HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-DP-94-2020
IN RE: ADOPTION OF R.W., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
a Minor CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 71 ADOPT 2021
CP-21-DP-000094-2020
1508 MDA 2021
1494 MDA 2021
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
HYAMS, J., December 16, 2021
On October 22, 2021, the Solicitor for Cumberland County Children and Youth Services
(CCCYS or the Agency), filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of
1
Appellant (Mother). This Court held a hearing on November 2, 2021. Mother appeared and was
represented by counsel. Mother has appealed the Order dated November 2, 2021, which
terminated her parental rights to R.W. On appeal, she alleges that this court:
abused its discretion or committed an error of law when it found, despite a lack of
clear and convincing evidence, that sufficient grounds existed for a termination of
appellant's parental rights in her child, and when it failed to primarily consider the
child's developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare, thus
contravening sections 2511 (a) and 2511 (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§
2,3
2511 (a) & 2511 (b).
Pursuant judgement.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
a. Background
The Agency originally received a referral on July 24, 2020 based on allegations of
1
Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of (L.B.) Under Section 2512 of the Adoption Act, October
22, 2021.
2
November 18
November 18, 2021.
3
The concise statement also acknowledged that counsel for the Mother intends to file a petition to withdraw,
together with an appellant brief, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v.
Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). See In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992).
1
threats made by maternal uncle, inappropriate housing and sanitation, illegal drug involvement
4
by adults on the property, and lack of food. On September 21, 2020, R.W. was placed in the
legal and physical care and custody of CCCYS and placed in the Emergency Kinship Care of her
5
maternal cousin. Since 2003, CCCYS has had eight referrals regarding Mother, all involving a
dirty and cluttered home and deplorable living conditions, though some of those referrals
6
. Throughout the course of this dependency,
7
On October 20, 2020, a permanency plan was developed for the Child, which identified
8
Mo goals, this plan was revised several times. These goals included obtaining and
maintain appropriate housing, obtaining and maintaining employment, addressing mental health
9
issues, and parenting assessment and training.
b.
Despite receiving services from Central PA Family Support Services for several months,
their caseworker testified that Mother was not able to meet any the goals regarding
10
transportation, employment, housing, and mental health. Those services were terminated due
11
to lack of engagement by Mother. During that time, Mother expressed being unwilling to
12
move because of her dogs. Mother did complete Training Important Parenting Skills (TIPS)
13
through Alternative Behavior Consultants (ABC) between January and April of 2021. She was
4
, CCCYS Ex. 3.
5
6
N.T. 40 at 19-24, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
7
N.T.. 43 to 45, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
8
3.
9
10
N.T. 10 to 13, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
11
N.T. 11 at 14-15, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
12
N.T. 13 at 2-17, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
13
N.T. 28-29, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
2
14
able to resolve all of her criminal issues. She also did complete a housing application through
15
Cumberland County in March of 2021, but she is on a long waiting list. Although Mother did
live briefly with a neighbor and at a Best Western, it appears she is now back at the trailer that
16
had the initial habitability concerns.
Mother also had a goal regarding her mental health, however she has made lots of
17
excuses regarding waiting lists and conflicts without making any notable progress on this goal.
18
Mother has also not made recommended efforts to
19
Mother was able to maintain employment at Wal-Mart since May of 2021.
c. R.W
20
R.W. is 9 years old. At the time of the hearing, R.W. had been in care for approximately
2122
13 months. R.W. is progressing in her goals and has expressed her attachment to the
2324
prospective adoptive parents, the Archibalds. She does have a bond with her Mother, but
25
expressed being content staying where she is or going home. R.W. is very bonded with the
26
Achibalds and has R.W. is in the fourth grade
27
at a school in Newville, and seems to enjoy school and her activities.
The foster parents have offered themselves as an adoptive resource and have been
14
N.T. 33 at 9-12, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
15
N.T. 33 at 12-16 and 45 at 22 to 46 at 2, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
16
N.T. 41 at 14 to 42 at 5, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
17
N.T. 46 at 21 to 47 at 11, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
18
N.T. 48 at 13 to 49 at 7, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
19
N.T. 50 at 25 to 51 at 6, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
20
21
N.T. 12 at 17, Hearing, February 17, 2021.
22
N.T. 5 at 16 to 6 at 2, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
23
N.T. 7 at 11-16, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
24
N.T. 23 at 17-24, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
25
N.T. 22 at 4-9, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
26
N.T. 36 at 16-18, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
27
N.T. 53 at 1-10, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
3
28
approved by the Agency as an adoptive resource.
Blackburn, expressed that R.W. loves her mother, but that she feels better provided for with the
29
foster parents, and would like to be adopted by them. The GAL believes it would be in the best
30
interests of R.W. f Legal
31
counsel for the child reiterated the position of the GAL.
II. DISCUSSION
The party seeking to terminate parental rights bears the burden of demonstrating by clear
and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist. Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d
1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994). Of the potential grounds for termination, the following was identified by
the Agency as the pertinent provisions for this case:
(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.
*****
(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 welfare of the child.
*****
(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.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a).
28
N.T. 55 at 16-19 and 68 at 20-24, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
29
N.T. 92-94, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
30
N.T. 94 at 4-7, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
31
N.T.94 at 10 to 95 at 6, Hearing, November 2, 2021.
4
he mere existence of a bond or attachment of a child to a parent will not necessarily
result in the denial of a termination petition.In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).
Common sense dictates that courts considering termination must also consider whether the
children are in a pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster parents.Id.
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
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
32
convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are
valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). T
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). Approximately 13 months have passed since the child
failure to complete the
bulk of her permanency plan indicated that the conditions that caused removal continued to exist.
Those goals and compliance or non-compliance is outlined as follows:
1. To obtain employment.
32
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)).
5
Mother did successfully complete this goal and has been working at Wal-Mart for
over 6 months.
2. To obtain housing.
Mother did not have appropriate housing at the time of the hearing. While
Mother did complete a housing application and has made other efforts to secure
appropriate housing, those efforts have not yet translated into appropriate housing
for R.W. Therefore, this goal was not met.
3. Mental Health.
Mother was to complete a mental health assessment and follow through on
treatment. Although she has made appointments and excuses for why the
appointments have not translated to her receiving mental health services, this goal
was not met.
The conditions that existed at the time of R.W
custody, 13 months ago, still exist. Mother has not successfully completed her reunification
goals and as a result, we cannot find that she has or can remedy to original reasons for placement
in a reasonable period of time. With at least one of the statutory grounds met pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(a), this Court turned to § 2511(b) and whether termination serves the best
interests of the child, as discussed infra.
Section 2511(b) requires that this Court determine whether termination is in the best
interest of the Child.
§ 2511(b). See also In re Adoption of
C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015). Pennsylvania appellate courts have stated that
the emotional needs and welfare of the child have properly been interpreted to include
6
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa.
Super. 2012). When making a Section 2511(b) determination, the focus should be on the child,
not the parent. In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).
This Court finds sufficient evidence in the record that it is in R.Wbest interests to
tal rights and allow herto be adopted by herfoster parents.
plea at the hearing was for a little more time, butR.W.can no longer languish in care waiting
forthe Mother to be in a position to meet herphysical, developmental and emotional well-being.
Therefore,it is in R.Wfor parental rights to be terminated so she can find
permanency with herfosterfamily who loves her and intends to adopther.
III.CONCLUSION
rights was not in error. For the reasons
articulated in the above Opinion, this Court respectfully requests the Superior Court of
Termination of Parental Rights of R.W.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
The Honorable Carrie E. Hyams
7