In re Carolina

247 A.3d 1097

IN RE: S.C., a Minor

Appeal of: Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families

In the Interest of: S.R.C, a Minor

Appeal of: Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families

In the Interest of: S.R.C., a Minor

Appeal of: S.R.C., a/k/a S.C.

In re: S.R.C., a Minor

Appeal of: S.R.C. a/k/a S.C.

No. 242 WDA 2020

No. 243 WDA 2020

No. 244 WDA 2020

No. 245 WDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted August 24, 2020

FILED: MARCH 15, 2021

Katherine M. Kennedy, Pittsburgh, for CYF, appellant.

Courtney M. Potter, Pittsburgh, for S.R.C., appellee

Max C. Feldman, Coraopolis, for J.L.C. and B.R.C., participating parties.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

OPINION BY OLSON, J.:

Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families ("CYF") and KidsVoice appeal from the January 21, 2020 order denying CYF's petition for involuntary termination of parental rights ("termination petition") of J.C. ("Mother") and B.C. ("Father") (collectively, "Parents") to their dependent child, S.C., a male child born October 2017, ("S.C.") pursuant to Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101 - 2938.¹ We vacate the January 21, 2020 order and remand the case with instructions.

The trial court set forth the following:

[In November 2017, Parents] took [S.C.] to UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh ["CHP"] and reported that he was vomiting blood. Medical staff examined [S.C.] and diagnosed him with bucket handle fractures in both of his legs along with [injuries to the left and right side of the soft palate region of his mouth]. [Parents] were unable to provide a plausible explanation for [S.C.’s] injuries. Based on the nature of the injuries and [Parents’] lack of explanation, the case was referred to [CHP's] Child Advocacy Unit for concerns of child abuse. Dr. Adelaide Eichman, a physician who specializes in child abuse, examined [S.C.] based on this referral. After an examination, Dr. Eichman reported that [S.C.] also had bruising to both sides of his jaw and his lower back. [Parents] reported they had observed a bruise on [S.C.’s] leg "a few weeks ago" but were unaware of the bruising to the jaw and [lower] back. After the examination and consultation with [Parents], Dr. Eichman concluded that the injuries were diagnostic of physical child abuse. A referral was made to [CYF] based upon this diagnosis. [Parents] were interviewed by [CYF] and [they] could not provide a plausible explanation for the injuries. As a result, [CYF] sought and obtained an emergency custody authorization on November 22, 2017. [S.C.] was placed in the care of [his] paternal grandfather and paternal step-grandmother [collectively, "Grandparents"].

[CYF] filed a dependency petition alleging that [S.C.] was without proper parental care or control. An adjudicatory hearing was held on December [19], 2017[,] and [S.C.] was adjudicated dependent. The [trial] court ordered that [S.C.] remain in foster[-]care placement with [Grandparents]. The [trial] court ordered Mother and Father to participate in parenting classes and non-offenders' treatment. They were also ordered to complete a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations. Additionally, Mother was ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation and to follow all treatment recommendations.

Dr. [Terry O'Hara, PhD, a licensed psychologist,] was assigned to conduct psychological evaluations of the family. He conducted his first set of evaluations on February [19,] 2018, which consisted of interactional and individual evaluations of [Parents]. [S.C.] slept through most of the interactional evaluation. When [S.C.] did wake up, [Parents] were able to sooth him. Dr. O'Hara opined that they exhibited several positive parenting skills. Neither parent could provide a plausible explanation about the cause of [S.C.’s] injuries. Mother reported that the injuries could have occurred when they were changing [S.C.’s] diaper. She reported that [S.C.] "arched his back and tried to twist" during diapering and that they had to hold him by both ankles. With respect to the [injuries] in [S.C.’s] mouth, Mother reported that she may have microwaved his bottle too long. During her individual evaluation, Mother reported a history of physical and sexual abuse by her biological father. She reported this abuse to her mother when she was approximately 20 years old. Her father was arrested and convicted of the abuse. She began mental health treatment after her father's arrest. She reported being prescribed medication for anxiety during that time. Dr. O'Hara performed psychological testing of Mother and noted that she was defensive. As such, he was limited in making an appropriate diagnosis. During the individual evaluation of Father, [Dr. O'Hara] did not endorse any mental health concerns. When asked about the injuries that [S.C.] sustained, Father reported that [S.C.] "would squirm a lot, then we would both hold him and secure his thighs". Father did not report any mental health concerns and was not defensive during any of the testing.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/24/20, at 2-4 (extraneous capitalization omitted). On February 4, 2019, Parents pleaded guilty to one count each of endangering the welfare of a child as a result of S.C.’s injuries and were sentenced to a period of probation.² Id. at 7.

