Termination of parental rights is decision which the Court takes immensely seriously. I.D.N. a K a I.N., 2018 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2352 is illustrative of the type of situation which leads to termination of parental rights. Typically, this procedure is started by an individual or agency which notifies DHS about a child. Without delving too deeply, certain child care organizations are required by law to notify the authorities if they see evidence of abuse. Then the Department of Human Services (DHS) becomes involved. In the case we are discussing the mother had already had her parental rights terminated. However, the father still had rights. However, DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to sections 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.2 The Court held a termination hearing at which a DHS social worker case manager and Father testified. The Court entered an order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights.
The father filed an appeal of the Court’s determination.
23 Pa.C.S. 2101-2910 indicates the following: [i]n a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence considering the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination. In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). See also in re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. 2511(b)).
The facts which led to termination are as follows: Although the father participated in some FSP meetings he did not complete the required course. The father also never completed a course of treatment for his cocaine addiction and missed (unexcused) 21 of his 42 treatment sessions. Compounding this father had all positive (cocaine) drug screenings since his last report and did not verify legitimate employment with DHS. On the positive side he consistently attended supervised bi-weekly visits with the child and completed parenting classes. The tenor of the testimony from DHS was that the agency was concerned with the child’s safety with the father.
The Court determined that father’s inability to rehabilitate and overcome his cocaine addiction, his failure to progress from supervised to unsupervised visitation with Child, and his inability to complete his FSP basic goals of securing housing and verifying employment warrants termination. The bottom line for the father here, is that when DHS becomes involved as a parent you MUST fulfill all of the parenting goals that DHS formulates. If you fail to do so, your chances of getting your child back are poor and your chances of losing your child become better when these failures are also compounded with drug addiction.
The law states that when 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 / her 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 then termination is appropriate.