In Re: M.C.T. Appeal of: R.T. and C.N. ( 2015 )

J-A10003-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: M.C.T. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.T. AND C.N. : No. 1792 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2014-3972
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P. J., MUNDY, J., AND JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 09, 2015
Appellants, R.T. (“Father”) and C.N. (“Mother”) (collectively,
“Parents”), appeal from the order entered in the Centre County Court of
Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, which granted the petition of the Centre
County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) for involuntary termination of
Parents’ parental rights to their minor child, M.C.T. (“Child”), who was born
in July 2009. We affirm.
In its Opinion and Order granting involuntary termination of Parents’
parental rights (dated September 23, 2014, and filed September 24, 2014)
the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts of this case.1
Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
1
On page two of the court’s September 2014 Opinion and Order, the court
mentions two referrals CYS received regarding Child’s well-being in July
2012 and August 2012. The court mentions that in July 2012, CYS received
a referral about a naked boy (Child) wandering alone on 3rd Street. The
court also mentions that in August 2012, CYS received another referral
J-A10003-15
Parents raise the following issue for our review:
WERE THE TRIAL COURT’S DETERMINATIONS SUPPORTED
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?
(Parents’ Brief at 4).
The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental
rights cases are as follows:
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating
parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the
decision of the trial court is supported by competent
evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law,
or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s
decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has
granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental
rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision
the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict.
We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the
record in order to determine whether the trial court’s
decision is supported by competent evidence.
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of
fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses
and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the]
finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking
termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence
the existence of grounds for doing so.
regarding Child wandering alone on the street, after which Trooper Haponski
returned Child to Parents. At the termination of parental rights hearing,
Trooper Haponski testified that on August 13, 2012, he received a radio
dispatch about a naked child walking around the streets alone. The trooper
learned this boy was Child and ultimately returned Child to Parents. Further
testimony from one of the CYS caseworkers also mentioned an earlier
referral regarding Child’s welfare in July 2012, but the caseworker did not
describe the basis for that referral. In any event, it appears the court might
have inadvertently overlapped the content of these two referrals.
On page three of the court’s September 2014 Opinion and Order at ¶10, the
court states CYS filed a dependency petition on August 28, 2014; the correct
date for the dependency petition was August 28, 2012.
-2-
J-A10003-15
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 hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.
We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis
exists for the result reached. If the trial court’s findings
are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the
court’s decision, even though the record could support an
opposite result.
In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal
denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Thomas
King Kistler, we conclude Parents’ issue merits no relief. The trial court
opinions discuss and properly disposed of the question presented. (See Trial
Court Opinion, filed October 27, 2014, at 1; Opinion and Order, filed
September 24, 2014, at 6-10) (finding: ample evidence presented at
termination hearing demonstrated that dangerous conditions existed in
Parents’ home, and removal of Child from Parents’ home was necessary for
Child’s welfare; following Child’s removal from Parents’ home, Parents were
very uncooperative with CYS; Parents refused to allow CYS caseworkers
access to home on numerous occasions; Mother became extremely hostile
toward CYS after incident in which CYS caseworker requested to be present
when Mother gave urine sample for detection of drugs, to ensure Mother did
not falsify her sample; Mother was outraged at CYS’ request and remained
openly antagonistic to CYS thereafter, which deterred CYS’ ongoing efforts to
-3-
J-A10003-15
restore Child’s family to level of functioning that would enable return of Child
to Parents; CYS’ request was not form of “indignity” designed to embarrass
or harass Mother but was merely routine verification process; Child has
made dramatic improvements while living with initial foster family and
current foster family; Child has progressed from speaking no more than four
words2 and having abject fear of water and bathing, to well-developed and
prospering child; individuals most familiar with Child’s care and treatment
testified about Child’s remarkable and outstanding progress while in foster
care; notwithstanding Child’s show of familiarity and affection to Parents
during visits, termination of Parents’ parental rights under circumstances of
this case was in Child’s best interests; CYS met its burden for involuntary
termination of Parents’ parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2), (a)(5),
(a)(8), and (b)).3 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s
opinions.
Order affirmed.
2
Child’s initial foster mother testified that Child could say only the words
“num-num,” “gun,” “kill,” and “movie,” upon Child’s placement.
3
On page seven of the court’s Opinion and Order, the court cites In re
Adoption of C.L.G. The correct citation for the quoted portion of this case
is: 956 A.2d 999, 1009-10 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc). Additionally, on the
following page of the court’s Opinion and Order, the correct citation for In re
V.E. and J.E. is: 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa.Super. 1992).
