Opinion
J-S27032-17 No. 2977 EDA 2016 No. 2978 EDA 2016 No. 2979 EDA 2016 No. 2980 EDA 2016 No. 2981 EDA 2016
06-22-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M.P.E. A/K/A D.E., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: A.L.E., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: T.K.E., III, A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: J.E.E., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: J.J.E., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000749-2015 CP-51-DP-0125918-2009
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009 Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000751-2015 CP-51-DP-0001624-2014
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009 Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000750-2015 CP-51-DP-0125919-2009
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009 Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000747-2015 CP-51-DP-0001626-2014
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009 Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000748-2015 CP-51-DP-0001625-2014
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
In these consolidated appeals, T.K.E., Jr. (Father) appeals the decrees and orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered August 17, 2016, that terminated his parental rights to his children, D.M.P.E., T.K.E., III, A.L.E., J.E.E., and J.J.E. (Children), and changed the Children's permanency goals to adoption. We affirm.
This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte,on October 13, 2016.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of the Children's mother, J.P. (Mother), on February 24, 2016. Mother did not appeal that termination.
Philadelphia's Department of Human Services (DHS) filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights to the Children on October 23, 2015. The trial court aptly summarized the events that led DHS to file those petitions in its opinion entered December 15, 2016. We direct the reader to that opinion for the facts of this case.
The trial court held hearings on DHS' petitions on February 24, 2016, and August 17, 2016. Neither Mother nor Father was present at the February 24 hearing, but both were represented by counsel. ( See N.T. Hearing, 2/24/16, at 2, 4). Father was transported from prison to attend the hearing on August 17. ( See N.T. Hearing, 8/17/16, at 8). Testifying at the hearings, in addition to Father, was caseworker Khaliah Moody. The trial court entered its decrees terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), and its orders changing the permanency goals to adoption pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351, on August 17, 2016. Father filed his timely notices of appeal and statements of errors complained of on appeal on September 12, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
The trial court entered an opinion on December 15, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii). --------
Father raises the following question on appeal:
A. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by entering an order on August 17, 2016 involuntarily terminating the parental rights of [F]ather where [F]ather attempted to contact DHS/CUA [(Community Umbrella Agency)] on numerous occasions to be notified of his objectives and to visit with his [C]hildren without any response?(Father's Brief, at 5).
We have examined the opinion entered by the trial court on December 15, 2016, in light of the record in this matter, and we are satisfied that it is a complete and correct analysis of this case. Further, with respect to Father's chief argument alleging DHS' failure to provide reasonable reunification efforts, we observe that our Supreme Court has held:
Neither [f]ather nor the Superior Court point to any Pennsylvania or federal provision that requires delaying permanency for a child due to the failure of an agency to provide reasonable services, when a court has otherwise held that grounds for termination have been established and the court has determined that termination is in the best interests of the child by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the Superior Court erred in reversing the trial court's termination of [f]ather's parental rights as a result of CYS's failure to provide reasonable efforts to enable [f]ather to reunify with Child.In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 676 (Pa. 2014); ( see also Father's Brief, at 7-9, 12). In light of this precedent, we conclude that Father's claim is meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm the decrees and orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that terminated Father's parental rights to his Children and changed their goals to adoption, on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Decrees and orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 6/22/2017
Image materials not available for display.