A state appeals court has ruled that a Blair County judge did not err last year when he terminated the parental rights of a father who suffers from mental health problems.

Although the parental rights of both the mother and father have been terminated, the father challenged the judge’s decision, arguing that “the evidence presented by (Blair County Children & Youth Services) was inadequate to demonstrate (he) was unwilling or unable to remedy the conditions set forth in the (agency’s) petition.”

According to an opinion issued last Friday by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the father, represented by attorney Anthony Kattouf, contended he was capable of tending to his young daughter’s needs.

“While the father is not perfect, the underlying concerns of the agency were adequately remedied, (with the father) readily, if not eagerly, continuing his growth as a parent to demonstrate his impassioned commitment to reunifying with the child,” the defense related.

The father emotionally professed the fatherly love and care he held for the child, the defense argument continued.

It then concluded, “Despite these ample measures taken in the reunification process, the court terminated (the father’s) rights — against the weight of the evidence.”

The Superior Court panel hearing the case did not agree with the defense presentation.

In its 16-page opinion, the panel stated, “Our review of the record refutes claims that (the father) has taken ample measures to support reunification with the child.”

The panel that included Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Deborah A. Kunselman and James G. Colins concluded in its review of the case the father “has made no progress in remedying the conditions that led to the child’s removal.”

The appeals court concluded the father offered no evidence he was seeking employment, or that he changed his home conditions that included the mother and a relative suffering from severe mental health issues.

A reunification plan called for the father to participate in mental health therapy, participate in a program for Intimate Partner Violence Intervention and to undergo psychiatric consultation.

The appeals court concluded that it does not “countenance a delay in seeking permanency (for a child) while a parent works to correct his or her deficiencies.”

It was also pointed out that the couple had a history with the county’s child welfare agency that dated back to 2014 and 2017, when two of their other children were removed from the home and eventually adopted by their foster parents.

The present case involved a daughter who was born in 2021 and who was immediately placed under the care of the county child welfare agency because hospital personnel had concerns about the couple’s ability to care for the newborn.

The child remains in foster care.

Blair County Senior Judge Timothy M. Sullivan, who presided over the termination case, pointed out the child’s transition to the foster home “has been very positive.”

The foster mother testified the youngster has developed a “strong positive bond” with her foster parents, a sentiment shared by Children & Youth Services, Sullivan concluded.

“In sum, we hold (the Blair Court) did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in terminating father’s rights,” according to the Superior Court ruling.