NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: C.K. : : No.

Transcription

1 J. S25014/16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE INTEREST OF: L.K., A MINOR : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: C.K. : : No WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order, August 27, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans Court Division at No. CP-02-AP BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY AND JENKINS, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 08, 2016 Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, L.K. born in December of The trial court terminated Father s rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (b). We affirm on the trial court s findings and its thorough and comprehensive opinion filed on November 20, This is not a close case, and clear and convincing evidence for termination is beyond question based on Father s physical injury to L.K. when she was an infant and for which he has since been incarcerated. L.K. is doing very well in foster placement with her aunt, and her emotional and physical needs are being cared for. Order affirmed.

2 J. S25014/16 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/8/

3 Circulated 06/27/ :04 PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS. COURT DIVISION RE: IN THE INTEREST OF: L.K.. a minor child CHJLDREN'S J?AST TRACK APPEAL APPEAL OF: C.K... natural father: Docket No.: CP-02 -AP WDA 2015 OPINION HENS-GRECO. J. November On August 26, 2015, following a one-day hearing on the above captioned matter in which C.K. (''Father'') appeared, this Court issued an order' granting the petition of the Allegheny County Office of Children. Youth and Families ("CYF') for involuntary termination of the parental rights of Father, the natural parent of L.K. (DOB 12/10/2009). pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 251 l(a)(2). (a)(5). and 251 ltb). For the reasons set forth below. the Order of this Court terminating the parents' rights to the children should be affirmed. A. Standard CYF based its petition to terminate Father's parental rights on 23 Pa.C.S.A. 25 J I (a)(2). and (a)(5). These subsections provide for the involuntary termination of parental rights if the petitioner can establish any of the following grounds: (a)(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse. neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse. neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent I I Mother LG. did not comes: the termination of her parental right». nor does she appeal. The case also included the termination of LG:~ parental rights as 10 L.K.'i. half-sibling I..M Neither their Mother. nor I..M.'~ Father. A.M.. 1:n111e~1cd their termination of their rights, Neither appeals.

4 (a)(s) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months. the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time. lhe services or assistance reasonably available to the parent arc not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removed or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child ] 13 Pa. C.S.A (a)(2), (a)(5). Once the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights have been clearly shown, the Court must consider whether the termination would meet the needs and welfare of the child under subsection 2511 (b): (b) Other considerations. - The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental. physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings. income. clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)( I). (6), or (8). the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petitions. 23 Pa. C.S.A (b). A party seeking termination of parental rights muse establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies at least one of the statutory grounds for termination; if it is determined that this burden of proof has been met, then the trial court must next consider the second step of the process. which s a determination of whether termination best serves the needs and welfare of the child. In re S.D. T...Ir A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007). In reviewing an order terminating parental rights. the appellate court "is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion. an error of law. or insufficient cvidentiary support for the trial court's decision. the decree must stand." /11 re S.H A.2d (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore. the trial court is.. the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and resolves all conflicts in testimony." Id.

5 With the above standards in mind. and based on the admitted evidence and testimony of the CYF Caseworker Stacey Policicchio and Father C.K., the Court found the following facts. which persuaded the Court that grounds for termination had been firmly established: B. Relevant Factual History Child L.K. first came to the attention of CYF upon her birch on December See Testimony of Transcript (hereinafter "T.T."), dated August 26, 2015, at 7. The agency was already familiar with the child's Mother and older sister. L.M, who was adjudicated dependent in But the child was not removed at that time. On October 12, L.K. was admitted to Children's Hospital. where it was revealed that the child have severe skull fractures. Id. It was determined that the injury was "nonaccidental." Id. In fact, the injury was near-fatal, and she was placed in the Intensive Care Unit for 10 weeks. It was also established that the child was in Father's care at thor time. Father pied guilty to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child. ld., at 14; see also CYF Exhibit I. He was sentenced to four to eight years at SCI Camp Hill. Id. However. CYF closed its case. as the child appeared to be under Mother's adequate supervision. On May I both of the children came to the attention of the agency again. They were adjudicated dependent on June 2, There were allegations that Mother was using heroin. The older sibling. L.M., then age 5, was interviewed by the investigating caseworker. LM demonstrated an extensive knowledge of Mother's drug use. ld., at 6. She also testified that she was being abused hy Mother's boyfriend. L.K., then age 4, told the caseworker that her Mother likes to part and then take a nap. CYF obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization ("ECA "), and the children were removed. Id. L. K. was never returned to the care of her Mother. Mother did not comest the termination of her parental rights. Since her removal, L.K. has been in the home of her pre-adoptive foster parent. T.O., who is the child's maternal great aunt. The agency commenced litigation against Father C.K. on an "aggravated 3