On May 15, 2019, CYF filed a termination petition asking the trial court to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to S.C. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b). See Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, 5/15/19, at ¶¶13-14. Courtney Potter, Esquire, from KidsVoice, represented the legal and best interests of S.C. Max C. Feldman, Esquire, represented Parents, and CYF was represented by Melaniesha L. J. Abernathy, Esquire. A termination hearing was held on December 6, 2019, at which the aforementioned counsel, as well as Parents, participated.

On January 21, 2020, the trial court denied CYF's termination petition, finding that with regard to both Mother and Father, CYF failed to meet its burden of proof under Sections 2511(a)(2), (a)(5) and (a)(8) of the Adoption Act. Trial Court Order, 1/21/20. The trial court further found that involuntary termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights did not serve the needs and welfare of S.C. pursuant to Section 2511(b). Id.

On February 20, 2020, both CYF and KidsVoice filed separate notices of appeal of the January 21, 2020 order as it pertained to Mother and separate notices of appeal of the January 21, 2020 order as it pertained to Father pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) (providing that, concise statements of errors complained of on appeal shall be filed and served with notices of appeal in children's fast-track cases).³ The trial court subsequently filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 24, 2020.

CYF raises the following issues for our review:

[1.] Did [CYF] prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for the involuntary termination of Father's [and Mother's] parental rights to [S.C.] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) ?

[2.] Did [CYF] prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the involuntary termination of Father's [and Mother's] parental rights to [S.C.] best serves the needs and welfare of [S.C.] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) ?

[3.] Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or abuse its [discretion] when the trial court partially denied CYF's motion to strike [as] untimely [Parents’] pre-trial statement and permitted testimony of Holy Family visit[ation] coach, Amy Richter, and A Second Chance[,] Inc. family services technician, Dawn Heiser?

CYF's Brief at 5-6 (extraneous capitalization omitted).⁴

KidsVoice raises the following issues for our review:

[1.] Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by denying CYF's petition to terminate [Mother's and Father's] parental rights to [S.C. pursuant to] 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(a)(2), [(a)](5), and [(a)](8), where [S.C.] incurred physical abuse in [Parents’] care when he was only six weeks old; [Mother and Father, each,] pleaded guilty to [ ] endangering [the] welfare of [S.C.]; [Mother and Father] refused to take any responsibility for [S.C.’s] injuries; [S.C.] remains in foster care after two years; and [Mother and Father were] found to be minimally compliant with [their] permanency plan just three weeks before the contested termination hearing?

[2.] Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by finding that termination [of parental rights] does not [best] serve [S.C.’s] needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b) where [S.C.] sustained significant physical injuries at six weeks of age when he was in the care of [Parents]; was removed from [Parents’] care at age six weeks and has remained in the care of [Grandparents] ever since; shows signs of secure attachment to [Grandparents]; and has only had supervised contact with [Parents] since he was removed?

KidsVoice Brief at 5.⁵

In matters involving involuntary termination of parental rights, 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." In re [Adaption of] S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). "If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion." Id. "A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will." Id. The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. Id. at 827. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re R.J.T. , 9 A.3d [1179, 1190 (2010)].

In re T.S.M. , 620 Pa. 602, 71...