In re R.I.S. - 614 Pa. 275, 36 A.3d 567 (2011)

Rule:

A party seeking the termination of parental rights bears the burden of proving that grounds for termination exist by clear and convincing evidence. 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 hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. Although the standard of review for an appellate court in these matters is limited to the determination of whether a trial court's decree is supported by competent evidence, the factual findings of the trial court should not be sustained where the court has abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Thus, absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, where the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence, an appellate court must affirm the trial court even though the record could support the opposite result.

Facts:

C.S., Father, was sentenced to serve two to four years’ incarceration in June 2008. In January 2009, York County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) filed an application for protective custody of the children, based in part on a request for emergency placement made by the biological mother of the children, K.H. (“Mother”). The children were adjudicated dependent in February 2009, and were placed together in a temporary foster home. A pre-adoptive resource was identified by CYS, and in December 2009, CYS filed petitions for changes in the placement goals for the children from reunification to adoption, and for the involuntary termination of the parental rights of Father and Mother. Following the hearing, the trial court entered orders denying the goal change petitions and the involuntary termination petitions with respect to Father, concluding that the CYS had not proven any of the statutory bases for the involuntary termination of Father's rights. According to the trial court, the existence and length of the father's incarceration was insufficient on its own as basis for the petitioned change. The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Father’s incarceration was evidence of his parental incapacity. The Father appealed.

Issue:

Did the Superior Court err in reversing the trial court’s determination on the lack of basis for the involuntary termination of the Father’s parental rights?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On further review, the Court found that the Superior Court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trier of fact. The Court noted that the trial court's determination that the length of the father's sentence was not so great as to foreclose the possibility of the successful maintenance of the parent-child relationship, and that termination of his rights would not serve the best interests of the children, was supported by the evidence.