Court Opinion

ID: 9892134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 17:11:08.651539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:56.581466
License: Public Domain

J-S34033-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: ADOPTION OF A.M.J.                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: D.A.J., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 486 WDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2023
            In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
                        Orphans’ Court at No. 064-2022

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                          FILED: October 20, 2023

       D.A.J. (Father) appeals from the order granting the petition of the

Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (WCCB) and terminating his parental

rights to A.M.J. (Child).1 We affirm.

       Child was born in November 2016. The orphans’ court explained:

             The factual history of this case began with the WCCB
       seeking emergency custody of the Child and her siblings in early
       June 2020, after Mother indicated to the WCCB that she was
       unable to provide appropriate care for the physical wellbeing of
       the children, was facing mental health issues, and had recently
       been charged criminally with possession of drug paraphernalia.
       The Order of Adjudication, dated July 21, 2020, indicated that
       Father was incarcerated but anticipated being released in a matter
       of months. At the time of the disposition of the dependency
____________________________________________

1 Child’s mother, T.L.D. (Mother), voluntarily relinquished her parental rights.

See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/24/23, at 1-2. Mother “indicated through her
counsel that she intended to consent to Child being placed for adoption,” and
executed her consent on June 15, 2022. See id. at 1; N.T., 2/2/23, at 8.
J-S34033-23

      matter, and at each of the subsequent permanency review
      hearings, Father remained incarcerated. The WCCB produced a
      certified copy of Father’s criminal history detailing his periods of
      incarceration. It appears from the record that Father has been
      incarcerated at Criminal Docket No. CP-65-CR-1135-2020 since
      March 11, 2020, and, if he serves his maximum period of
      incarceration, may not be released until 2030. Further, Father
      has been incarcerated since November 3, 2017, with the exception
      of a thirty-day period from February to March 2020.

            The WCCB petitioned for involuntary termination on
      September 1, 2022, and a hearing was … scheduled for February
      2, 2023.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/24/23, at 3.

                           Termination Proceedings

      Child was represented at the termination hearing by Dorean Petonic,

Esquire. Attorney Petonic “placed into the record … that Child’s legal and best

interests were not such that [Attorney Petonic] would be conflicted in

representing them to the [orphans’ c]ourt.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/24/23,

at 1; see also N.T., 2/2/23, at 6.

      WCCB Caseworker

      WCCB caseworker Jeffrey Knox testified to being assigned to the family’s

case in July 2020, after Mother advised the WCCB that she was unable to care

for Child.   N.T., 2/2/23, at 7-8.   At the time, Father was incarcerated in

Westmoreland County Prison. Id. at 8. Mr. Knox stated that Father “has been

incarcerated throughout the case.” Id. at 100.

      Mr. Knox testified to communicating with Father about the family service

plans. Id. at 89. According to Mr. Knox, Father did not participate in the

                                     -2-
J-S34033-23

family service plans. Id. Mr. Knox stated that visitation between Father and

Child was “attempted via the Children’s Institute.”     Id. at 91.    Mr. Knox

relayed that Father wanted visitation, but “received blank screens on his side”

when he attempted video visits from Westmoreland County Prison. Id. at 99,

109. Mr. Knox also relayed that when Father was transferred to SCI Albion,

Mr. Knox contacted Father’s counselor to request that Father put Child on the

video visitation list. Id. at 97. Despite Father wanting video visits and making

“attempts to set them up,” Father has not had visitation with Child. Id. at

111.

       According to Mr. Knox, Father last saw Child in 2020. Id. at 98. Mr.

Knox stated, “[F]ather is incarcerated, was incarcerated at the time of

[Child’s] removal, and he has no release date coming up soon.” Id. at 103.

       At the time of the termination hearing, Child had been in WCCB’s

custody for 32 months. Id. at 8, 34, 103. Mr. Knox opined that termination

would best serve Child’s needs and welfare. Id. at 105. He explained that

Child “is living [in Maryland] with [an] aunt and uncle. [Child is] thriving in

her environment.” Id. Mr. Knox stated that Child, along with her half-sister,

had been in the pre-adoptive kinship placement for 13 months. Id. at 106.

He added that Child is

       doing very well. She’s doing well in school. Her attendance and
       grades are good. There’s after-school activities, extracurricular
       activities. She’s not having any behavioral issues in her school.
       They no longer feel the need to have her on an [individualized
       education program], as well. The teachers explained that she’s a
       delight … and full of energy. She’s been engaged in therapy and

                                     -3-
J-S34033-23

      adjusting well to her move to Maryland with her aunt and uncle.
      She’s just started karate, too.

