Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-DP-125-2019 (2) 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 Mother, Noel Hartman, appeals the August 9, 2021 Order terminating her parental rights and changing the permanency goal to adoption involving daughter, Rowena Hartman-Bradley (henceforth R.H.), and entered at CP-21-DP-125-2019 and 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. the child without assistance at the pediatricians office. 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 Mother on October 14, 2019, and subsequently revised on December 18, 2019; May 20, 2020, October 23, 2020; and April 9, 2021. On April 16, 2021, the Agency petitioned for the involuntary termination of Mother 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). Mother, 2021, and a timely notice of appeal was filed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and further avers: 1. This Honorable Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion when it found, despite a lack of clear and convincing evidence that sufficient grounds existed for a Њ of the Adoption Act, 42 PA.C.S. §2511(a). 2. This Honorable Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in terminating App the child no longer existed or were substantially eliminated, thus contravening sections 2 2511(a) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a), (b). 3. This Honorable Court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in determining the best interests of the child would be served by terminating parental rights when Appellant, if given sufficient time, would be ready, willing and able to parent the child and provide for her needs, thus contravening section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act, 42 3 Pa.C.S §2511(b). This Opinion is in support of the decision to terminate Mothe 1 Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed August 25, 2021. 2 Id. 3 Id. FINDINGS OF FACT The following findings of fact are made upon review of the hearing transcripts, filings of 1. The child, R.H., was born on May 24, 2019, and is the offspring of Mother and Darius Bradley (Father). 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. 3. Father is a registered lifetime is specifically precluded from having contact with children as a condition of his parole. 4. , 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 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. Mother participated in a FAST evaluation on September 9, 2019, and was recommended for a partial hospitalization program due to her history of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, anxiety, depression, and trauma. Both parents were recommended for the TIPS program to include basic infant care, nutrition and safety. 8. Parents participated in weekly two-hour supervised visitations conducted at ABC in October and November 2019, then missed three consecutive scheduled visits in December. 9. Mother participated in TIPS sessions with Father from October 24, 2019, through December 30, 2019. 10. In early 2020, both parents moved to SKILLS sessions. 11. 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. 12. On March 20, 2020, ABC instituted COVID-19 protocols where all in-person visitations were suspended. 13. By June 2020, Mother was showing progress with her mental health treatment, medication management, ongoing counseling, and trauma therapy. 14. 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. 4 15. On August 25, 2020, Merakey discussed discharging Mother due to her missed appointments and cancellations. 4 Merakay provides supportive services to help individuals accomplish predetermined goals in including things such as bill paying, medical appointments, and medication management. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. In December 2020, Mother was discharged from Merakey for failure to cooperate during meetings and in the home. 19. On February 1, 2021, it was determined that visitation must be supervised for both Father and Mother due to her failure to make substantial progress. 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 the recommendation of ABC. 23. assistance to adequately parent. It is clear that the Mother and Father 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. intensified the relationship, which in turn inhibits their ability to parent. 26. There were incidents of physical violence by Mother against Father during this same period of time, including choking, hitting, and threats of stabbing. 27. R.H. also began to exhibit regressive behavior such as crying at night when she would stay with the parents overnight. 28. o attempt to improve their relationship stability. 29. There is an ongoing issue with unpaid bills and lack of evidence of what bills have been paid. 30. Foster parents, paternal great aunt and uncle, are an adoptive resource and have cared for R.H. since June 3, 2019. DISCUSSION 5 Statement of law: Termination of parental rights is controlled by statute. In relevant part, the statute provides as follows: Grounds for involuntary termination (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 5 See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. 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. 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 6 petition. 7 Our appellate courts have determined that: dy and rearing of his or 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 8 terminating parental rights and placing the child with adoptive parents. There is a two part test a court must apply when evaluating a termination of parental rights petition. A court must determine if the petitioner has proven at least one of the statutory 6 Id. at a(2), (5), (8) and (b). 7 In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa. Super. 2001)(internal citation omitted). 8 In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 507 (Pa. Super. 2006)(internal citations and quotations omitted). grounds of termination set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and evaluate whether termination is in the best interests of the child, as required by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2015). The burden is on the petitioner to prove by clear and 9 convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J. conduct of the parent and whether the petitioning party establishes that conduct satisfies the statutory grounds set forth in Section 2511. If this burden is met, the court shall proceed to the second analysis of whether termination best serves the needs and general welfare of the child. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). In evaluating this case, this Court found that the Agency unmistakably met their burden with regard to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8). Almost 26 months have passed since R.H. was removed complete her permanency plan indicated that the conditions that caused removal continued to exist. Mother loves R.H. but is incapable of caring for her child. Despite receiving parenting services for two years, three SKILLS program authorizations, and numerous revised permanency plans Mother was unable to fully demonstrate the ability to provide stable finances, suitable housing, and a stable, safe environment that would promote the physical and developmental needs necessary to resume independent care of R.H. Mother was unable to demonstrate that she could parent independent of Father, and there appears to be increasing inability for the Mother and Father to work together to properly parent R.H. 9 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 In re Adoption of A.C., 162 A.3d 1123 , 1133 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting In re Adoption of Antencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994)). 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 Mother, who is unable to provide R.H. with a stable homeenvironment. 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 convincing evidence of Mothererwelfare. Many opportunities have been given to Motherand sadly all have been missed; Motherest 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.