Opinion
157 WDA 2023 J-S22002-23
09-12-2023
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: J.J.J.D., A MINORA APPEAL OF: S.D., FATHER
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq/ Prothonotary
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered January 10, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Orphans' Court at No(s): C-63-OC-2022-184
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq/ Prothonotary
BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.
MEMORANDUM
OLSON, J.
Appellant, S.D. (Father), appeals from the order entered on January 10, 2023, granting a petition filed by the Washington County Children and Youth Social Service Agency (the Agency) to involuntarily terminate Father's rights to his son, J.J.J.D. (J.D. or Child) pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2), 2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8), and 2511(b). We affirm.
Mother executed a voluntary termination of parental rights and consent to adoption. The trial court conducted an on-the-record colloquy and granted Mother's request. Mother is not a party to the current appeal. The Agency and Child's legal counsel and guardian ad litem filed briefs in support of the order terminating Father's parental rights.
We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as follows. J.D. was born in October 2020. Mother and Father are married, and both are listed on J.D.'s birth certificate as his parents. On January 4, 2021, the Agency took Child into care through an emergency verbal order when Child was taken to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and there were additional safety concerns with both parents' substance and alcohol abuse, ongoing incidents of domestic violence, and lack of stable housing. Following a hearing on January 4, 2021, and with the agreement of Mother and Father, the trial court granted a petition for shelter care filed by the Agency and Child was placed with his maternal grandparents (Maternal Grandparents), where he currently resides. The trial court further granted both Mother and Father visitation with Child to be supervised by Maternal Grandparents. On January 15, 2021, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent and ordered a permanency plan wherein Father was directed to submit to drug and alcohol testing twice a month, complete drug and alcohol and mental health treatment, obtain and maintain stable housing, complete batterer's intervention counseling, attend parenting classes, and abide by the terms of his federal parole. On March 24, 2021, the trial court granted Father's petition for paternity testing and subsequent testing confirmed Father's paternity of Child.
At the time of Child's adjudication, Father was under federal indictment for the sale of narcotics. On October 22, 2022, Father pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a quantity of a mixture and substance containing detectable amount of cocaine and was sentenced to time served and four years of probation.
The trial court held four review hearings thereafter. The trial court found Father minimally compliant with the permanency plan at the first review hearing held on May 4, 2021. On May 11, 2021, the Agency filed a status report with the trial court indicating that Mother and Father were involved in a physical altercation wherein Mother punched Father in the face. Both Mother and Father were subsequently granted protection from abuse (PFA) from the other. On July 14, 2021, the trial court granted the Agency's motion to suspend Father's visitation with Child due to the cross-PFAs filed by Mother and Father. On July 22, 2021, Father's supervised visitation was reinstated, but later modified on July 30, 2021, directing Father's visits with Child be supervised by an Agency approved person, instead of Maternal Grandparents, with visitation occurring at Blueprints Visitation House or other Agency approved location. On August 17, 2021, the trial court held a second permanency hearing wherein it determined that Father was again minimally compliant with the permanency plan and found Father made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances necessitating initial placement. The trial court held the third review hearing on December 14, 2021. The trial court again determined that Father was minimally compliant with the permanency plan in so far as he attended visitation sessions and obtaining housing. The trial court, however, noted that Father did not participate in alcohol and drug screenings and/or mental health treatment and there were ongoing domestic disputes when Mother and Father would encounter each other in passing coming to and from supervised visitation sessions with Child. The trial court also ordered the Agency to conduct a bonding assessment between Father and Child. On April 12, 2022, the trial court held the final review hearing and determined that Father was moderately compliant with the permanency plan.
Father completed batterer's intervention counseling, parenting classes, drug and alcohol treatment, and obtained stable housing. Father, however, did not receive or complete mental health treatment, was inconsistent with drug and alcohol testing, tested positive for marijuana and methadone, and failed to maintain consistent visitation with Child.
On February 1, 2022, the Agency filed a petition for involuntary termination of Father's parental rights. The trial court held three hearings on August 31, 2022, September 19, 2022, and October 5, 2022. On January 10, 2023, the trial court entered an order and opinion involuntarily terminating Father's rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2), 2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8), and 2511(b). This timely appeal resulted.
Father filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2023. He failed, however, to include a corresponding concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father corrected the error by filing an amended notice of appeal with the concomitant concise statement the following day, February 8, 2023. The trial court relied upon its earlier decision filed on January 10, 2023, as its rationale for the decision to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights.
Father presents the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding [the Agency] submitted clear and convincing evidence to terminate Fathers parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §[§] 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8)?
2. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in considering unsubstantiated facts in support of its position, specifically, allegations of "potential domestic abuse" and findings that Father failed to comply with court ordered services prepetition?
3. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in failing to credit Father with pre[-]petition participation in [c]ourt [o]rdered services?
