In the Interest of: D.N. Appeal of: J.C.M.N. (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S52015-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.N. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.C.M.N., FATHER No. 288 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Decree entered January 2, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000315-2013; CP-51-DP-0000156-2012, FID 51-FN-001196-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. DISSENTING STATEMENT BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2014 I respectfully dissent. I depart from the majority’s analysis with respect to the reliance upon Ms. McCloud’s testimony that no bond existed between Father and Child and I would remand for further proceedings. At the termination hearing, Ms. McCloud stated that Child did not have a bond with Father. N.T., 1/2/14, at 13. In support thereof, she testified as follows: Q: [D]o you believe that [Child] has a parent/child bond with Father? A: No. Q: Why is that? A: Father, while he was out [of prison], he did visit with [Child] but I don’t believe there is a bond between the two. Q: And why is that? * Former Justice specially assigned to Superior Court. J-S52015-14 A: Well, according to the agency Id. (emphasis added). Father’s counsel objected1 and the court sustained the objection. Id. We further note that Ms. McCloud did not supervise the visits with Child. Id. at 21. The trial court opined that “the testimony established that [Child] did not have a bond [sic] her father.” Trial Ct. Op., 4/16/14, at 5 (emphasis added) (unpaginated). However, the trial court did not hear any evidence concerning Child’s interactions with Father during the supervised visits, only Ms. McCloud’s bald assertion that Child did not have a parent/child bond with Father. Ms. McCloud was about to testify only as to what the agency informed her, and in any case the court sustained an objection before she could complete her response. In the circumstances of the instant case, I would find there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the testimony established that Child did not have a bond with Father. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010). 1 Counsel did not state a basis for his objection. -2-
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.
