In Re: B.J.Z. Appeal of: J.Z.
207 A.3d 914
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2019Background
- Three children (born 2009, 2011, 2013) had long-standing child welfare involvement; family services and in‑home treatment were provided since 2009 and the children were adjudicated dependent in 2016.
- Parents lost housing, became homeless in 2016, and signed a voluntary placement agreement; children remained in Agency custody from November 2016 onward.
- The Agency filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) in November 2017.
- At the termination hearing, children’s court‑appointed legal‑interests counsel conveyed the children’s expressed wishes to the court; Father objected that those statements were inadmissible hearsay and that the children should testify and be subject to cross‑examination.
- The trial court found Father had long‑standing incapacity (housing, employment, substance abuse, mental health), had not remedied those conditions, and that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs because they had formed strong bonds with their foster family.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency/Other Parties’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of children’s statements when relayed by legal‑interests counsel (hearsay) | Statements relayed by children’s legal‑interests counsel were hearsay and inadmissible; Father was denied right to confront/question the children. | L.B.M. and related authority permit child‑directed counsel to convey children’s expressed wishes; compelling children to testify risks trauma; such statements are admissible for their evidentiary purpose. | Court allowed legal‑interests counsel to report children’s wishes; concluded statements were admissible and did not violate due process. |
| Right to have children testify and be cross‑examined | Father sought direct testimony from children and opportunity to question them because counsel’s statements were not subject to cross‑examination. | Testimony of young children is not required in termination proceedings; courts may accept reports from counsel/caseworkers; forcing testimony can be traumatic and is not mandated. | Court declined to require children to testify; found no error in admitting counsel’s report of children’s wishes. |
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 2511(a)(2) and (b) (parental incapacity; children’s needs/welfare) | Father argued he had made progress and should be given more time; Agency failed to prove incapacity irreparable and did not show termination best served children. | Father had ongoing housing, employment, substance abuse, and mental‑health problems; inconsistent visitation; foster family provided stability and strong bond; termination favored children’s need for permanence. | Court found clear and convincing evidence of repeated and continued incapacity that would not be remedied and that termination served children’s best interests; decrees terminating Father’s parental rights affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (requires child‑directed legal counsel and recognizes counsel’s role in conveying child’s preferred outcome)
- In re Child M., 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996) (statements a child makes to others are admissible to show child’s mental state; parent cannot force abused child to testify)
- In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (child testimony is not a requisite element in involuntary termination proceedings; different evidentiary standards than custody/adoption)
- In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080 (Pa. 2018) (discusses guardian ad litem duties under Juvenile Act to advise court of child’s wishes to the extent ascertainable)
- In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under § 2511(a)(2) and guidance on permanence vs. parental progress)