Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-DP-125-2019 IN RE: ADOPTION OF ROWENA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HARTMAN-BRADLEY, a minor : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CP-21-DP-125-2019 : : 08 ADOPTION 2021 : : : IN RE: 1925(a) OPINION HYAMS J. 23 SEPTEMBER 2021 PROCEDURAL HISTORY Father, Darius Bradley, appeals the August 9, 2021 Order terminating his parental rights involving daughter, Rowena Hartman-Bradley (henceforth R.H.), and entered at 08 ADOPTION 2021. On June 3, 2019, R.H. was removed from the care of Mother and Father and placed in the custody of Lancaster County Children and Youth Services with kinship caregiving provided by paternal great aunt and uncle. bottle for the child without assistance. She was observed giving the child a bottle with only water in it On July 29, 2019 R.H. was adjudicated to be dependent. In August 2019, natural Mother and Father established residency in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and subsequently the case was transferred to Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (henceforth Agency). On September 9, 2019, Parents participated in a FAST evaluation, and Father was recommended for no unsupervised contact with R.H. A permanency plan was developed for Father on October 14, 2019, and subsequently revised on December 18, 2019; May 20, 2020, October 23, 2020; and April 9, 2021. Father was released from parole on March 12, 2021. parental rights. Hearings on the petition were held on April 27, 2021 (via Zoom before the Honorable Thomas A. Placey who retired in June 2021), May 4, 2021 (via Zoom before the Honorable Thomas A. Placey), and August 4, 2021 (via Zoom before the undersigned, who reviewed the audio and video of the previous hearings in their entirety). t 9, 2021, and a timely notice of appeal former child welfare caseworker, failed to disqualify herself in the underlying court proceeding, 1 although she kne This Opinion is in FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact are made upon review of the hearing transcripts, filings of reco 1. The child, R.H., was born on May 24, 2019, and is the offspring of Father and Noel Hartman (Mother). 2. In June of 2011, Father was charged with Rape, Terroristic Threats, Indecent Assault without Consent, Indecent Assault of Person Less Than 16 Years of Age, Corruption of Minors, Sexual Assault, and Statutory Sexual Assault. 1 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed August 24, 2021. 3. is specifically precluded from having contact with children as a condition of his parole. 4. At , Mother and Father were residing in an apartment that was inappropriate for children. 5. R.H. was removed from the care of Mother and Father on June 3, 2019, and, as a result, she has been continuously residing with a kinship care giver foster home since that date. 6. assistance while at the office. She was observed giving the child a bottle with only water in it. R.H. was ten (10) days old at the time. 7. Father last lived with for R.H. in June 2019. 8. Father participated in a FAST evaluation on September 9, 2019, and was recommended for outpatient counseling, the partial hospitalization program, and medication management. 9. be permitted to have supervised visitation with R.H. 10. Parents participated in weekly two-hour supervised visitations conducted at ABC in October and November 2019, then missed three consecutive scheduled visits in December 2019. 11. Father participated in TIPS sessions with Mother from October 24, 2019, through December 30, 2019. 12. reported that Father had violated his parole by purchasing a phone with internet access. 13. In early March 2020, Father was participating in Commonwealth Clinic Group (CCG); however, he was not making progress toward his anger management or treatment and therefore visitation remained supervised. 14. On March 20, 2020, ABC instituted COVID-19 protocols where all in-person visitations were suspended. 15. Father, having been previously discharged twice from CCG, was required to pass a polygraph test regarding his sexual history to progress with his sexual offender program. 16. By June 2020, Father was showing progress with his mental health treatment and parole conditions. 17. In August of 2020 it was reported that some progress was being made by Father and Mother regarding cleaning their home; however, a significant number of trash and bags of garbage were hidden in closets, dirty dishes were hidden below the sink, and Father was not following through on his medication management. 18. On September 23, 2020 the Agency learned that Father had stopped attending trauma therapy, a condition of his parole, and that Father and Mother were in financial distress and behind on their bills. 19. On December 18, 2020, Father failed his third polygraph examination, and remained unable to progress in his treatment with CCG or have his restriction of no contact with children lifted. 20. On February 4, 2021, both parents were not progressing in their efforts to reunify with their child and, as a result, it was determined that visitation would need to be held at ABC or the Agency with supervision. 21. Father was released from parole on March 12, 2021. 22. Between the May 4, 2021 hearing and August 4, 2021 hearing, the parents resumed overnight visits with R.H., upon recommendation of ABC. 23. stability directly impacts their ability to provide adequate care for R.H. 24. On July 15, 2021, Mother and Father rejected a multiple overnight opportunity with R.H. due to a fight between the parents that caused Mother to leave the home. Father indicated he would not care for R.H. without Mother there to assist and that he had made other plans. 25. Increased time and overnight visits with R.H. has intensified the relationship, which in turn inhibits their ability to parent. 26. R.H. also began to exhibit regressive behavior such as crying at night when she would stay with the parents overnight. 27. relationship stability. 28. Foster parents, paternal great aunt and uncle, are an adoptive resource and have cared for R.H. since June 3, 2019. DISCUSSION 2 Statement of law: Termination of parental rights is controlled by statute. In relevant part, the statute provides as follows: Grounds for involuntary termination 2 See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. (a) General rule.The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated (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 (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. (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 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 3 petition. 3 Id. at a(2), (5), (8) and (b). 4 Our appellate courts have determined that: fill his or her parental or her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment. When reasonable efforts to reunite a foster child with his or her biological parents have failed, then the child welfare agency must work toward 5 terminating parental rights and placing the child with adoptive parents. Application of law to facts: complaint of error with regards to the undersigned not recusing from this case because he never requested recusal. Father raises this issue for the first time on appeal; he neither preserved, objected, nor motioned for the trial court to recuse. Accordingly, the issue should be deemed waived. Even if Father had properly preserved this issue on appeal, this claimed error is without 6 merit. Father loves R.H. but is incapable of caring for his child. Despite receiving parenting services for two years, three SKILLS program authorizations, and numerous revised permanency plans Father was unable to fully demonstrate the ability to provide stable finances, suitable housing, and a stable household environment that would promote the physical and developmental needs necessary to resume independent care of R.H. 4 In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa. Super. 2001)(internal citation omitted). 5 In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 507 (Pa. Super. 2006)(internal citations and quotations omitted). 6 The undersigned was employed by Dauphin County Social Services for Children and Youth in various capacities from 1997-2005, including intern, caseworker, supervisor and legal liaison. At no time during this employment did the undersigned have any formal involvement with any of the parties or even participants to this case. R.H. now appears to be in an environment with proper parenting, with people who are caring, dependable, and dedicated to the promotion of her development. Unlike with Father, who is unable to provide R.H. with a stable home environment. R.H. is now in a home that provides a healthy and safe environment. Father and Mother have been unable to remedy the deficiencies in a reasonable amount of timechild has been dependent for nearly 26months and the conditions which led to the removal of the child continue to exist.; however, the record is replete with other equally clear and erwelfare. est for more time is unfair to R.H. and not in herbest interest. For the reasons stated above, the instant appeal should be denied. BY THE COURT: Carrie E. Hyams, J. Distribution: Lindsay Baird, Esq. Tammi Blackburn, Esq. Robert Hawn, Esq. Damian DeStefano, Esq. Joseph Hitchings, Esq.