HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 Adoption 2012
IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ADOPTION OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
N. R. H., : NO. 4 ADOPTIONS 2013
Born :
September 15, 2009 :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., May , 2013
Mother has filed this appeal from our order of March 13, 2013 which terminated her
parental rights to N.R.H. She contends that we erred 1) because she is “able to provide the
child with essential parental care, control, and subsistence”; 2) in determining that the
conditions which led to placement continued to exist; and 3) in determining the needs and
1
welfare of the child would best be served by termination of her parental rights. We will
address each of those issues in the opinion that follows.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2
On February 16, 2012, N.R.H. was removed from Mother’s care. The reasons for
3
placement included unstable housing as well as parenting concerns.
Between the date the child was placed on February 16, 2012, and the date of the
hearing on March 13, 2013, Mother was unable to maintain stable housing. During that time
45
she lived in eleven different places. At the time of the hearing she was living with friends.
6
There was no room for her child in that residence.
1
See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
2
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, pp. 4, 5.
3
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 5.
4
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 6.
5
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 6.
6
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 6.
7
Mother married her current husband in May of 2012. Neither she nor her husband
8
have been able to hold a job. Mother has not been employed since June of 2012. Mother was
on the H.U.D. housing list but was removed, inter alia, because of her husband’s criminal
9
record.
Mother made very little progress on her parenting skills. While she completed the
educational portion of the parent training, she was unable to do the skills session because of
10
her lack of housing. In addition, since July of 2012 she missed 24 of her 36 scheduled weekly
1112
visits with N.R.H. Mother gave birth to another child only a few weeks before this hearing.
13
That child is also in placement.
14
N.R.H. has been in the same foster home since she was removed from Mother’s care.
1516
She is loved by the foster parents and their children. They stand ready to adopt her. She is
17
very bonded to the foster family, referring to her foster parents as “Mommy” and “Daddy”.
18
N.R.H. loves her Mother and is excited to see her. However, the visits have been sporadic
since last July. She does not get as upset as she used to when Mother does not show up for a
7
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 9.
8
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 28.
9
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, pp. 38, 39.
10
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 7.
11
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 8.
12
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 14.
13
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 14.
14
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, pp. 22, 23.
15
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 23.
16
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 22.
17
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 24.
18
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 23.
2
visit. In addition, she does not talk about her Mother between visits. The child will not be
19
adversely affected if contact with Mother stops.
DISCUSSION
It is well established that a party seeking termination of parental rights bears the burden
of establishing by “clear and convincing evidence” that the grounds exist. Adoption of Atencio,
539 Pa. 161, 1266, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (1994). “The standard of clear and convincing evidence
means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to
come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Matter
of Sylvester, 521 Pa. 300, 304, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203-04 (1989).
The petition filed by Cumberland County Children and Youth Services sought involuntary
termination of Mother’s parental rights under several provisions of Section 2511 (a) of the
Adoption Act. We were satisfied that the Agency had met its burden under Sections 2511 (a)
(5) and (8) which provide:
(a)General rule – The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a
petition filed on any of the following grounds:
. . .
(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 will best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
. . .
19
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 24.
3
(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.A. 2511 (a) (5) and (8).
N.R.H. had been placed out of the home for almost 13 months at the time of the
termination hearing. Mother was well aware of what she needed to do to be reunited with her
child. She did not accomplish any of those requirements. Furthermore, it was abundantly clear
that N.R.H.’s needs and welfare would best be served by allowing her to become a permanent
member of her foster family through adoption.
Ability to Care for N.R.H.
Mother’s first allegation of error is that her parental rights should not have been
terminated because she is able to provide N.R.H. “with essential parental care, control and
20
subsistence.” We disagreed.
Mother is barely able to provide for herself. She and her husband have been required
to rely on the kindness of friends and family to provide for their own basic needs. As she
herself admitted:
We’ve been having trouble putting a roof over our head, plus trying to maintain stable
employment, plus wondering how we’re going to find our next meal for the day. It’s
21
been a very stressful combination of all three.
20
See Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
21
Transcript of Proceedings, March 13, 2013, p. 27.
4
Her current living arrangement is unable to accommodate N.R.H. Furthermore, her youngest
child, born only a few weeks before the hearing, had to be placed by the Agency. It was clear
that she was not in a position to care for N.R.H.
Conditions Leading to Placement
Mother’s second allegation of error is that the conditions which led to placement no
longer existed. This allegation was belied by the facts as we found them to be.
The reasons for the child’s placement were unstable housing as well as parenting
concerns. In the 13 months since N.R.H.’s placement Mother had eleven different residences.
At the time of the hearing she was living with friends who had no room for N.R.H. Because of
her unstable housing Mother was unable to complete the parent training services offered by
the Agency. In addition she failed to maintain regular and consistent contact with the child. It
was abundantly clear that the conditions which led to placement continued to exist.
Needs and Welfare of the Child
Mother’s final contention on appeal is that we erred in determining that N.R.H.’s needs
and welfare would best be served by terminating her parental rights. We were convinced to
the contrary. N.R.H. is thriving in her new home. She is safe, secure, and loved. Her foster
parents and their children very much want to adopt her. While termination of her natural
Mother’s parental rights will not adversely affect her, her adoption by and becoming a
permanent member of her foster family will greatly benefit her.
5
___________________ ________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
Lucy Johnston-Walsh, Esquire
G.A.L. for the Juvenile
Michael Matter, Esquire
For the Mother
Sheri D. Coover, Esquire
For the Father
Lindsay Dare Baird, Esquire
For CCC&YS
:sld
6