In the Interest of: C.E.C. a minor Appeal of: C.C.
256 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Child C.E.C., born July 2014, was removed from parental care and adjudicated dependent after CYF found unsafe conditions in the home (homelessness, lack of food, presence of dangerous individuals, drug use, and domestic violence).
- Father (C.C.) has an extensive criminal history, admitted history of violence toward Mother, and there was an active Protection From Abuse order between parents. Father also used substances and displayed impulsive, threatening conduct during contact with agency staff.
- CYF opened casework involvement before the child’s birth, created a Family Service Plan (FSP) after removal (parenting classes, housing assistance, psychological evaluation, domestic violence treatment, twice-weekly visits), and alleged Father failed to complete any required goals.
- Visits were reduced for nonappearance and threatening behavior; Father was arrested on outstanding warrants and repeatedly failed to comply with review orders and reunification recommendations.
- Psychologist Dr. O’Hara evaluated Father, testified Father posed risk for future violence, lacked coping skills/support, refused therapy, and could not safely parent unsupervised; he recommended termination.
- The Orphans’ Court granted CYF’s petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5) and (b); Father appealed but waived his challenge to reasonable efforts and raised only the best-interests/needs-and-welfare issue on appeal. Court of Common Pleas opinion affirmed; Superior Court affirmed the order.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | CYF / Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYF provided reasonable reunification services | Father argued CYF failed to provide services (claimed visitation/service denial tied to paternity procedure) | CYF asserted it provided services, paternity was quickly established, and Father was uninterested/noncompliant | Waived on appeal by Father; Superior Court notes even if preserved, lack of reasonable-efforts would not bar termination in these facts |
| Whether termination serves the child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b) | Father contended termination was not in child’s best interests | CYF and trial court pointed to long removal period, Father’s violence, criminal history, substance use, refusal of treatment, lack of parenting capacity and bond, and expert recommendation for termination | Affirmed: termination meets child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs (termination in child’s best interests) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review and appellate deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (framework for termination review and deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- In the Interest of D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable-efforts analysis in dependency/termination context)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (a child placed most of life in foster care may lack a bond with a natural parent)
- In re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (burden of proof and two-step analysis under §2511)
- In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (trial court is sole determiner of witness credibility in TPR proceedings)