Id. at 106. Mr. Knox also noted that the caseworker in Maryland indicated

Child was “doing well. [Child is] very excited to see the caseworker when the

caseworker arrives. She’s excited to show [the caseworker] her room and,

basically, just show off to her.” Id. at 107.

      Two Children’s Institute Employees

      Angela Sluka testified to being employed by the Children’s Institute as

a “lead family skills specialist” who works “with mothers and babies who are

born addicted.” Id. at 14. Ms. Sluka explained that in the summer of 2022,

she attempted to facilitate Father’s video visits with Child at Westmoreland

County Prison. Id. at 15-16. Ms. Sluka stated there “were several, multiple

attempts. However, there was a blank screen at every attempt.” Id. at 15.

      Christina Newcomer testified to working as a “family specialist” at the

Children’s Institute. Id. at 20. Ms. Newcomer testified that she attempted to

facilitate Father’s video visits with Child in December 2022, when Father was

incarcerated at SCI Albion. Id. at 21-23. Ms. Newcomer contacted Father’s

counselor to ask that Child be “put on the list.” Id. at 21-22. According to

Ms. Newcomer, no visits occurred because “the prisoner has to do it himself”

and Child was not “added to the list.” Id. at 22.

      SCI Albion Unit Manager

      Michael Snider testified to being a “unit manager” at SCI Albion. Id. at

26. He explained that to have video visits with Child, Father had to submit

                                     -4-
J-S34033-23

Child’s name for review by the corrections counselor, who would send a letter

to Child’s parent or guardian requesting consent for the visits. Id. at 27-28.

Mr. Snider stated, “Once that letter comes back from the parent or guardian,

then that person is added to the visiting list.” Id. at 28. Mr. Snider further

testified that Father’s earliest release date is 2027. Id. at 30.

      Father’s Mother/Child’s Grandmother

      Kimberley Harris, who is Father’s mother and Child’s grandmother,

testified that she has a Zoom call with Child every Monday. Id. at 119. Ms.

Harris stated that Child knows who Father is, and Father has “had any contact

with [Child] he could.” Id. at 120. According to Ms. Harris, Father’s visits

with Child, prior to Father’s incarceration, were “a struggle” because of

Mother, but Father “had a great relationship [with Child] any chance he

could[.]” Id. at 120-21. Ms. Harris confirmed that Father has not seen Child

since his incarceration; she stated that Father last saw Child in 2020, when

Child “spent the weekend at our house.” Id. at 121-22.

      Father

      Father testified remotely from SCI Albion, where he had been

incarcerated since May 2022. Id. at 132. Father explained that he is serving

a sentence for two separate cases. Id. at 130. He stated that his current

sentence would “roll over” to his “new case” in February 2024. Id. Father

testified that he enrolled voluntarily in a parenting program, and was on a

waitlist for carpentry and construction training. Id. at 131.

                                      -5-
J-S34033-23

      Father testified that he was incarcerated for two years at Westmoreland

County Prison before being transferred to SCI Albion. Id. at 132. He stated

that he attempted to have video visits with Child from Westmoreland County

Prison, but “there were issues with the system.” Id. at 133. Father explained

that he “wait[ed] for [Child] to appear on the screen” at “every visit that was

scheduled.” Id. Father also described difficulty with video visits from SCI

Albion, which he addressed after “the unit manager brought to my attention

exactly what I need to do.” Id. at 134. Father stated he “wasn’t exactly

aware of how” to arrange video visits. Id. Father added that he made “it

known I wanted to have contact with [Child].” Id. at 135.

      Father confirmed he last saw Child in February 2020, “about three weeks

before” he was arrested. Id. at 136. Father acknowledged that prior to Child’s

dependency, Mother had primary physical of custody of Child. Id. at 135.

Nonetheless, Father stated he

      had a great relationship with [Child]. For the most part, I
      struggled being able to spend time with her a lot, due to [M]other
      … [who] made it really difficult for me, but the times that I did
      spend with [Child], we had great times together. I took care of
      her and we just bonded like daughter and father.

Id.

