Court Opinion

ID: 9398218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 16:10:27.857603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:30.974392
License: Public Domain

J-S14017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN THE MATTER OF THE                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
    PARENTAL RIGHTS TO J.W.D., A               :
    MINOR                                      :
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: C.L.D., MOTHER                  :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 108 WDA 2023

              Appeal from the Decree Entered December 27, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Orphans' Court at
                         No(s): O.C.D. No. 130-2020

    IN THE MATTER OF THE                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
    PARENTAL RIGHTS TO A.J.D., A               :
    MINOR                                      :
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: C.L.D., MOTHER                  :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 109 WDA 2023

              Appeal from the Decree Entered December 27, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Orphans' Court at
                         No(s): O.C.D. No. 129-2020

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                             FILED: MAY 30, 2023

        C.L.D. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees entered on December 27,

2022, that granted the petitions filed by Venango County Children and Youth

Services (“CYF” or “Agency”) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14017-23

rights to J.W.D., born in September of 2018, and A.J.D., born in October of

2017, (collectively “Children”), pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1), (2) and (b)

of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.1 Following review, we affirm.2

       In her brief, Mother lists the following two issues for our review:

          1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its
             discretion when it granted CYF’s petition to involuntarily
             terminate Mother’s parental rights absent clear and
             convincing evidence that the Child[ren] [were] removed
             from the care of the Mother by the court for at least six
             months and the conditions which led to the Child[ren]’s
             removal continue to exist and that the Mother cannot or will
             not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of
             time and the services and assistance reasonably available
             to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led
             to the removal of the Child[ren] within a reasonable period
             of time?

          2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law or abuse its
             discretion in determining that terminating [Mother’s]
             parental rights was in the best interest of the Child[ren]
             despite being against the weight of the evidence presented?

Mother’s brief at 8.

       We review a decree terminating parental rights in accordance with the

following standard:

            When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating
       parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the

____________________________________________

1 K.E.D.’s (“Father”) parental rights to Children were voluntarily terminated
by decrees, dated November 12, 2021, and entered on November 15, 2021.
Father is not a party to the present appeals.

2 Because these matters involve related parties and issues, this Court
consolidated these two appeals by order entered on February 14, 2023. See
Pa.R.A.P. 513.

                                           -2-
J-S14017-23

        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, this Court must accord the hearing
        judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury
        verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the
        record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is
        supported by competent evidence.

In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879

A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove

by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the

termination of parental rights are valid. Id. Moreover, we have explained

that:

        The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as
        testimony 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 In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented

and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts

in the evidence.     In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004).         If

competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if

the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B.,

835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

        We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable

Edward D. Reibman, Senior Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango

                                       -3-
J-S14017-23

County, filed on December 27, 2022. We conclude that Judge Reibman’s well-

reasoned opinion properly disposes of the issues raised by Mother.

Specifically, the trial court’s opinion extensively discusses the facts provided

at the various hearings held in this matter. Essentially, Mother’s arguments

center on the credibility determinations made by the court, contending that

her testimony should have been believed rather than the testimony provided

by the Agency’s witnesses. In other words, she avers that if the court had

believed her testimony, it would have concluded that her substance abuse,

housing, and mental health issues, have not continued so that the Children

could have been returned to her care, which would have been in their best

interests. Our standard of review prohibits this Court from overturning the

trial court’s credibility determinations so long as its findings are supported by

the evidence of record. See In re M.G., 855 A.2d at 73-74 (stating that the

trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is

likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the

evidence). Our review reveals that the court’s credibility determinations are

supported by the overwhelming majority of the evidence. Therefore, we adopt

Judge Reibman’s opinion as our own and affirm the decrees appealed from on

that basis.

      Decrees affirmed.

