Court Opinion

ID: 9752577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:15:59.691908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:17.543217
License: Public Domain

BROSKY, Judge,
dissenting:
I concur in Part II of the majority’s analysis. I wholeheartedly agree that: (1) unless the criteria of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) are met, § 2511(b) does not come into play; and (2) “needs and welfare” are not to be equated with “best interests”, despite any suggestion to the contrary in In re Adoption of A.N.D., 360 Pa.Super. 157, 520 A.2d 31 (1986).
It is here, however, that I part company with the majority, as I am vehemently opposed to affirmance of the court’s termination of the Coasts’ parental rights, and concomitant denial of visitation.
The standard of review in a proceeding which terminates parental rights is limited to determining whether the trial court’s finding of a clear necessity for termination of parental rights is supported by competent evidence. In re Adoption of M.M., 492 Pa. 457, 424 A.2d 1280 (1981); Interest of LaRue, 244 Pa.Super. 218, 366 A.2d 1271 (1976). Although an appellate court may not reweigh credibility, Adoption of S.H., 476 Pa. 608, 383 A.2d 529 (1978), the trial court’s inferences, deductions and conclusions are subject to review. Matter of M.L.W., 307 Pa.Super. 29, 452 A.2d 1021 (1982).
One of appellants’ contentions is that the trial court erroneously considered the “best interests” of the children, rather than concentrating upon those factors necessary to terminate rights, as delineated in § 2511(a), and that the court, therefore, terminated rights on evidence that was *472less than “clear and convincing”. My review of the record convinces, me that appellants are correct.
The court relied upon such factors as the children’s progress in school, their progress in the foster home, and the reluctance of one of the children to return home. My disagreement does not lie with the consideration of this evidence; however, the conclusions drawn therefrom are more consistent with a “best interests” analysis than with a finding that “needs and welfare” are not being met. Even those witnesses testifying adversely to appellants’ interests and in favor of termination, conceded that improvements are being made in both the housing situation and in appellants’ alcohol problems. None of these witnesses could positively say, furthermore, that the children’s needs are not being met in this “improved state”.
It is at this point that the distinction outlined in In re Adoption of Michael J.C., supra, becomes critical. While the “best interests” may indeed tip the scales in favor of terminating appellants’ rights, the “needs and welfare”— i.e. adequate housing, clothing, food, and love — would dictate a different result. The trial court found that the conditions giving rise to the removal of the children could not or would not be remedied by appellants. The court acknowledged that appellants are trying to make the necessary improvements, but felt that, in the absence of an indication that the adverse conditions would not recur, termination was proper. (Trial Court Opinion, Page 12). That, however, is not the criteria for terminating a parent’s rights. See, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Additionally, the court made reference to the. fact that appellants are currently caring for one teenage daughter and two small grandchildren, as being a negative factor. However, there was no indication in the record that any of these children are poorly cared for. In fact, there is testimony that they are indeed well taken care of. (Notes of Testimony, 12/23/86 pp. 41-42).
Finally, the court found “no clear evidence that these parents have corrected or are correcting their problem with *473alcohol, but there was credible evidence that they had not yet achieved sobriety.” (Trial Court Opinion, Page 13). This, however, is belied by the testimony of appellants’ alcohol counselor. His testimony, in part, is as follows:
Q. Mr. Heaney, you have seen the Coasts for a long period of time, correct?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. In your opinion, to make it clear, have they progressed in your mind?
A. It appears they have. Again, I don’t know for certain whether they have maintained their sobriety without being able to test for it. However, as is generally the rule in alcohol or in alcoholism, there is a progression if you are continuing your drinking and that did not appear to me.
Q. So, you have no reason to disbelieve them when they tell you the fact that they have not taken any alcoholic beverages?
A. I have not seen any evidence that they have.
Q. In fact, apparently the evidence is contrary?
A. Correct.
(Notes of Testimony, 7/16/86, pp. 58-59).
Q. You have no reason to disbelieve them when they say they have abstained since November of ’85?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. You do not disbelieve that?
A. I hold it — I suppose I have become synical [sic] from my experience. I hold it with a little grain of salt. But at the same time, I would have expected to see more evidence of use and abuse had they been drinking.
Q. And that evidence is lacking?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
(Notes of Testimony, 7/16/86, Page 64). Thus, credibility aside, the record does not support all of the trial court’s findings. See, In re Adoption of M.M., supra, and Matter of M.L. W., supra. Because of the importance placed on the *474family, the Commonwealth may disrupt the parent-child relationship only upon a showing of clear necessity. In re Interest of C.M.E., 301 Pa.Super. 579, 448 A.2d 59 (1982). Such is lacking in the instant case.