      Father emphasized he loves Child and wants “everything to do with”

her. Id. at 137. Father opposed termination, conceding that he has made

mistakes, but while in prison, he “was trying to do everything I can to come

home and be successful and take care of my daughter.” Id. Father confirmed

                                     -6-
J-S34033-23

he has had no contact with Child since his incarceration in March 2020, when

Child was three years old. Id. at 136, 138. When the WCCB’s counsel asked

Father whether it was fair for Child to wait for Father “to be out of prison” and

“get [his] life together,” Father replied, “Not at all. I know it’s not fair to her.”

Id. at 140.

      Child’s Attorney

      Attorney Petonic stated Child “is in a very good place” with her “kinship

foster family.” Id. at 141. She opined that “it is certainly in [Child’s] best

interest to remain [with the kinship family] and to be adopted.” Id. Attorney

Petonic explained:

      [Child] has a more limited understanding of what adoption is
      because she[ is] only a young six-year-old. However, she wants
      her last name to be [the name of her pre-adoptive kinship family]
      and wants to continue to live there and calls it her forever home.

             This family has promoted the relationships with [Child’s]
      siblings and with [M]other.          They have followed all the
      requirements of the [WCCB]. [Child is] secure. [Child’s] mental
      health needs are being met. It was not brought out in testimony,
      but [Child] has an ADHD diagnosis and [is] doing well. [The pre-
      adoptive kinship family is] following up with medical prescribers
      and assuring [Child gets] counseling. [Child] takes part in
      activities outside of school. That’s where [Child] wants to remain.

      I certainly believe it’s in [Child’s] best interest.

Id. at 141-42.

      The orphans’ court found the WCCB presented sufficient evidence of

grounds for termination of Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

2511(a)(1), (2) and (8) of the Adoption Act. Additionally, the court found

                                        -7-
J-S34033-23

termination would serve Child’s needs and welfare pursuant to Section

2511(b). The orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights on February

9, 2023. Father timely filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).

      Father presents the following question for review:

      I.    Whether the trial court erred in finding by clear and
            convincing evidence that the Westmoreland County
            Children’s Bureau met its burden under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
            2511(b)?

Father’s Brief at 4.

      Father claims the WCCB failed to meet “its burden with regard to

[Section] 2511(b) because it is not clear whether there continues to be a bond

between Father and Child.” Id. at 10.

                                   Discussion

      We review Father’s claim for an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of

S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

      [O]ur standard of review requires [us to] accept the findings of
      fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are
      supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported,
      appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an
      error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, an
      abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing
      court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a
      decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon
      demonstration     of     manifest   unreasonableness,    partiality,
      prejudice, bias, or ill-will.

      As [the Supreme Court] discussed in In re: R.J.T., [9 A.3d 1179,
      1190 (Pa. 2010)], there are clear reasons for applying an abuse
      of discretion standard of review .... [U]nlike trial courts, appellate
      courts are not equipped to make fact-specific determinations on a

                                      -8-
J-S34033-23

      cold record, where trial judges are observing the parties during
      the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other
      hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190.
      Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result,
      as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an
      appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court
      and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment;
      instead, we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual
      findings are supported by the record and the court’s legal
      conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of
      discretion.

Id. at 826-27 (some citations omitted).      The petitioner has the burden to

provide clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for

termination are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009).

      Termination of parental rights is subject to Section 2511 of the Adoption

Act. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). Under Section 2511,

the orphans’ court must engage in a bifurcated analysis:

      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).

      Father does not challenge the termination under Section 2511(a).

Rather, he argues the WCCB

                                      -9-
J-S34033-23

      has not met its burden with regard to 2511(b) because it is not
      clear whether there continues to be a bond between Father and
      Child. Thus, Father’s parental rights should not be terminated and
      the matter should be remanded for additional testimony regarding
      whether a bond exists.

Father’s Brief at 10.

      To the contrary, the WCCB asserts it “satisfied the evidentiary

requirements” and presented clear and convincing evidence that termination

is in Child’s best interest. WCCB’s Brief at 9. Child’s attorney/guardian ad

litem agrees with the WCCB. See Guardian Ad Litem’s Brief at 5.

                        Section 2511(b) - Needs and Welfare

      When the court finds grounds for termination under Subsection 2511(a),

it must then consider a child’s needs and welfare.

      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. ...