6 circumstances" basis. The Court found that Father physically abused L.K., which resulted in her serious bodily injury. Id.. at J 0-1 I. The Court relieved the agency of providing reasonable efforts to reunify Father and daughter at that rime. ld., at 12. C. Discussion In his wholesale appeal, Father argues that this Court erred when it terminated his rights as to 23 Pa. C.S.A (a)(2), (a)(5) and 251 J{b). See Father's Notice of Appeal and Statement of Errors.1 In typical dependency cases, CYF and the parent will create a Family Service Plan to reunify the child with the parent. To facilitate this, CYF will create Family Service Plan ("'FSP'") goals. In this case, however. because this Court had previously found "aggravated circumstances," CYF was not tasked with the burden of providing reasonable efforts to reunify. Id., at 19. Father's FSP goals were simply to follow the rules at prison. Id. Beyond this, CYF was limited because there was a no contact order in place against Father as 10 L.K. due to the violent actions Father took against the then l Ovmouthold L.K. The no-contact order was certainly justifiable. For several years after her life-threatening injury. the child was forced 10 wear a helmet on her head as there was a bolt in the side or her skull so as to prevent further harm. ld., at 20. In May 2015, she had a surgery Lo fix 'the hole in her skull that was caused as a result of the initial trauma. Id.. at As a result of the injury. the child developed a seizure disorder, for which she must take medication. See Order of Cou11, dated May 11, 20 l 5. To be clear. there is no question Father caused this injury. He acknowledged his fault at a permanency review hearing on February Id.. at However. Father continues to deny any wrongdoing. Id. at 38. He further acknowledged that he was not following the prison's rules. Id., al' The earliest Father could be paroled is in Id.. at 29. i In what appears to be a typo. Father alleges thal thb Court erred in terminating his rights pursuunt 10 ** 2511 (a)(2 J. (a)(5).(oj(8)... (Emphasis added). This Court only terminated Father's rights a~ 10 **{a}(2) and (5). 4

7 Father claims that he could be released by the end of Id. at 36. He also claimed that he had participated in a number of self-improvement programs while incarcerated. These include: drug and alcohol treatment; a parenting program; and violence prevention. ld., at 37. He also testified that he received mental health treatment. Id. Be that as it may. the Court cannot deny two facts. Father inflicted an injury so grievous to L.K. that it nearly killed her. but he refusing to acknowledge that he was responsible. ld., at 38. Second, the last time he has seen the child was when she was in the ambulance on the way lo the hospital. nearly five years ago. In other words. Father has not seen L. K. in nearly 5 years; he likely will not see her for at least another two. Even if it was to ignore u mountain of other factors, the Court must note that the earliest Father could provide anything dose to appropriate parental care for L.K. is when the child is 8 years old: for all intents and purposes. il would be as if they were meeting for the first time. The reason Father has not seen the child is because he has been incarcerated for his actions, with a no contact order in place. Taken all together. these facts make clear that Father is incapable of parenting L. K. For the abovementioned reasons, and per 251 l(a)(2) and (a)(5 ). there is clear and convincing evidence proving that the child has been without essential parental care due to Father's abuse. His abuse led to his extended incarceration and no-contact order. This has rendered Father incapable of parenting. The incapacity continues to exist and cannot be remedied for at least two more years. Once the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental tights have been clearly shown, the Cou11 must consider whether the termination would meetthe needs and welfare of the child under subsection *1511 (b). This Cou11 notes the child's room for improvement, per Dr. Rosenblum's Report. See CYF Exhibit 2. However. it is clear that L. K. is in good hands. Dr. Rosenblum reported that the pre-adoptive foster parent "as done a good job of providing the girls with needed stability and a supportive family environment." Id., ar 7. It is also clear that L.K. was on a positive trajectory at the rime of Dr. Rosenblum's evaluation. which was conducted in September The child's great aunt has dearly 5

8 served the emotional. physical and emotional needs of the child. She has provided the most stability that this child has ever known. Termination would be in this child's best interest. After a careful review or all the evidence set forth above, this Court concluded that CYF had carried the burden or proving by clear and convincing evidence that Father's rights should be terminated and that the child's best interests will be served thereby. For these reasons, the decision of the Court should be affirmed. BY THE COURT: 6