-4-
J-A10003-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/9/2015
-5-
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
C') '""-)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PE~YLV ~IA..y,
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ;=:
zo(j;m c:> ITI
:ri .,, -l ~ ......c:,
IN RE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO No. 3972 o -o o l>
6
:::o
-< c:: ::?: ....,.. •
--~ • C, • \ • . z l> ~ a, " .:::0
~~r=;; :3 ~
OPINION IN RESPONSE TO MATTERS COMPLAINEDibgori~Ai
;o F-i
-c (0
KISTLER,J.
Appellants, ~ • "'t• and t. \'l. ; parents to the above-named child, filed an
appeal on October 22, 2014 of this Court's Opinion and Order of September 24, 2014
contemporaneously with a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b ). Appellants raise one matter complained of
on appeal, that the termination of parental rights was not supported by clear and convincing
evidence. Appellants have also raised any properly preserved issues that may appear upon
examination of the notes of testimony. Upon review of Appellants' Statement, the Court
respectfully submits, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), that this Court's Opinion and Order of
September 24, 2014 was correctly entered, the reasons for which were adequately addressed
therein. Therefore, the Court relies on its previous Opinion and Order and respectfully submits
that no further opinion is necessary at this time. The Court hopes this Opinion aids the Honorable
Superior Court in this matter.
Date: October 24, 2014
DO ORD )(s
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
r.....:,
C') =,
,_.,
r _.:: -n
!Tl :;xi /::::
("') 7.0 rn r-
CJ)
IN THE INTEREST OF: ) r~.i :;~-: G) ::r..: r,"'1 rn
) NO. 3972
::c
.....
:··.~~
, c:
···..i ·-!
(!1
;·u
i"il
.:] 0
-,,
r-=: -.:·....., N
) 1-·· r ....'
., /·
~< _r: ,?
c:
(".)
. ~,) c: \.•·
::.0
-~·1
(·:.: •. 1 ...
-0 ~
l- Chi
~ rrt
OPINION AND ORDER -i
--<
-·~
(f)
-r ):.•
;:u
::::3 0
0
0
r
Cf)
-I
0
w ::0
"''
:;;,, 0
c:: ~.., z N
~
KISTLER,J. ~-
::;,:•
-l
~
AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2014, after hearing on August 15, 2014, and
after submission of Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Centre County
Children and Youth Services, the Guardian ad litem, and the parents, the Court hereby adopts
in almost complete and identical form, the Proposed Findings of Fact as set forth by the
Guardian ad litem. The objectivity and the balance of the Guardian ad litem 's observations,
together with his inherent interest in the best interests of the child, provide the Court with
great comfort and assurance incorporating those Findings ofFact after review of the Findings
of Pact of all parties:
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Centre County Children and Youth (CYS) has had intermittent contact with the
family of" ~ . c . T.. c· tl1\ \ d ~) , since 2005 due to concerns surrounding home conditions,
as well as lack of supervision of the children.
2.. C.>tfr\c;\ '~ parents, ll-·"T", (fa~),... C · N · (P'll7t11ir}(jarents) have had a long
history of being uncooperative with CYS and have refused to take advantage of the services
offered to them by the agency.
DO ORD lil.S
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
3. In January, 2012, CYS received yet another referral regarding the family of vt°'i ) d
for deplorable home conditions, lack of running water and heat in the home, as well as lack of
adequate food for CXl\\\a and his two sisters (-:! o. ..-r a.net 1:. 'i. · who are not subject to this
proceeding).
4. Because the parents refused to allow access into the home, CYS had to obtain a
court Order on January 5, 2012 to assure the safety of U,.1\d and his siblings in the home.
5. As a result of this contact with CYS, l:lni lcl and his siblings ended up in the home
of. f.,. QV'\Q "j. -f, ·, their paternal uncle and aunt in Clinton County, during which time
the parents visited them sporadically.
6. On February 14, 2012, °""-~andhis siblings were retiuned to their parents, at
which time, CYS provided them with protective services with the goals of: maintaining a clean
and healthy and safe home envirorunent for the children, making sure that the children are all
clean and maintaining regular doctor appointment for U'\;\d who was reported to have known to
have high levels of lead in his blood.
7. A little more than 5 month later, CYS received a referral regarding a naked male
child alone on 3rd St. in Phillipsburg, who then, went onto the porch of his parent's home ( F Q'TY\..t-{'"
O,i'(\(A O" )
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
The parents were, subsequently, referred for Reunification Services through Family Intervention
Crises Services (FICS).
14. Although the reunification services began on December 12, 2012, the
reunification team was unable to get into the home until FebruarylO, 2013, to try to help the
parents remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the children.
15. In August of 2013, a home inspection of the home of\J,11' d \5 parents determined
the house to be practically uninhabitable due to numerous structural problems.
16. During the first six month of reunification, the parents refused any offer of help
from the reunification team to clean and organize the house, and limited the reunification
counselor's access to the home, the same way as they had done previously with CYS case
workers.
