In the Int. of: T.W.E., Jr., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Int. of: T.W.E., Jr., a Minor

DecidedFebruary 7, 2023

Docket1052 MDA 2022

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Int. of: T.W.E., Jr., a Minor (In the Int. of: T.W.E., Jr., a Minor) 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

In the Int. of: T.W.E., Jr., a Minor, (Pa. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A27029-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.W.E., JR., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.E., FATHER : : : : : No. 1052 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered June 27, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2022-0080A

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2023

T.E. (“Father”) appeals from the decree terminating his parental rights

as to his minor child, T.W.E., Jr. (“Child”). We affirm.

Child was born in September 2019. A few weeks after Child’s birth, York

County Office of Children, Youth & Families (“the Agency”) received a referral

regarding concerns about Child’s mother’s (“Mother”)1 ability to care for Child

due to mental health issues. Father was incarcerated at that time due to his

fourth DUI arrest and driving on a suspended license. N.T., 6/27/22, at 27.

Child was adjudicated dependent on October 1, 2019. Child was placed in the

custody of the Agency and in the care of his maternal grandmother (“Maternal

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal. J-A27029-22

Grandmother”). Child has remained in this pre-adoptive home since that time.

Id. at 32-33, 43, 70.

Approximately two and one-half years after the adjudication of

dependency, on April 22, 2022, the Agency filed a petition for involuntary

termination of Father’s parental rights. The court held a hearing on the petition

on June 27, 2022.

The Agency presented the testimony of case worker Heather Sterner.

Sterner testified that Father’s goals were to maintain stable housing and

income, comply with random drug testing, complete a parenting capacity

evaluation, and attend visitation. Id. at 27. She stated that Father was

incarcerated for approximately one year, from August 30, 2019 to August 29,

2020, and is currently on parole. Id. at 27-28. Sterner testified that since

being released from prison, Father has maintained stable housing. Id. at 29.

Father has also had a few different jobs, although none for long periods of

time. Id.

Sterner stated that Father’s drug tests have been clean, but the Agency

had no documentation that Father had attended AA meetings as was

recommended. Id. at 37. Father also completed a parenting capacity

evaluation by Dr. Jonathan Gransee in February 2021. Id. at 35. Dr. Gransee’s

recommendations included continuing to attend therapy to develop skills that

would improve Father’s self-esteem, assertiveness, and decision-making

abilities as they relate to caring for Child, and attending couple’s counseling

-2- J-A27029-22

with Mother. Sterner testified that Father has not developed such skills or

attended couples counseling. Id. at 36.

Sterner testified that since the Agency’s involvement with the family in

October 2019, Father’s visitation has always been supervised except for a

period of approximately two months, from October 2021 to December 2021,

when visits became unsupervised. Id. at 31-32. Visits reverted to supervised

in December 2021 after an incident in which Mother drove with Child while

intoxicated. Id. at 32. Father did not object to visits being returned to

supervised.2 Sterner stated that Father was consistent with visitation in 2021

but was “off and on with his consistency with visits” in 2022. Id. at 30-31.

Father’s last visit with Child was on April 27, 2022, which was two months

prior to the termination hearing. Id. at 30. Father has largely not attended

Child’s medical or professional appointments. Id. at 38-40.

Sterner testified that Child has been in care for approximately 33

months, which is well outside of the time frame for permanent placement. Id.

at 41. Sterner stated that the Agency was willing to give Father more time

because he was making some progress on his goals. Id. at 41-42. Sterner ____________________________________________

2 Father contends he made an “implied” objection to visitation reverting to supervised at the hearing on December 28, 2021. See Father’s Br. at 12-13. However, the record belies Father’s contention and instead reveals he failed to make a clear and specific objection. See N.T., 12/28/21, at 5-6. “In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of the proceedings before the trial court. Failure to timely object to a basic and fundamental error will result in waiver of that issue.” McManamon v. Washko, 906 A.2d 1259, 1274 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Father has waived this argument.

-3- J-A27029-22

also said there were issues due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 42.

However, she testified that after 33 months, Father was still not able to

provide for the care, protection, safety, and development of Child. Id. at 40.

Sterner testified that Child is in a safe, pre-adoptive home and has lived

there since he was one month old. Id. at 32-33, 43. Sterner stated Child has

a loving bond with Maternal Grandmother and looks to her to have his daily

needs met. Id. at 33. Sterner explained that Child has a “small type of

parental bond” with Father, but the bond was more like that of an uncle. Id.

at 34-35. She opined that it was in the best interest of Child for Father’s

parental rights to be terminated and Child would suffer no detrimental impact.

Id. at 42-43.

Father testified that he works at a restaurant and has turned over his

pay stubs every other week to the Agency. Id. at 55-56. He stated that since

visits went back to supervised in January 2022, there were times when his

approved supervisors, who were his sister, niece, and a friend, would go to

Maternal Grandmother’s house and bring Child back to Father’s house to visit.

Id. at 56-59. He believed that the Agency was not aware of these visits and

incorrectly stated that he last visited Child on April 27, 2022. Id. Father

testified that although he was permitted to visit Child at Maternal

Grandmother’s house, he did not get along with her and was allergic to her

cats. Id. at 56, 59. Father said that he recently visited Child a few times at

Child’s maternal grandfather’s house, who does not live with Maternal

Grandmother. Id. at 65.

-4- J-A27029-22

Child’s counsel indicated that although Child cannot articulate his desires

due to his age, he is very happy and well-cared for in Maternal Grandmother’s

home. Id. at 69-70. Childs’s Guardian ad litem concurred with Child’s counsel

and stated that it was in Child’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be

terminated. Id. at 70.

The trial court found that the Agency proved by clear and convincing

evidence that Father’s parental rights should be terminated under Section

2511(a)(2) and (8) and Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act. Father filed a

notice of appeal and raises the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [the Agency] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Father] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 2511(a)(2)[?]

2.

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