Adoption of: J.D., Appeal of: S.D.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 12, 2023
Docket157 WDA 2023
StatusUnpublished

This text of Adoption of: J.D., Appeal of: S.D. (Adoption of: J.D., Appeal of: S.D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adoption of: J.D., Appeal of: S.D., (Pa. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

J-S22002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: J.J.J.D., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.D., FATHER : : : : : No. 157 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered January 10, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Orphans' Court at No(s): C-63-OC-2022-184

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: September 12, 2023

Appellant, S.D. (Father), appeals from the order entered on January 10,

2023, granting a petition filed by the Washington County Children and Youth

Social Service Agency (the Agency) to involuntarily terminate Father’s rights

to his son, J.J.J.D. (J.D. or Child) pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1),

2511(a)(2), 2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8), and 2511(b).1 We affirm.

We briefly summarize the facts and procedural history of this case as

follows. J.D. was born in October 2020. Mother and Father are married, and

both are listed on J.D.’s birth certificate as his parents. On January 4, 2021,

the Agency took Child into care through an emergency verbal order when Child

____________________________________________

1 Mother executed a voluntary termination of parental rights and consent to adoption. The trial court conducted an on-the-record colloquy and granted Mother’s request. Mother is not a party to the current appeal. The Agency and Child’s legal counsel and guardian ad litem filed briefs in support of the order terminating Father’s parental rights. J-S22002-23

was taken to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and there were

additional safety concerns with both parents’ substance and alcohol abuse,

ongoing incidents of domestic violence, and lack of stable housing. Following

a hearing on January 4, 2021, and with the agreement of Mother and Father,

the trial court granted a petition for shelter care filed by the Agency and Child

was placed with his maternal grandparents (Maternal Grandparents), where

he currently resides. The trial court further granted both Mother and Father

visitation with Child to be supervised by Maternal Grandparents. On January

15, 2021, the trial court adjudicated Child dependent and ordered a

permanency plan wherein Father was directed to submit to drug and alcohol

testing twice a month, complete drug and alcohol and mental health

treatment, obtain and maintain stable housing, complete batterer’s

intervention counseling, attend parenting classes, and abide by the terms of

his federal parole.2 On March 24, 2021, the trial court granted Father’s

petition for paternity testing and subsequent testing confirmed Father’s

paternity of Child.

The trial court held four review hearings thereafter. The trial court found

Father minimally compliant with the permanency plan at the first review

hearing held on May 4, 2021. On May 11, 2021, the Agency filed a status

2 At the time of Child’s adjudication, Father was under federal indictment for the sale of narcotics. On October 22, 2022, Father pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a quantity of a mixture and substance containing detectable amount of cocaine and was sentenced to time served and four years of probation.

-2- J-S22002-23

report with the trial court indicating that Mother and Father were involved in

a physical altercation wherein Mother punched Father in the face. Both Mother

and Father were subsequently granted protection from abuse (PFA) from the

other. On July 14, 2021, the trial court granted the Agency’s motion to

suspend Father’s visitation with Child due to the cross-PFAs filed by Mother

and Father. On July 22, 2021, Father’s supervised visitation was reinstated,

but later modified on July 30, 2021, directing Father’s visits with Child be

supervised by an Agency approved person, instead of Maternal Grandparents,

with visitation occurring at Blueprints Visitation House or other Agency

approved location. On August 17, 2021, the trial court held a second

permanency hearing wherein it determined that Father was again minimally

compliant with the permanency plan and found Father made no progress

toward alleviating the circumstances necessitating initial placement. The trial

court held the third review hearing on December 14, 2021. The trial court

again determined that Father was minimally compliant with the permanency

plan in so far as he attended visitation sessions and obtaining housing. The

trial court, however, noted that Father did not participate in alcohol and drug

screenings and/or mental health treatment and there were ongoing domestic

disputes when Mother and Father would encounter each other in passing

coming to and from supervised visitation sessions with Child. The trial court

also ordered the Agency to conduct a bonding assessment between Father

and Child. On April 12, 2022, the trial court held the final review hearing and

determined that Father was moderately compliant with the permanency plan.

-3- J-S22002-23

Father completed batterer’s intervention counseling, parenting classes, drug

and alcohol treatment, and obtained stable housing. Father, however, did not

receive or complete mental health treatment, was inconsistent with drug and

alcohol testing, tested positive for marijuana and methadone, and failed to

maintain consistent visitation with Child.

On February 1, 2022, the Agency filed a petition for involuntary

termination of Father’s parental rights. The trial court held three hearings on

August 31, 2022, September 19, 2022, and October 5, 2022. On January 10,

2023, the trial court entered an order and opinion involuntarily terminating

Father’s rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2),

2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8), and 2511(b). This timely appeal resulted.3

Father presents the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding [the Agency] submitted clear and convincing evidence to terminate Fathers parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §[§] 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8)?

2. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in considering unsubstantiated facts in support of its position, specifically, allegations of “potential domestic abuse” and findings that Father failed to comply with court ordered services pre- petition?

3 Father filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2023. He failed, however, to include a corresponding concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father corrected the error by filing an amended notice of appeal with the concomitant concise statement the following day, February 8, 2023. The trial court relied upon its earlier decision filed on January 10, 2023, as its rationale for the decision to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights.

-4- J-S22002-23

3. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in failing to credit Father with pre[-]petition participation in [c]ourt [o]rdered services?

4. Did the trial court commit an error of law in requiring Father to effectively state on the record his desire for reunification, therein placing a legal burden upon the parent that is not explicitly or implicitly recognized by statute or caselaw?

Father’s Brief at 4.

Our standard of review is well-settled:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re CMS
832 A.2d 457 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2003)
In Re Adoption of M.J.H.
501 A.2d 648 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
Matter of Adoption of Charles EDM, II
708 A.2d 88 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
In Re Adoption of R.J.S.
901 A.2d 502 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
In Re B.,N.M.
856 A.2d 847 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
Sabella, D. v. Appalachian Development Corp.
103 A.3d 83 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
In Re: Adoption of C.D.R., Appeal of: R.R.
111 A.3d 1212 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
In Re: B.J.Z. Appeal of: J.Z.
207 A.3d 914 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2019)
In re B.L.W.
843 A.2d 380 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)
In the Interest of K.Z.S.
946 A.2d 753 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
In re Adoption of C.L.G.
956 A.2d 999 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)
In the Int. of: H.H.N., Appeal of: D.B.
2023 Pa. Super. 108 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adoption of: J.D., Appeal of: S.D., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adoption-of-jd-appeal-of-sd-pasuperct-2023.