17. fC\n'\(;f attended 52% and l'tl\Y\l,tr :· attended 48% of their sessions with the
reunification counselors, and when they attended the sessions they were uncooperative,
argumentative with the counselors, insisting that there were no problems with their home. During
one visit (April 2, 2013), the parents kicked the reunification counselors out of the house in the
middle of a session and telling them "I'll fucking kick your asses and see you at court".
18. During the visits with their children, Parents often ignored Ch,,t,\ and left him alone
to play. Parents allowed (Xl\i, who was only 3 years old, to go to the bathroom by himself: and
often left alone during the visits to fend for himself.. U(\M'lmother became annoyed when she
was told by reunification counselors to take Q\,\~to bathroom, or to spend as much time with him
as she spends with ()\,\d'~ sisters.
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
19. Even during visits which were supervised by the service providers, at times, Gh~ q
was left unsupervised by his parents. The parents were, often, unable to coordinate some type of
arrangement to take tum to watch Ch\ \d > and respond to his emotional and physical needs.
20. Parents often struggled to understand and deal appropriately with Ck, 'i Id \f
developmental needs, and did not know how to co-parent in order to meet his developmental and
emotional needs.
21. When Q\\\~ arrived in his first foster home ; he smelled bad and had
practically no dinner table etiquette.
22 C,M,\c\. was unable to speak and use age appropriate language to ask for things to
meet his physical, and emotional needs (hunger, hurt, etc.).
23. CV\\\~ was terrified of being bathed and washed to the point that the foster parents
could only clean him by giving "sponge bath" only. (,hi \o was also afraid of rain, or getting wet
altogether.
24 When first arrived at his first foster home, Ui,,~showed no affection, or reaction
to others, and took him a while to learn it was Ok to interact with trusted people. When
interacting with others, . th\\~was unable to differentiate between strangers and people who cared
about him.
25. When ()l\J got hurt, or got sick, he did not cry or look to his foster parents for
comfort and protection. He would simply make some gestures and try to deal with it on his own
and move on.
26. By the time thi\d moved to his permanent foster home , he had made
significant progress regarding all the areas mentioned above.
(5)
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
2 7 (}(\', \ 0 '! current foster parents are continuing the work with him and his needs and
continue to meet his physical and emotional needs.
28. former foster mother) and :S . 1" · (C,h\\O!S sibling's
kinship foster mother) both have seen tremendous amount of improvement with .U'I, 1dlbehavior,
and issues, since he was removed from the care and custody of his parents.
29 (}i'l\ \(A also receives therapeutic services for his boundary issues, social
connectedness, focus skills, and language therapy from Dr. Rachael Love, a psychologist whose
qualifications were not challenged.
30. Doctor Love supports tMM~ placement with the-K).S.-\'C( family and believes that
the current foster parents meet .~\d~physical and emotional needs.
31. Dr. Love opined that remaining in his current foster parents would best serve the
needs and welfare of O\\,A, and under no circumstances it is in his best interest to be moved from
his current home, for the third time.
SUGGESTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, the rights of a parent in regard to a child
may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following ground:
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.
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
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
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.
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. § 251 l(a)(2), (5), and (8).
2. Relative to Section 2511 (b ), the Pennsylvania Superior Court has provided
the following guidance:
Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are
involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child.
The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child
bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanency
severing the bond ... The court must consider whether a natural
parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether
termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial
relationship. Most importantly, adequate consideration must be
given to the needs and welfare of the child.
In re: Adoption ofC.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1013-14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal and
external citations omitted).
3. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear
and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. In re: J.L.C., 837 A.2D
1247 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
4. The focus of involuntary termination proceedings is on the conduct of the
parents and whether their conduct justifies termination of parental rights. In re: Child
M., 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996), appeal denied 546 Pa. 674, 686 A.2d 1307 (1996).
5. The affirmative duty on the part of a parent to work towards the return of
his or her child has been determined to require, at a minimum, the parent to "show a
willingness to cooperate with CYS to obtain the rehabilitative services necessary to
enable the parent to meet the duties and obligation inherent in parenthood." In re: V.E.
and J.E., 611 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 992), citing In re: Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d
883, 889 (Pa. 1986).
6. "If a parent fails to cooperate or appears incapable of benefiting from the
reasonable efforts supplied over a realistic period of time, CYS has fulfilled its mandate
and upon proof of satisfaction of the reasonable good faith effort, the termination petition
may be granted." In re: A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
7. If a parent fails to cooperate or appears incapable of benefitting from the
reasonable efforts supplied over a realistic period of time, a termination petition may be
granted. In re: A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003).