The majority attaches particular significance to the special needs of these children, noting Ronnie’s retardation and Melissa’s emotional problems. I am wary, however, of the majority’s affirmance of the termination of rights because of the “totality of the circumstances”. As noted above, the evidence is neither clear nor convincing that these special needs are not being met, but rather, supports only that these needs might be better met by alternative care. I cannot condone such “best interests” analysis in a termination setting. The implications of such thinking are clearly dangerous, and set precedent whereby parents who are not ideally suited to deal with physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped children, might find their parental rights terminated in favor of those better equipped, emotionally, financially, or otherwise, to handle special problems. I do not believe the legislature intended to open the door to such possibilities, and I shall not agree to opening that door by joining in the affirmance of termination.
I would therefore reverse the order terminating parental rights.
Turning now to the issue of visitation, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s finding that visitation, even structured visitation, would be a grave threat to the welfare of the children, is supported by competent evidence.
The principle question that we need to consider is what standard should be applied by the courts when considering the evidence in visitation cases. Once the standard is established, the evidence can be weighed accordingly.
As does the majority, I believe a good place to begin is the case of In the Interest of Rhine,1 310 Pa.Super. 275, 456 *475A.2d 608 (1983) which provides: “The (Juvenile) Act does not contain any references to visitation and, ipso facto, does not offer any guidelines for granting or refusing visitation. However, because the allowance of visitation imports with the Act’s express purpose of preserving the family, parental visitation should be denied only under exceptional circumstances.” Id. 456 A.2d at 613. Further, the Superior Court stated: “Unless the state demonstrates with clear and convincing evidence that even supervised visitation would severely endanger the child, the court must deny the complete foreclosure of parental visitation as being contrary to the Act’s goal of family preservation”. Id. at 614.
In In re Adoption of Michael J.C., supra., this Court also stated that:
Where the issue is visitation, or partial custody which closely resembles visitation, a stricter standard prevails: that is, visitation can be denied only if the parent possesses such severe mental or moral deficiencies as to constitute a grave threat to the welfare of the child. Scott v. Scott, 240 Pa.Super. 65, 368 A.2d 288 (1976); Commonwealth ex rel. Turner v. Strange, 179 Pa.Super. 83, 115 A.2d 885 (1955).
Michael J.C., supra. 326 Pa.Super. at 158, 473 A.2d at 1029. In Rhine, supra, this court held that:
[consistent with the Act’s “clear necessity” custody test, parents whose visitation is opposed by the state constitute a grave threat to their child only where there are no practicable visitation options that permit visitation and protect the child.
Rhine, supra. 310 Pa.Super. at 285, 456 A.2d at 614. In the past, visitation was held, including home visitation. While I cannot say that home visitation would be the most appropriate form of visitation at the moment, I do not believe that some type of visitation cannot be worked out to allow for the rebuilding of ties between parents and children.
*476This court has further held that the “best interests” standard is not the correct principle to apply to visitation cases. In re Adoption of Michael J.C., supra.; In re Damon B., 314 Pa.Super. 391, 460 A.2d 1196 (1983). Instantly, as noted above, the court focused on factors such as the children’s performance in school, the attitude improvement since being placed in a foster home and their reluctance to see or visit with their parents. By focusing on these factors, the court, again, interpreted the evidence, and based its decision, upon the “best interests” standard. Many additional factors must be considered, such as, and most importantly, the preservation of the family relationship, before all contact between the children and the natural parents (appellants) can be terminated. (See discussion, supra., at page 475).
Since it is established that it is not the “best interests” standard that must be applied, as stated in In re Adoption of Michael J.C., the court’s interpretation of the evidence was faulty in regard to the determination as to whether visitation would pose a grave threat to the children.
In the instant case, appellants have shown a continuing resolve to regain their children, or at the very least, to regain visitation rights with the children. Appellants have strived to improve their situation at home and they have, by their own testimony and that of an alcohol counselor, been successfully controlling their alcohol patterns for the past two years. Furthermore, as stated earlier, appellants are currently caring for one teenage daughter and two small grandchildren and there is evidence presented that shows that these children are being well taken care of.
In the instant case, appellants have made great efforts to change their lives and their situation in hopes of regaining their visitation rights and without evidence that shows a clear necessity to terminate the visitation rights, the rights can not be terminated. In this case, the clear necessity has not been shown by the state and, because of the compelling state interest in preserving the family relationship, I would also reverse the decision to terminate appellants’ visitation *477rights. I would remand so that a schedule of visitation could be instituted, monitored, and enforced. I would so order with the intent that a relationship could, once again, be established between appellants and their minor children.
In light of the foregoing, I respectfully dissent.
CIRILLO, P.J., joins BROSKY, J.

. The lower court, in its opinion states that, where the stated purpose of the Juvenile Act is to preserve the family, that purpose no longer exists once the parent’s rights have been terminated. Thus, the court *475found it at least questionable, whether the demanding standard of Rhine should apply. The court continued with its analysis assuming that Rhine did apply. I would reverse the termination order. Thus, the applicability of Rhine is no longer in question.