Opinion
J-A16030-18 No. 703 EDA 2018
07-30-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.C.G., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.P.R., FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree February 14, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000233-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:
A.P.R. (Father) appeals from the decree, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, terminating his parental rights to his minor son, J.C.G. (Child) (born 12/2007) and changing the goal to adoption. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the opinion authored by the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko.
The trial court states that Father "appeals from the Decree and Order" terminating his parental rights and changing the permanency goal to adoption. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/13/18, at 1. However, for ease of reference, we will solely use decree throughout the memorandum.
Mother's parental rights were involuntarily terminated on February 14, 2018. She is not a party to this appeal.
The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved in the case in May 2014, after receiving reports that Child's parents were not properly caring for Child, that Child's parents had substance abuse issues, and that Child's living conditions were not suitable. Child, who is non-verbal, was 6 years old at the time and was not toilet trained or enrolled in school. Child was found to be autistic. Both Mother and Father were unemployed. When DHS attempted to locate the family, the agency discovered that they had been evicted from their apartment in March of 2014.
On June 17, 2014, DHS received reports that Father and Child were sleeping on the street and that the police had taken them to a Salvation Army Red Shield Shelter. They were no longer at the shelter when DHS arrived. DHS finally located Child on June 18, 2014, when it received a call from Child's maternal aunt, L.G., who had Child and Child's older sibling in her care.
Parental rights with regard to Child's older sibling are not at issue in the present appeal.
Hearings for both children were held on July 12, 2014. Both Mother and Father were awarded supervised visitation and mandated to undergo drug screenings and assessments. At this time, the whereabouts of Mother and Father were unknown. On January 15, 2015, and April 24, 2015, Father presented himself to Clinical Evaluation Unit (CEU) for drug screening. Father tested positive for benzodiazepines on both occasions, but was able to provide verification of his prescriptions for the drugs. Father was awarded one hour of weekly supervised visitation with Child. Father consistently attended his scheduled visits with Child.
The court held a contested termination hearing held on December 21, 2017. At the hearing, Sean Donolon, a former case manager at Catholic Community Services, expressed concern for Father's ability to care for Child. Among other things, Donolon was concerned Father would allow Mother to have contact with Child, and that Father could not properly care for Child due to Father's own disabilities. Donolon testified to the lack of a bond between Father and Child, stating that he believed no irreparable harm would occur to Child if Father's parental rights were terminated. James Ross, another case manager who observed Father and Child during supervised visitation, also testified that he believed no irreparable harm would occur to Child if Father's parental rights were terminated.
It is alleged that Father has cognitive disabilities, possibly resulting from drug-related seizures.
Father testified that he is receiving drug treatment and that he has been clean for eight years. He also claimed that he successfully completed anger management and parenting classes. At the termination hearing, Father presented photos of his apartment and of him and Child allegedly hugging. Father submitted these photos into evidence to demonstrate the suitability of his housing and of his bond with Child. Father denied being in a relationship with Mother. The trial court discredited Father's testimony, pointing to multiple instances in which Father tried to manipulate the facts of the case. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 2/14/18, at 39-42. The court ultimately terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.
Father filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. He claims the trial court erred when it terminated his parental rights, that he has remedied the conditions leading to Child's placement, that he has completed all of his court ordered goals, that he has the capacity to care for Child, and that he has a strong bond with Child.
The standard on appeal for termination of parental rights is as follows:
Appellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court's determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted). The scope of our review in such cases is broad and requires a comprehensive review of the record. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2000).
After careful review, it is clear that the trial court's findings are supported by the record. In re Adoption of S.P., supra. At the time of the termination hearing, Child had been in placement for four years. Although Father has obtained housing, it is unclear that the accommodations are suitable for Child. Although he has never tested positive for drugs during the course of this case (save for those that are prescription medications), Father has failed to attend random drug screens. According to Mr. Donolon's testimony, Father is still in treatment at a methadone clinic and is receiving mental health counseling. Moreover, there is a legitimate concern that Father is still involved with Mother, whose parental rights have also been terminated. Father is on a fixed income and suffers from disabilities of his own. It is clear from the record that Child will require around-the-clock care, and that Father is unlikely to be able to provide such care.
It is also apparent from the record that changing the goal from reunification to adoption is in Child's best interest. There is evidence that Child is not bonded with Father and will not suffer irreparable harm if Father's parental rights are terminated. Child is bonded with staff members at Woods, where he receives autistic support services and twenty-four hour, individualized care. Child's teacher at Woods has expressed an interest in becoming an adoptive resource for Child.
We rely upon the opinion authored by Judge Tereshko in affirming the court's decree terminating Father's parental rights and changing the goal to adoption. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of that decision in the event of further proceedings in the matter.
Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/30/18
Image materials not available for display.