8. "The continued attachment to the natural parents, despite serious parental
rejection through abuse and neglect, and failure to correct parenting and behavior
disorders which are harming the children cannot be misconstrued as bonding." In the
Matter ofK.K.R., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
(6)
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
REASONING
Ample evidence has demonstrated throughout the entire proceeding that a
dangerous condition existed in the home of the parents and that the child had to be
removed for the welfare of the child. After that removal, the parents became very
uncooperative and bordered on being indignant and obstructionists. Numerous accounts
were given regarding the inability of caseworkers to even gain entry to the home or to get
either of the parents on a telephone call.
The level of indignant response by the parents was most amply demonstrated
during the hearing by Mother's disgust and outrage that a female CYS worker requested
that she must witness the collection of a urine sample to verify that Mother was not
falsifying that urine sample for the detection of drugs. This "indignity" gave rise to an
open and hostile relationship between CYS and the parents which continued to fester and
which brought down any efforts by CYS to restore this family to a functioning level that
would allow for the return of the children. While the Court acknowledges that the act of
expelling urine from one's own body requires a certain level of privacy, the Court finds
that it is not unreasonable that workers of the same gender be in the room while the
sample is collected to assure and verify that tampering is not done. This simple
verification process takes place daily in every county in this nation and was not a form of
harassment or "indignities" designed by Centre County Children and Youth Services to
embarrass or to harass Mother.
(9-)
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
Just as important in the Court's mind, and apart from the parents' inability and
unwillingness to cooperate with CYS, is the stark improvement evidenced by those who
are around MCT since he has been living with the foster families involved in this case.
The child has gone from a dialogue of not more than four words, and having abject fear
of water and bathing to a well-developed and prospering five year old. Those most
familiar with his care and treatment have seen remarkable and outstanding progress for
the child while in custody.
Lastly, the Court is not convinced the attention paid by the child during visits with
the family represents any meaningful stumbling block or hurtle to the plan to move
forward with the termination of the parents' parental rights. Familiarity and affection are
basic human instincts, but they are not sufficient to rescue the foundation of this child's
family from its ruinous and neglectful origins.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the Petition
for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights filed by Centre County Children and
Youth Services in the above-captioned matter, and the evidence and testimony offered at
the time of hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that all of the parental rights
and duties of the biological father, and of the biological mother,
, are hereby forever terminated in accordance with the Act of October
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
15, 1980, P.L. 934, No. 163 (23 Pa.C.S.A, Section 2511), specifically pursuant to
Sections 25 l l(a)(2), 251 l(a)(5), and 251 l(a)(8).
The custody of l {'{). ~ :-r. shall remain with Centre County
Children and Youth Services, and the agency shall have the right to proceed with an
adoption of this child without further notice to, or the consent of, either of the biological
parents, namely,·
The Court further finds that the current placement goal of. M · C. '"f · 1
. that of Planned Permanent Living Arrangement/Long-Term Foster Care is NOT
appropriate and/or NOT feasible, in that termination of parental rights of the biological
parents has been granted. The Court ORDERS the new permanent placement goal to be
that of ADOPTION.
NOTICE TOP ARENTS:
You have a continuing right as a parent to voluntarily place on file and update
social and medical history information, whether or not the medical condition is in
existence or discoverable at the time of the present adoption. The information you choose
to provide could be important to the child's present and future medical needs. Requests
to release the information will be honored if the request is submitted by any of the
following:
a) An adoptee who is at least 18 year of age;
b) An adoptive parent of an adoptee who is under 18 years of age, or
adjudicated incapacitated or deceased;
c) A legal guardian of an adoptee who is under 18 years of age or adjudicated
incapacitated;
d) A descendant of a deceased adoptee;
e) A birth parent of an adoptee who is at least 21 years of age;
f) A birth grandparent of an adoptee who is at least 21 years of age; provided
the birth parents consents, is incapacitated, or deceased; and
g) A birth sibling of an adoptee if both the birth sibling and the adoptee are at
least 21 years of age; and
Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
• The birth sibling remained in the custody of the birth parent,
and the birth parent consents, is deceased, or adjudicated
incapacitated;
• Both the birth sibling and the adoptee were adopted out of the
same birth family; or
• The birth sibling was not adopted out of the birth family and
did not remain in the custody of the birth parent.
All information will be maintained and distributed in a manner that fully protects
your privacy.
You may obtain the appropriate form to file social and medical history information
by contacting the Pennsylvania Adoption Information Registry at the following address
and/or phone number:
Department of Public Welfare
Pennsylvania Adoption Information Registry
www .pagov .pair .org
P.O. Box 4379
Harrisburg, PA 17111-03 79
Telephone: 1-800-227-0225
Social and medical history information forms may also be obtained locally by
contacting one of the following agencies:
1. Your county's Children and Youth Services Agency;
2. Any private licensed adoption agency;
3. Your county Register and Recorder's Office; and
4. Online at http://www.adoptpakids.org/Forms.aspx.