In re A.M.

1

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M. APPEAL OF: C.M., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: X.S.-M. APPEAL OF: C.M., FATHER

Nos. 1013 WDA 2022, 1014 WDA 2022

No. J-A08029-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

May 19, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 2, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Orphans' Court at No(s): No 42-21-0232, 42-21-0233

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI J.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

SULLIVAN, J.:

C.M. ("Father") appeals from the decrees that granted the petitions filed by McKean County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") to involuntarily terminate his parental rights to his children, A.M. (a daughter born in October 2017, and X.S.-M. (a son born in September 2020) (collectively, "Children").^[1]We affirm.

CYS first became involved with this family on July 21, 2020, after employees at the hotel where Father and A.M. were staying reported concerns for A.M.'s safety to Bradford police officers. See N.T., 1/26/21, 8-9.^[2] The responding officers found Father disheveled in the hotel lobby and scaring other guests. See id. Father displayed a basic lack of awareness of A.M.'s status and needs, including that her diaper desperately needed changing. See id. at 5, 9-10, 15-16, 25. From Father's confused speech and actions, the responding officers concluded that he was likely under the influence of methamphetamine. See id at 20-21.

A subsequent search of Father's hotel room revealed, inter alia, two unsheathed machetes within reach of A.M. See id. at 10-11, 13; N.T., 1/24/22, at 89-97. After being notified of these events, CYS petitioned for emergency custody of A.M., which the court granted in July 2020. After deeming kinship care unsuitable, CYS placed A.M. with a foster family.

At the time of these events, Mother temporarily resided in a different Bradford-area hotel. Approximately two months later, Mother gave birth to X.S.-M., at which time she and X.S.-M. both tested positive for methamphetamine. See N.T., 1/24/22, at 125-27, 133. Mother disclosed having used narcotics during her pregnancy. See N.T., 1/26/21, at 46-47, 56.^[3] Father was at the hospital when CYS sought and obtained emergency custody of X.S.-M. in October 2020, and placed him with a foster family. See N.T. 1/24/22, at 125-27.

Following X.S.-M.'s removal from Parents' custody, CYS pursued concurrent objectives of adoption and reunification for Children. Father's goals required that he: (1) obtain and maintain appropriate housing; (2) complete a drug and alcohol evaluation; (3) undergo a mental health evaluation; (4) achieve and sustain sobriety; (5) provide drug screenings upon request; (6) provide medical releases to the agency; and (7) participate in visits and communications with Children. See id. at 99-101.

Father was initially granted supervised visitation rights. However, he and Mother failed to appear so many times for in-person visits, to which the Children had been transported, that the assigned CYS visit supervisor "lost count." See id. at 143-44.^[4] On numerous occasions when Father did attend visits with Children, he appeared to be "under the influence," slept or argued with the CYS visit supervisor, and on one visit held X.S.-M. improperly with one hand so he could simultaneously look at Facebook on his phone. See N.T., 1/24/22, at 143-47, 155.

Father also often displayed aggressive and dangerous behavior towards CYS staff and once threatened to take Children. CYS required the intervention of the Pennsylvania State Police on multiple occasions to control Father. See id.

The court adjudicated Children dependent in February 2021.^[5] The court also found that Children would face grave risk if Father's visits continued. See Juvenile Court's Order of Adjudication, 3/4/21, at 21; N.T., 2/8/21, at 11-14, 37, 43-47; 1/24/22, at 105-08, 117, 125, 150, 159. The court barred Father from visiting Children but indicated it would lift the restriction if Father made substantial progress on his goals. See Juvenile Court's Order of Adjudication, 3/4/21, at 21. Father did not petition to have this restriction lifted, but in March 2021 and April 2021 participated in Mother's separate visits with Children in defiance of the court's restriction. See 1/24/22, at 108-09, 148; N.T., 3/7/22, at 50-53.

CYS social worker Richard Fry ("Fry") testified that Father made minimal progress toward his goals from September 2020 through September 2021, (when Fry's involvement in the case ceased), and Father refused to provide samples for use in drug screening. See N.T., 1/24/22, at 99-100, 103, 122, 132. CYS supervisor, Jonathan Braeger ("Braeger"), testified that since the inception of the case, Father had not once submitted to a drug screen or provided releases for services he had received to show that he had made any changes since the beginning of the case. See N.T. 3/7/22, at 60. CYS case worker Sarah Glover ("Glover") noted Father's unwillingness to provide a release for records of mental health services, and the difficulty she had finding or contacting him. See N.T. 6/8/22, at 20-25, 31, 33, 36.

In September 2021, CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Parents' parental rights.^[6] Concerning A.M., CYS sought termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), and concerning X.M.-S., CYS sought termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (b). The court held hearings on the petitions in January, March, and June 2022. At the hearings, CYS presented testimony from Fry, Glover, Braeger, and Ashlyn Southard ("Southard"), a CYS case aide who provided transportation and helped supervise visits with the children. CYS also presented testimony from Children's respective foster parents. As of the first hearing on the involuntary termination petitions in January 2022, A.M. had lived with a foster family for eighteen months and X.S.-M. had lived with a foster family for fourteen months, and both had bonded with those families, not Father. See N.T, 1/24/22, at 106-07, 111, 128, 160. Glover testified at a later hearing that each Child is bonded with his or her foster parents, Children's needs are met, and that she (Glover) would have significant concerns if Children were returned to Father's care. See N.T., 6/8/22, at 25-26. Glover also testified that Father had been evicted from housing in January 2022. See N.T., 6/8/22, at 12-14.

Although Father's counsel attended all three days of hearing, Father attended only the June 2022 hearing. He proffered no testimony or evidence in opposition to the termination petitions.

In separate Memoranda and Decrees filed August 2, 2022, the Orphans' Court terminated Father's parental rights to Children. Father filed timely notices of appeal to this Court. Approximately two weeks later, Father filed concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.^[7] The Orphans' Court filed brief statements pursuant to Rule 1925(a) referring to the reasoning presented in its August 2, 2022 Memoranda and Decrees as the basis for its actions. Thereafter, this Court consolidated these cases sua sponte.

Father has presented a single issue for consideration in his brief to this Court:

Has the burden of proof been met by clear and convincing evidence to show that involuntary termination of parental rights of [Father] is warranted under 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(a)(1), (2)[,] and (5)?

Father's Brief at 4.

Father's issue implicates the involuntarily termination of parental rights. We review involuntary termination orders for an abuse of discretion, which requires an error of law or a showing of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. See In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021) (citation omitted). In applying this standard, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings of fact and credibility determinations if supported by the record. See Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021); see also In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021).

Pennsylvania's Adoption Act ("the Act") governs involuntary termination of parental rights proceedings. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938. If the trial court finds clear and convincing evidence supporting the existence of one of the grounds for termination set forth in subsection 2511(a), the court must then consider whether termination would best serve the child under subsection (b). See In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2010).

In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court must balance the parent's fundamental right "to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control" of his or her child with the "child's essential needs for a parent's care, protection, and support." See In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d at 358. Termination of parental rights can have "significant and permanent consequences for both the parent and child." In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d at 591. Pennsylvania law requires the moving party to establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence, evidence that is so "clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." See Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 830 (Pa. Super. 2022). "[A] parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of [his] child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill [his] parental duties, to the child's right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment." In re B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004).

Here the Orphan's Court terminated Father's parental rights to A.M. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (...