IN RE: D.M.B., A MINOR, APPEAL OF: T.B., NATURAL FATHER, Appellant IN RE: A.L.B., A MINOR, APPEAL OF: T.B., NATURAL FATHER, Appellant
Appeal from the Order Dated July 11, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Civil Division at No(s): 2013 AD 21A.
Appeal from the Order Dated July 11, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Orphans' Court at No(s): Docket No. 2013 AD 21.
BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
T.B. ("Father") appeals from the orders dated July 11, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his male child, D.M.B., born in January of 2012, and his female child, A.L.B., born in June of 2010. We affirm.
The involvement of Blair County Children and Youth and Family Service ("CYF") with the family precedes A.L.B.'s birth due to the fact that A.W. ("Mother") was receiving services from the agency when she became pregnant with her daughter during 2009. CYF has had physical custody of A.L.B. recurrently since April 29, 2011, and the child was adjudicated dependent on May 24, 2011. Similarly, D.M.B. was placed in CYF's care during November of 2012, and the juvenile court adjudicated him dependent on January 10, 2013, one year after his birth. The facts relevant to Father's appeal are as follows.
Father has a criminal history dating from 2009, when he was arrested for crimes involving burglary, theft, possession of a firearm by a minor, harassment, and statutory sexual assault, inter alia. On June 3, 2010, Father pleaded guilty to drug charges. On October 5, 2010, Father was arrested for simple assault and harassment during a domestic violence incident involving Mother.
At the time of A.L.B.'s adjudication on May 24, 2011, Father was incarcerated. The trial court, in its adjudication order, directed that reasonable efforts not be made to reunify A.L.B. with Father due to his violent history and criminal record. The court granted Father one supervised visit every two weeks at the CYF facility, and Father was responsible for his transportation costs.
Following the first permanency review hearing on October 17, 2011, by order dated October 19, 2011, the trial court found that Father was again incarcerated. The court found that Father was directed to participate in parenting classes, drug and alcohol treatment, a mental health evaluation, and to resolve his legal issues through a service named Men Helping Men.The court considered that Father had not participated in any of these services. The court directed that visits between Father and A.L.B. be at CYF's discretion.
At the next permanency review hearing on March 20, 2012, Father's son, D.M.B., was nearly two months old. By order dated March 23, 2012, the trial court ascertained that Father remained incarcerated in the Blair County Prison and was to be released to state parole on March 28, 2012. The court determined that Father will be subject to state supervision until 2017. Further, the court found that Father had a parole violation pending, and he needed to follow through on the following services: anger management, drug and alcohol treatment, and couples counseling. Finally, the court deemed Father's visits with A.L.B. and D.M.B. to be appropriate.
By order dated March 23, 2012, the court directed that Father comply with all recommended services, including, but not limited to, successfully completing anger management classes, participating in a drug and alcohol evaluation and following through with all recommended treatment, attending couples counseling with Mother, and complying with the terms of his parole and/or probation. The court further ordered that Father's visits with A.L.B. and D.M.B. be arranged at the discretion of CYF.
Following a permanency review hearing on June 27, 2012, the trial court determined that Father had been released from prison as scheduled on March 28, 2012, and he visited with A.L.B. once a week, which was supervised by the Blair County Family Intervention Crisis Services Reunification Program. Father's last visit with A.L.B. was on April 26, 2012. The court concluded that Father has not participated in a drug and alcohol evaluation or an anger management evaluation, and that he denied needing the services. The court's findings continued:
On [April 26, 2012], [Father] refused a drug test and became verbally aggressive. He threatened to burn down the home of [C.C., A.L.B.'s kinship foster mother at the time], and the Duncansville Borough Police were contacted. [F]ather also verbally assaulted [M]other during their joint visit on 4/17/12, and again threatened [M]other on 5/3/12 when she advised him their relationship was over. [Father] threatened to kill [Mother] and the children through text messages. [M]other contacted the Greenfield Police ...