×

Court upholds decision to terminate dad’s rights

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has issued a second opinion in a case involving a Blair County family, upholding a decision by a judge to terminate a dad’s parental rights.

Earlier this month, the state appeals court had terminated the mother’s parental rights finding that she had refused to address her mental health problems and had a “tumultuous and even violent” relationship with the child’s father.

A three-judge panel determined the mother could not provide the “safe, stable and nurturing environment the child needs.”

It also found the youngster had developed a strong bond with a foster care family and that Blair County Children, Youth & Families, the county’s child welfare agency, had changed its goal of eventually returning the child to his natural parents to one of adoption.

The same panel of judges, Victor P. Stabile, Jack A. Panella and Mary Jane Bowes, last week issued a second opinion in which it found that the father also could not provide a home in which the child would thrive, and they agreed with Blair County Judge Timothy M. Sullivan’s decision issued seven months ago to terminate the father’s parental rights.

The opinion issued last week dealt with many of the same issues that were reviewed in the mother’s case.

The child was born in early 2016, and within four months, Children, Youth & Families intervened.

In May 2016, the agency asked for an emergency protective custody order because the child was already experiencing developmental delays.

It determined the mother had intellectual and mental health concerns that were interfering with the child’s progress.

Testimony before Sullivan indicated the parents were not cooperating with agency workers, with the father refusing to undergo a mental health evaluation.

The father, it was reported, had his parental rights from a previous relationship terminated, which raised a red flag.

On Sept. 1, 2017, Sullivan terminated the rights of both parents, and the father’s Altoona attorney, Suzanne M. Bigelow-Cherry, appealed.

The Superior Court performed a two-part analysis, which first focused on the parents — whether there was clear and convincing evidence supporting grounds for the termination — followed by an analysis of what was in the “best interests of the child.”

The father insisted he was capable of parenting the child, that he has appropriate housing and is available to serve as a parent.

The father’s record, however, showed a history of violence that included attacking a teacher when he was younger, pulling a sword when fighting with friends and two protection-from-abuse orders brought by a former girlfriend.

More recently, he grabbed the arm of a caseworker. The agency recommended he undergo counseling for “anger issues, alcohol use and intermittent explosive disorder.”

He admits, the Superior Court stated, that he is in need of counseling.

The court also pointed out the father had the opportunity over a seven-month period to attend 16 supervised visits with the child, but attended only eight.

Testimony showed also that during his visits, the child “did not appear bonded with him,” the appeals court opinion stated.

It concluded that … “preserving (the father’s) parental rights would serve only to deny the child the benefits of a permanent, safe and stable home.”

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

COMMENTS

Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today