                                      -4-
J-S14017-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/30/2023

                          -5-
                                                                     Circulated 05/19/2023 12:31 PM

                    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
                      ENANGO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                        ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

                                                                            ,d   .'
                                                                                  •

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY                                                        --c
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS                                                           £"
TO me pt                      ,a
minor child      n., D                                     0.C.D. No.: 129-2020

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVOLUNTARY
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
TO
minor child T • D.                                         O.C.D. No.: 130-2020

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before the court are the Petitions for Involuntary Relinquishment of

Parental Rights, filed on November 25, 2020, by Venango County Children and

Youth Services ("Agency") seeking to terminate the parental rights of
   cLD,                                                                      n.:2
ta    @               ("Mother")   to   two   of   her   children,
                "n.1.p'
              ('a      ),   born October 17, 2017, 5 years of age, and                nm
                      ' 5..D"
                    i (), born September 13, 2018, 4 years of age,

(together, "the children").   Trial thereon was held on November 18, 2022,
                                                                            A.1.D.
attended by William J. Cisek, Esquire, on behalf of the Agency;aim, with

                                         1

                                                                                                  43
                                                                                    J..
her attorney, Virginia G. Sharp, Esquire, who also represented                      4;       and

Mother, with her attorney, Diane Hasek, Esquire.

                                      Facts2

           The children were removed from Mother's custody on November 9,

2018. However, the Agency had been involved with Mother since October 11,

2016, when it indicated she was involved with photographing, videotaping,

depicting on a computer or filming sexual acts of the children's eight-year-old

sister. In all, Mother has eleven children. She has custody of none of them.

Her history with the agency has included substance abuse, inadequate

housing, inadequate medical care and/or treatment regarding her children,

allegations of sexual abuse, allegations of physical abuse and mental health

concerns.
                                    et
                                    .).V.5
           She tested positive at in birth on September 13, 2018, for Subutex.

She described her relationship with the children's father as volatile.                        The

Agency attempted to gain access to the home and see the children sixteen

times between September 24 and November 7, 2018, to ensure their safety.

1
       Attorney Sharp had been the children's Guardian ad Litem in the dependency
proceedings. She did not believe it was a conflict to represent the children during the termination
hearing. All parties concurred with that assessment.
           A. 5.02.
fW•   1>         was interviewed in the presence of counsel; Mother waived her right to be present.
      did not attend the hearing; he was home with a viral infection.

2     The Court takes judicial notice of the Orders of Court pertaining to the dependency
proceedings involving the children at docket number DP 65-2018 for it and 66-2018 for
cs.                                                                        n.Jp
    5.o.•
                                                 2
Each time the parents failed to be present or failed to allow the Agency access

to the home or to the children.

      The Agency's caseworkers returned to the children's             home on

November 9, 2018, upon being notified that the police were investigating the

existence of a possible methamphetamine lab at their home. The home

appeared to be a pole barn built on an unheated concrete slab that was serving
as a residence.    It consisted of a kitchen, bathroom, living room and two

bedrooms. It was "an extreme mess." It had no running water. Trash and

rubbish, some piled up two to three feet high, and about 20 jugs of what

appeared to be and smelled like urine were inside and outside of the building.

It was heated by a series of electric space heaters. Paper and lighter fluid were

stored near them. Plastic sheets separated rooms. The parents had a bed in

one of the bedrooms; there was no bed, only storage, in the other bedroom.

The children were in a bassinette. Rodent feces was on the floor and beneath

a cabinet below the kitchen sink. Black mold was also under the sink. The

house had poor ventilation and smelled of dampness. A syringe was found

outside of the house. Poor drainage on the property caused water to puddle

at the door. The front door was covered with mud.        Plywood leading to the

porch was unsafe. The conditions were deplorable. The house was not a safe

place for the children to live.

                                        3
       The Agency removed the children from their home on November 9,
           n.5.1
2018. • ·       1, who was one year old, had an untreated herniated umbilical
                                                           51.0..
and superficial scratches on her from her long nails. , who was 2 months

old, had pressure ulcers on both of his feet from not being moved around

enough and lying in one position. The children were filty from head to toe.

Dirt was embedded under their nails.          Each of the children had significant
diaper rash on their private areas.

       The Agency removed the children from their home and placed them in

the care of their maternal grandmother. It filed dependency petitions for the

children on November 13, 2018, alleging they were without proper care or

control.    Mother was subsequently charged with two counts of a parent

endangering the welfare of the children.        18 RS.A.   5   4304(A)(1). She was

arrested and incarcerated in the Venango County Jail on December 8, 2018.

