In the Interest of: D.A.H., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Interest of: D.A.H., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 2, 2016·No. 3011 EDA 2015·Unpublished

Opinion

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.A.H., A/K/A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF D.H., A MINOR PENNSYLVANIA

v.

APPEAL OF: E.H., FATHER No. 3011 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Decree September 9, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000262-2015; CP-51-DP-0002032-2012

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 02, 2016 Father appeals from the September 9, 2015, decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Family Court, Juvenile Division, which involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor daughter, D.A.H. (“Child”), born in September of 2003. In addition, Father appeals from the order entered on that same date, which changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption.1 We affirm.

Father has an extensive criminal history, and following his January 21, 2010, arrest in connection with a homicide, Father was convicted of second-

degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. On October 17, 2012, the

1 The parental rights of Child’s mother, R.N., were terminated by a separate decree. Mother is not a party to the instant appeal and she has not filed a separate appeal.

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

Department of Human Services of Philadelphia Count (“DHS”) received a General Protective Services report alleging that, on October 10, 2012, Mother was admitted to Interim House for drug and alcohol treatment. However, the report further alleged that, on October 16, 2012, Mother left the treatment facility after she was found to be in possession of drug paraphernalia and tested positive for narcotics.

After learning Mother was not complying with substance abuse treatment, DHS filed a dependency petition, and on November 19, 2012, Child was adjudicated dependent. Child remained in Mother’s physical custody but under DHS’s supervision, and Mother was referred to the Clinical Evaluation Unit.

On August 19, 2013, at a permanency review hearing, the trial court discovered that Child was residing with Mother at the house of one of Mother’s friends. DHS subsequently learned that one of the members living in the house had been convicted of aggravated assault, and Child did not have appropriate bedding in the house. Accordingly, the matter proceeded to another permanency review hearing on November 20, 2013, at the conclusion of which the trial court concluded it was in Child’s best interest to be removed from Mother’s care. During the November 20, 2013, hearing, Mother revealed to the court Child’s Father’s identity.

On February 19, 2014, at a permanency review hearing, the trial court ordered a Parent Location Services (“PLS”) search to be conducted in order

to find Father; however, Father was unable to be located. The trial court noted that Father had not availed himself of DHS. Following a permanency review hearing on May 20, 2014, the trial court ordered another PLS on Father and the trial court again noted that Father had not availed himself of DHS. At a subsequent permanency review hearing on February 13, 2015, the trial court found that Father was incarcerated at SCI Greene, a State Correctional Institution, under the alias of E.L.

On April 15, 2015, DHS filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights to Child, and on August 10, 2015, the trial court held a hearing regarding the termination of parental rights, as well as whether a goal change was necessary. At the hearing, Father, Megahn Vanblarcum, a case manager for Community Umbrella Agencies (“CUA”), Child, and Margaret Littlefoot, an outcome specialist for CUA, testified. Mother was not present at the hearing.

Father was represented by counsel and available from the prison via telephone. Father admitted that he has been in prison since January of 2010, and the last time he saw Child was at Christmas time in 2009. N.T., 8/10/15, at 18. He indicated that, after he went to prison, he lost contact with Mother and had no contact with Child. Id. He had not seen, spoken to, or written to Child in the five years prior to the hearing. Id. at 19, 26. Father admitted that he is not with Child to make sure she is safe and that

the first time he wrote a letter to DHS inquiring about Child was when he learned of the termination proceedings. Id. at 20-21.

He testified that, prior to going to prison in January of 2010, he worked “under the table” and received mental health services. Id. at 23-24. Also, prior to January of 2010, he did not live with Mother and Child, although he would visit Child a “couple of times throughout the month.” Id. at 19, 24. However, he admitted that, prior to January of 2010, he had been in prison for other periods of Child’s life, although generally not longer than eight or nine months at a time. Id. at 22. Father indicated he had filed a criminal appeal from his life sentence and, in the event he was released, he wanted full custody of Child. Id. at 23.

Ms. Vanblarcum testified she made outreach efforts to Father in the beginning of May of 2015. Id. at 32. She confirmed that Child is in a pre- adoptive home and Child has not expressed any wish to contact Father. Id. at 33-35.

Child, who was at the time eleven years old, testified she has had no contact with Father for five or six years. Id. at 38-39. As to whether she wanted to contact him during this time, she indicated her mind “wasn’t really set on it.” Id. at 39. Child testified she was happy with her current placement; however, she would like contact with Father in the form of letters or telephone calls. Id. at 40-41.

Ms. Littlefoot testified that, in February of 2015, she sent an outreach letter to Father at the SCI Greene facility informing him that Child was in DHS’s care. Id. at 41-42. Father did not respond to her until July of 2015. Id. at 43.

The matter continued to another hearing on September 9, 2015, at which Ms. Vanblarcum again testified. She indicated that Child had been having a rough time since the last hearing, she was removed from her foster home, and she was placed with Paternal Aunt. N.T., 9/9/15, at 13-15. Ms. Vanblarcum indicated Child wants to remain with Paternal Aunt. Id. at 15. Ms. Vanblarcum testified it would be in Child’s best interest for the goal to be changed to adoption. Id. at 18-19.

The trial court subsequently filed a decree involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child and an order changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption.

On November 7, 2015, Father timely filed notices of appeal, along with a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). Father raises the following issues, which we set forth verbatim:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when terminating Father’s parental rights under [Subection] 2511(b) without taking into account the emotional needs of Child, and relying solely, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of “needs and welfare of child” of the subsection, on the testimonies of the social worker and not considering Child’s testimonies, and, therefore, terminating Father’s parental rights on non[-]competent or insufficient evidence?

2. Did the trial court err in changing Child’s [p]ermanency [g]oal to [a]doption when the prospective adopting family had not been certified and creat[ing] the risk of making Child an orphan subsequent to the termination of [F]ather’s parental rights?

Father’s Brief at 2.

Initially, we set forth our standard of review regarding orders terminating parental rights:

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