(Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted). When a trial court fails to fully explore

the emotional needs of a child under Section 2511(b), this Court may vacate

a decree terminating parental rights. See Interest of J.R.R., 229 A.3d 8, 13-

14 (Pa.Super. 2020). This Court “has in the past reversed and remanded

termination cases in which the child welfare agency failed to present sufficient

evidence concerning the presence or absence of a parent-child bond and the

likely effect of its permanent cleavage on the child.” In re S.D.T., Jr., 934

A.2d 703, 706 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

      Here, the trial court failed to address whether a bond existed between

Father and Child, and, if so, how severing that bond would affect Child. The

court’s Section 2511(b) analysis focuses exclusively on the bond between

Child and foster mother and the bond between the two siblings. Our review of

the record confirms that the presence or absence of a bond between Father

and Child was not directly addressed in any way by the testimony of any

witness. There was also no testimony concerning the likely effect on Child of

permanently severing any bond that might exist. To the extent CYS argues

that it was unable to observe the bond between Father and Child due to

Father’s hostility and refusal to cooperate with CYS, the record belies this

claim. While Father stopped visits with Child in September 2022, the evidence

showed that CYS workers had previously supervised many visits between

                                     -5-
J-S43001-23

Father and Child. See N.T., 3/23/23, at 54-55, 194-95, 211; N.T., 6/22/23,

at 42. Therefore, CYS had ample opportunity to observe a bond or lack

thereof.

      Accordingly, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in granting

termination in the absence of evidence or analysis of whether a bond exists

between Father and Child, and whether termination of Father’s parental rights

would destroy an existing, necessary, and beneficial relationship. Therefore,

we vacate the decree terminating Father’s parental rights and remand the

case for the trial court to have an opportunity to hear evidence relevant to the

Section 2511(b) analysis, including whether a bond exists between Father and

Child and the likely effect on Child of permanently severing such a bond, and

render a new decision.

      Decree    vacated.   Case   remanded    with   instructions.   Jurisdiction

relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/27/2024

                                     -6-
J-S43001-23

              -7-