The children were removed from their maternal grandmother's care on

December 12, 2018, and placed in the kinship home of Mother's first cousin,
   m.$.         "m.6."     nM.5.
e          e ('iiir).

her partner of twenty years,
                                      9-.N.      "   A.."
                                  resides in Oil City, Venango County, with

                                            tie (2ii).           The children have
                   m.5.        .N.
remained with             and - since that time.
       2.w.D.
       was declared dependent on January 11,2019; he was three months
       P.1.p
old.            was declared dependent on January 18, 2019; she was fourteen

months old.

                                        4
     Mother was sentenced on May 19, 2019, to 18 to 48 months in prison.

She was incarcerated in the Venango County Jail from December 8, 2018,

until June 10, 2019, when she was transferred to SCI Muncy.           Due to the

nature of the charges, she was not permitted to have visitation with the

children. The permanency plan goal for the children was changed on July 20,

2020, to "adoption" due to Mother's inability to meet the goals of her service

plan. She had not obtained stable housing and had done nothing regarding

her mental health.

      She was transferred to SCI Cambridge Springs on July 28, 2020. The

Agency filed its petitions for involuntary termination of her parental rights on

November 25, 2020.      Hearings were scheduled for April 8 and 9, 2021, but

were continued.

      Mother was paroled on June 1, 2021.        Her conditions of supervision

included that she have no visitation with the children.

      The   parental   rights of the children's natural     father,

            , were terminated voluntarily by decree dated November 12, and

filed on November 15, 2021.

      Mother enrolled in drug and alcohol counseling, but missed sessions on

December 1 and 8, 2021.        She was unsuccessfully discharged from the

Effective Safe Parenting Program on December 17, 2021, because she did not

make progress while in the program and declined assistance with finding

                                       5
stable housing, employment, transportation and addressing medical and

dental needs.

      She moved to a one-bedroom camper on her father's property in Polk,

Venango County, on July 7, 2022. The camper has no water.         Electricity is

provided through an extension cord from another source. She resides there
          J.m.
with Sy            g, her fianc~ since July 2021.       She sleeps on a couch.

There is no room for the children, and she acknowledged it is not an

appropriate place for the children to live.

      She tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine and THC on

July 8, 2022.    She refused to take a drug test on August 11, 2022, but

admitted to recent methamphetamine use. She tested positive on September

7, 2022, and again admitted to methamphetamine use.        She went to an in-

patient facility the next day and tested negative on October 26 and again on

November 17, 2022, the day before trial.

      She said she completed two programs while at SCI Muncy, but did not

have the certificates to prove it.    She completed programs on parenting,

alcohol and drugs, healthy living, positive relationships, staying on track and

re-entry, and participated in educational programs related to the building

trades and being a flagger while at SCI Cambridge Springs. Deft.'s Exs. D and

E, 11/18/22. She said she participated in those programs because she wanted

the children to be returned to her custody.

                                        6
     She claimed the Agency's caseworker would not tell her what she had

to do to get the children back. She provided proof that she mailed something

to the caseworker from SCI Cambridge Springs on October 5, 2020. Deft.'s

Ex. A, 11/18/22.     She also provided proof that she mailed something to

          from SCI Cambridge Springs on October 5 and November 20, 2020.

Id. Mother testified she sent paper to the children to color.
      Mother is on probation; her supervision is scheduled to end in May 2024.

Her conditions of supervision include that she undergo a drug and alcohol

assessment and a mental health evaluation, and follow through with any

recommended treatment; comply with a curfew; and have no contact with any

minor children unless accompanied by another adult.       She was ordered to

undergo mental health counseling in June 2021 and reminded to do so again

on July 8, 2022. She has failed to do so.

      She has been unemployed since, at least, March 2022. She testified her
           a.3.mN.
fianc~,              , has a net income of $910.00 a week as a welder in

Youngstown, Ohio, but he was not present at the trial and Mother presented

no documents to substantiate her testimony. She also testified she has been

approved for a $200,000 loan to buy a house, but her car broke down and she

had to spend $37,000 for a used car. She provided no corroborating evidence

to support those claims.

      Permanency Review Hearings were held on March 22 and September

13, 2019; February 24, July 20 and October 19, 2020; February 12 and

                                       7
October 15, 2021; and March 28 and September 28, 2022, and the Agency

has continuously offered services to help Mother alleviate dependency. Mother

has not followed through with appointments with service providers and has

not alleviated all of the conditions that have led to the dependency.