4. Did the trial court commit an error of law in requiring Father to effectively state on the record his desire for reunification, therein placing a legal burden upon the parent that is not explicitly or implicitly recognized by statute or caselaw?
Father's Brief at 4.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts 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. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.Int. of H.H.N., 296 A.3d 1258, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2023) (internal citation omitted). "[T]he trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re Q.R.D., 214 A.3d 233, 239 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). "If competent evidence supports the trial court's findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result." In re 207 A.3d 914, 921 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
In his first issue presented, Father argues that the trial court "failed to consider all of the court ordered services that Father either completed or began prior to the initiation of the termination [] petition." Id. at 34; see also id. at 39 ("[I]t is undisputed that Father obtained adequate and suitable housing. He completed several services, including domestic violence classes as well as parenting."). However, Father also concedes that "the only services that remained [uncompleted] were mental health services and drug and alcohol services." Id. at 37; see also id. at 40 ("Father intermittently engaged in mental health services dating back to 2019."); see also id. at 42 ("Father initiated mental health services prior to the [Agency's termination] filing [although] he did not complete them."). Next, Father asserts that because he completed domestic violence counseling, the trial court erred in considering domestic violence as a factor in terminating Father's parental rights to Child. Id. at 41. Third, Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to credit his participation in mental health counseling and treatment before the Agency filed its termination petition. Id. at 42. Father claims that he initiated mental health services in 2019 but concedes he did not complete them. Id. Father re-engaged in services in 2022, had scheduling conflicts which prevented him from completing counseling before the termination petition was filed, but he ultimately resumed counseling and treatment after the petition was filed. Id. Finally, Father argues that the trial court engrafted an impermissible legal burden on him when it stated, "[the c]ourt looked for any statement of Father that he wished for reunification with his son or wished to care for his son and found none." Id. at 43, citing Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/2023, at 29 n.28.
Here, initially we note that the trial court carefully considered all of the court-ordered services Father completed prior to the filing of the termination petition. In fact, in its opinion, the trial court specifically noted that at the time the Agency filed its termination petition, Father completed some services, including batterer's intervention counseling, parenting education, drug and alcohol treatment, and maintained stable housing. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/2023, at 1 n.2, 2 n.3, and 8-9. However, despite completing drug and alcohol counseling, the trial court noted that Father later tested positive for marijuana and methadone, and routinely missed scheduled drug tests; therefore, the Agency could not confirm his sobriety. Id. at 17-19. While Father eventually completed batterer's intervention counseling on January 24, 2022, at the December 14, 2021 review hearing, "due to ongoing domestic violence concerns, which were amplified with Mother and Father seeing or running into each other before and/or after [supervised] visits [with Child], the [trial c]ourt directed that neither party could arrive or stay in the vicinity ... for more than ten (10) minutes." Id. at 8. Thus, while participating in batterer's counseling, Father continued to engage in domestic disputes with Mother and, accordingly, it was proper for the trial court to consider. Furthermore, it is uncontested that Father was unsuccessfully discharged from initially implemented mental health services and had not completed counseling and treatment at the time of the termination hearing. Id. at 18-19. The trial court ultimately determined that "Father allowed others to provide for his Child's basic needs, while he provided excuses for his non-performance, and inconsistent and/or absent compliance with services designed to support his ability to reunify." Id. at 37; see also id. at 40-41 ("Father's history supports periods of compliance, followed by periods of non-compliance and inconsistency [related] to Father's mental health, substance use, testing and treatment, and domestic violence history."). The trial court opined that Father "waited until [] Child was over a year old and developing a strong bond with Maternal Grandparents before addressing the lion's share of issues bringing J.D. into [the Agency's] care." Id. at 40. The trial court further found that "[w]hile Father waited to participate in services, succumbed to barriers for completion and by his own testimony, prioritized his marriage and employment over his relationship with [C]hild, [] Child was being care for by others." Id. Finally, regarding Father's argument that the trial court imposed an impermissible legal burden on him, the trial court merely noted that Father, by his own testimony, seemed more concerned with maintaining visitation, spending more time with Child, and fostering relationships with Father's family than actual reunification. Id. at 28-29. Moreover, the trial court noted that it looked for affirmation from Father that he wished for reunification, but clearly stated that "[w]hile not determinative of the outcome, [the trial c]ourt found the absence of a more direct request for reunification curious." Id. at 29 n.28. As such, we do not believe the trial court engrafted an impermissible burden upon Father at the termination hearing.
Based upon a review of the certified record, the parties' appellate briefs, the trial court's opinion, and applicable law, we find that the trial court thoroughly and accurately addressed the merits of Father's appellate issues in its opinion. In its 48-page opinion, the trial court thoughtfully summarized the testimony of the 12 witnesses and the 26 exhibits presented at the termination hearings and carefully applied the evidence to each alleged subsection under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a) and (b). Consequently, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion and adopt it as our own. The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court's January 10, 2023 opinion to all future filings regarding this appeal.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
(Image Omitted)