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).      “The plain language of Section 2511(b) clearly

mandates that, in assessing the petition to terminate parental rights, the

‘primary consideration’ must be the child’s ‘developmental, physical and

emotional needs and welfare.’” Int. of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1105 (Pa. 2023).

      This Court has reiterated that intangibles “such as love, comfort,

security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare

of the child.” In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation

omitted). Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:

                                    - 10 -
J-S34033-23

      [C]ourts should consider the matter from the child’s perspective,
      placing her developmental, physical, and emotional needs and
      welfare above concerns for the parent.

      Accordingly, the determination of the child’s particular
      developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare must
      be made on a case-by-case basis. We have observed the law
      regarding termination of parental rights should not be applied
      mechanically but instead always with an eye to the best interests
      and the needs and welfare of the particular children involved.
      Thus, the court must determine each child’s specific needs.

      Moreover, the child’s emotional needs and welfare include
      intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability. As
      further guidance, we have identified factors, i.e., specific needs
      and aspects of the child’s welfare, that trial courts must always
      consider. The court must consider whether [a child is] in a pre-
      adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster
      parents. …

Int. of K.T., 296 A.3d at 1105–06 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

      Father claims, “Because of the lack of contact between Father and Child

due to no fault of his own, it is not clear whether a bond exists between Father

and Child.”   Father’s Brief at 13.     Thus, Father requests reversal of the

termination order and remand “for further testimony regarding any bond or

lack thereof between Father and Child.” Id.

      The WCCB disagrees, asserting that the orphans’ court properly

considered Child’s needs and welfare pursuant to Section 2511(b). WCCB’s

Brief at 10. The WCCB cites In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008),

where this Court stated:

      In cases where there is no evidence of any bond between the
      parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. The

                                      - 11 -
J-S34033-23

     extent of any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily depends on the
     circumstances of the particular case.

Id. at 762–63.

     Further, Child’s attorney observes:

     Father has not been able to care for [C]hild since his incarceration
     … and this incapacity will extend throughout the years left on his
     current sentence and the detainer. Moreover, Father has not had
     any contact with the Child since he entered prison.

     [C]hild has lived with her kinship family since December 2021.
     She is thriving in this family’s care, [and h]er best interests will
     be served by adoption by her kinship parents.

Guardian Ad Litem’s Brief at 5.

     The record supports the orphans’ court’s finding that termination was in

Child’s best interest. We agree with Father that he was not responsible for

most if not all of the failed video visits with Child from Westmoreland County

Prison and SCI Albion. However, Father was responsible for the actions which

resulted in him being incarcerated since March 2020, when Child was three

years old. See N.T., 2/2/23, at 136, 138.

     In K.Z.S., we observed that a child’s relationship with his mother “during

their four years of almost constant separation must be fairly attenuated, given

the circumstances of this case.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 764. We noted:

     No evidence suggests that [m]other has a strong bond with [child]
     equal to his bond with [his foster mother], that terminating
     [m]other’s parental rights will sever an existing beneficial
     relationship, or that it will result in irreparable harm to [child].
     Therefore, we agree with the court that the bond between [child]

                                    - 12 -
J-S34033-23

      and [his foster mother] is the primary bond to protect, given
      [child’s] young age and his very limited contact with [his m]other.

In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 764.

      Likewise, we agree with the orphans’ court’s consideration of Child’s

bond with her pre-adoptive kinship family. Child was 6 years old at the time

of the termination hearing, and Father had been “incarcerated for a vast

majority of the Child’s life.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/24/23, at 4. Attorney

Petonic stated that Child “had limited understanding” of adoption, but “wants

to continue to live” with her aunt and uncle in the pre-adoptive placement

Child “calls her forever home.”   N.T., 2/2/23, at 141.    The orphans’ court

summarized:

      Child is placed in a kinship foster home in the State of Maryland
      and is reportedly thriving, participating in extracurricular
      activities, doing well in school, and addressing mental health
      concerns in the foster home. The foster family has indicated that
      they are a pre-adoptive resource, which provides the Child with
      stability on the horizon.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/24/23, at 5. The court thus concluded “the best

interest of the Child would be served through adoption ….” Id. at 6.

      Consistent with the foregoing evidence and law, the orphans’ court

properly considered Child’s needs and welfare pursuant to Section 2511(b).

As the court did not err, we affirm the order terminating Father’s parental

rights.

      Order affirmed.

                                    - 13 -
J-S34033-23

Date: 10/20/2023

                   - 14 -