      Specifically, the Agency has instructed Mother to obtain a mental health

evaluation and follow through with any recommendations and has made

housing referrals and provided housing applications to Mother, but she has

failed to follow through with them.     Although at trial she asked for "a few

months" to get her children back, there is no basis, given her history, upon

which to conclude she will meet those conditions.

                                Conclusions of Law

      The grounds for involuntary termination are set forth at 23 Pa. C.S.A §

2511 (a) and (b), which, in pertinent part, provide:

        (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 immediately preceding the filing of
              the petition 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.

                                         8
                                                  k
                         *            *

             (b) 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)(1), (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.

       Application of§ 2511 requires a bifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus

is on 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 § 2511 (a). Only if the court determines the

parent's conduct warrants termination of his/her parental rights does the court

engage in determining the needs and welfare of the child under the standard

of the best interests of the child. § 2511 (b). See, In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097,

1103 (Pa.Super. 2021). In applying the facts to the law, one must be mindful

that

             .. [a] child has a right to a stable, safe, and healthy
             environment in which to grow, and the child's life
             simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the
             parent will summon the ability to handle the
             responsibilities of parenting.
Id.
                                          9
     The petition to terminate Mother's parental rights was filed on November

25, 2020. She had been incarcerated since December 8, 2018, nearly twenty-

two months immediately preceding the filing of the petition.           She was

convicted of endangering the welfare of the children. Due to the nature of the

offense, she was not permitted to have visitation with them. She has failed

to perform parental duties during that time.

     The court removed the children from Mother's care on November 9,

2018. Although Mother has taken advantage of various programs and courses

while in state prison and attended an in-patient substance abuse program,

she has remained drug-free only since August 11 2022.      Moreover, she has

failed to follow through with a mental health evaluation required of her since

June 2021 and, most importantly, she has failed to alleviate the conditions

which led to the removal or placement of the children in the first place, i.e.

obtain appropriate housing for the children.

      The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that the
                                                              A.J.D.       g.4).
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of sis ands

are best met by involuntarily terminating Mother's parental rights to them as

required by 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511(b).
        m.5.                                                               .N'.
               is employed by the Venango County Assessment Office. _,

is not employed; he is disabled due to seizure disorder and anxiety issues

which are controlled by medication. They provide a safe and clean home for

the children and meet their medical and educational needs. Specifically, the

                                       10
                              A.1.0
children go to Headstart; ••• has some speech delay, anger issues and

pre-puberty concerns that are being tended to by health care professionals
                    .10..
and therapists; and, who was ten pounds underweight when he came to
                                                                m.6.
them, is now an appropriate 35 pounds. The children call               "Mom" or
                     hN.                               n.5.         9.N.
"Mommy Mary" and     ti "Dad" or "Daddy Art."                 and - love the

children, and the children are thriving in their care. They are an appropriate

adoptive resource for the children.

      It is not a question of Mother's willingness or ability to remedy the

conditions that led to the child's placement if the conditions continue to exist.

S.C., supra, at 1105.       Even if Mother made progress in remedying the

conditions that led to placement and could potentially parent the child

successfully in the future, termination is justified if the conditions continue to

exist after 12 months in placement and it would serve the needs and welfare

of the child. In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 806-07 (Pa.Super. 2005).

      For a period of at least six (6) months immediately preceding the filing

of the Petition, Mother has either evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing

her parental claim to the children or has refused or failed to perform parental

duties as required in 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) and has evidenced a repeated

and continued incapacity that has left the children without essential parental

care, control or subsistence necessary for their physical and mental well-being

as required by 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511 (a)(2).         Finally, the developmental,

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the children are best met by

                                        ll
involuntarily terminating Mother's parental rights to the children. Accordingly,

decrees were entered terminating the parental rights of
                                A.J.D.
                                                                          •.D.
                                                                                 ,
                                                                             • 0.D.
           to her children,                          i and a

                                                  BY THE COURT:

December 27,              2022
                                                  Edw�,           Seo;:, lodge

CC:   Virginia G. Sharp, Esquire
      William J. Cisek, Esquire
      Diane Hasek, Esquire
      Venango County Children, Youth and Family Services

                                                     12