In Re: C.S., a Minor Appeal of: J.S. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S37002-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.S. No. 107 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Dated December 19, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 43 Year of 2013 ***** IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.S.S., IV, A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.S. No. 108 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Dated December 19, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 57 Year of 2012 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 02, 2014 terminating his parental rights to his minor son, J.S. (born April 2009) and daughter, C.S. (born April 2012) (col contends that Northumberland County Children and Youth Services (CYS) did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist and that the best interests of the children would be served by terminating his parental rights. After careful review, we affirm. J-S37002-14 J.S. and C.S. were placed into the temporary care and custody of CYS in August 2001 and September 26, 2012, respectively, and ultimately 1 caregiver issues. drug and alcohol abuse, Children were placed in kinship care with their maternal aunt. Father was ordered to participate in services in order to reunify with Children. Specifically, he was ordered to undergo mental health treatment, parenting classes and relationship counseling.2 Father refused mental health treatment, stating that he did not have any mental health issues, despite the fact that he has a history of psychiatric hospitalizations due to suicide attempts. Father did attend some counseling at a family center, but did not June 2012 for two weeks; C.S. was later returned to kinship care with maternal aunt, after which visits with Father were supervised. Children have been residing together in a foster home since January 2013.3 ____________________________________________ 1 Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to children and is not a party to this appeal. 2 Although Mother and Father attended counseling sessions with their pastor, CYS informed the couple that because the pastor was not a licensed therapist she was not a qualified counselor for purposes of complying with the court-ordered service. 3 J.S. resided in the foster home from August 2011 until December 2011, prior to be transitioned back to kinship care with maternal aunt. -2- J-S37002-14 CYS filed termination petitions on November 20, 2012 (for J.S.) and August 14, 2013 (for C.S.); termination hearings were held in September 2013, October 2013 and December 2013. On December 19, 2013, the trial Children under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b). Essentially, the trial court determined that: Father failed to comply with court-ordered services in any meaningful way and refused to acknowledge services interfered with his ability to accomplish any reunification with Children; Children had been removed from Father for at least 12 months;4 severing the bond between Father and Children would not have any lasting, detrimental effects on Children. In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so "clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination. ____________________________________________ 4 At the time the termination petitions were filed, J.S. had been in placement for 24 months and C.S. for 12 months. -3- J-S37002-14 In re adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). See also In C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)). rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining Id. edy where he was consistent with visitation, lived in an appropriate home for the children, completed drug and alcohol and family center intakes, participated in a parenting class, and substantially improved his relationship with Mother need for mental health treatment has the detrimental effect of placing the needs and welfare of his children ahead of his own pride. Father has a founded history of psychiatric hospitalizations due to suicide attempts and a long history of criminal behavior. In fact, at the time of the termination hearings, Father was still on probation for possession with intent to deliver. Doctor Kasey Shienvold, a licensed psychologist who clinically evaluated -4- J-S37002-14 Father, testified that Father is extremely defensive and paranoid about professionals conspiring in order to keep him away from Children. appeared highly agitated at his assessment with Dr. He Shienvold, demonstrating significant evidence of anger and persecutory thoughts. CYS caseworkers testified that Father consistently attended his scheduled5 visits with the children, as well as weekly attending the Pregnancy Care Center6 for counseling. N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/9/13, at 50, 51. classes. However, Father never successfully completed any parenting Moreover, Father and Mother never completed ordered marriage therapy with a licensed therapist. CYS caseworkers testified that a large one occasion Mother told a caseworker that J.S., who was three-years-old at own the toilet. Essentially, the trial court found that the conditions that led to record, we agree with this determination and conclude that CYS proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination is justified under sections ____________________________________________ 5 The visits began as supervised and slowly transitioned to some unsupervised visitation over the course of a few months. In February 2012 they changed to unsupervised weekends. N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/9/13, at 47. 6 At the time, Mother and Father were expecting another child. -5- J-S37002-14 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8). See In the Interest of I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340 (Pa. Super. 2014) (involuntary termination of father's parental rights to three sons supported by evidence; children had been in agency custody for requisite period of time and father had not met objectives relating to drug and alcohol treatment, housing, and employment); In re S.D.T., 934 A.2d 703, (Pa. Super. 2007) (parental termination justified under sections 2511(a)(5) and (8) where it was supported by evidence that son had been petition, conditions that led to that removal (incarceration and substance abuse treatment) continued to exist and it was reasonable to conclude that father was unlikely to remedy those conditions within reasonable period of time). Father also asserts that because an emotional bond remains between him and Children, CYS failed to prove that it was in the best interests of the Children to terminate his parental rights. A clinical psychologist testified at the termination hearing that although there was a parental attachment with children and Father, there the presence of strong attachments or strong healthy Termination Hearing, 9/9/13, at 26, 41. That same professional also opined how he expressed affection to Father, which suggested that he did not have as strong an attachment with Father as he does with his foster parents. Id. at 24. The -6- J-S37002-14 lacked a strong, healthy attachment between Father and children. Id. at 26, 42. Finally, the psychologist opined that there would be no significant risk of long-term effects to the children if parental rights were terminated. Id. at 29. Under such circumstances, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination would meet the emotional needs and welfare of the children under section 2511(b). See In re K.C.F., 928 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2007). Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/2/2014 -7-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
