In the Interest of: G.S., A Minor, Appeal of: W.S.
824 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Child (born 2012) was removed in Aug 2015 after mother’s hospitalization; OCY alleged mother had mental health, substance, housing problems. Father initially not known; later added to dependency petition.
- Father and Mother had married shortly before Child’s birth; they separated April 2015. Father had a PFA for domestic violence incidents, at least one occurring in Child’s presence.
- OCY sought paternity testing after Mother claimed a different biological father; initial testing delayed and later confirmed Father was not the biological parent. Father was nonetheless the legal father for support purposes earlier.
- Psychological examiner Dr. von Korff diagnosed significant personality/anger issues, found Father required long-term treatment, and performed a bonding assessment showing an insecure, degraded attachment with Child. Father denied need for treatment.
- Over several permanency hearings OCY requested adding adoption as a concurrent goal and sought to discontinue services/visitation for Father; the trial court ultimately ordered OCY to cease services and visitation (May 12, 2016) while keeping reunification concurrent with adoption. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | OCY/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred in suspending services/visitation pending paternity results | Suspension was improper; Father bonded with Child and posed no grave threat | OCY argued Father was not a viable placement resource given domestic violence history, nonbiological status, and untreated mental health issues | Court affirmed suspension/cessation as within discretion and in Child’s best interest |
| Whether concurrent goal of reunification/adoption was no longer feasible | Father claimed he was making progress toward reunification and court’s finding of noncompliance was unsupported | OCY argued Child needed permanency; Father not viable due to need for long-term treatment and weakened bond | Court held focus is child’s best interest; cessation of services appropriate despite nine months elapsed |
| Appealability/timeliness of May 12, 2016 order | Father argued appeal proper | OCY moved to quash as interlocutory/untimely (pointing to earlier Dec 29 order) | Court found May 12 order final and appealable (suspension of visitation and removal as resource is appealable) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying independent mental evaluation / reopening hearing after Father’s absence | Father requested new evaluation and reopening; argued procedural unfairness | Trial court declined new evaluation and denied motion to reopen; noted doctor available and assessment was entered without objection | Court deemed Father abandoned nonattendance claim; affirmed court’s procedural rulings and weighing of expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.B., 861 A.2d 287 (Pa. Super. 2004) (order suspending visitation is final and appealable)
- In re H.S.W.C.-B, 836 A.2d 908 (Pa. 2003) (orders granting or denying goal change are appealable)
- In re C.M., 882 A.2d 507 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appealability of goal determinations and focus on child’s best interest)
- In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2006) (ASFA/Juvenile Act require shifting to adoption when reunification efforts fail)
- In re M.B., 869 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of appellate review in dependency cases — abuse of discretion focused on child’s best interests)
- Mensch v. Mensch, 713 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 1998) (jurisdictional/appealability questions reviewed de novo)