Opinion
J-A28044-17 No. 1027 EDA 2017
11-21-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.L.M. JR., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.T.S. A/K/A T.S., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order February 23, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000712-2015, CP-51-DP-0002477-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, T.T.S. a/k/a T.S. ("Mother"), appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Family Court, which granted the petition of the Department of Human Services ("DHS") for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor child, T.L.M., Jr. ("Child") (born September 2006), and changed the goal to adoption. We affirm.
On June 16, 2016, the Family Court granted DHS' petition for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to two of Child's siblings. This Court affirmed that decision on December 23, 2016. See Interest of Y.J.M., 159 A.3d 1014 (Pa.Super. 2016).
In its opinion, the Family Court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
The Family Court inadvertently labeled Mother's initials as "F.R." We have corrected the copy of the court's opinion attached to this disposition. Additionally, DHS filed a petition for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights on October 2, 2015. Following termination of her parental rights, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) concise statement on March 24, 2017.
Mother raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [FAMILY] COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATED MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WHERE SUCH DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE UNDER THE ADOPTION ACT 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(5), AND (A)(8).(Mother's Brief at 4).
WHETHER THE [FAMILY] COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATED MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT GIVING PRIMARY CONSIDERATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TERMINATION WOULD HAVE ON THE DEVELOPMENTAL[,] PHYSICAL[,] AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS OF CHILD AS REQUIRED BY THE ADOPTION ACT 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(B)?
The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental rights cases are as follows:
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge's decision the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the
record in order to determine whether the trial court's decision is supported by competent evidence.In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the] finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.
The standard of clear and convincing evidence means 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. We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. If the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court's decision, even though the record could support an opposite result.
The court granted DHS' petition for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights on the following grounds:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(a) General Rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental
well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.
* * *
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
* * *
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
* * *
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). "Satisfaction of any one subsection of Section 2511(a), along with consideration of Section 2511(b), is sufficient for involuntary termination of parental rights." In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 758 (Pa.Super. 2008).
(b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
"Under [S]ection 2511, the trial court must engage in a bifurcated process." In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 10 (Pa.Super. 2009).
The initial focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies at least one of the nine statutory grounds delineated in section 2511(a). If the trial court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination under section 2511(a), then it must engage in an analysis of the best interests of the child...under section 2511(b), taking into primary consideration the developmental, physical, and emotional needs of the child.Id. at 10-12 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
* * *
[A] best interest of the child analysis under [section] 2511(b) requires consideration of intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability. To this end, this Court has indicated that the trial court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond. Moreover, in performing a "best interests" analysis[, t]he court should also consider the importance of continuity of relationships to the child, because severing close parental ties is usually extremely painful. The court must consider whether a natural parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship. Most importantly, adequate consideration must be given to the needs and welfare of the child.
Section 2511 outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements may properly be considered unfit and have her parental rights terminated. In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa.Super. 2001).
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child.
Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a parent exert [herself] to take and maintain a place of importance in the child's life.
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, "a parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of...her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill...her parental duties, to the child's right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of...his potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment." Id. at 856.
Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of ...her ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship.
"When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation." In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super. 2010) (internal citations omitted). "In cases where there is no evidence of any bond between the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. The extent of any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case." In re K.Z.S., supra at 762-63. "Above all else[,] adequate consideration must be given to the needs and welfare of the child. A parent's own feelings of love and affection for a child, alone, do not prevent termination of parental rights." In re Z.P., supra at 1121.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Vincent Furlong, we conclude Mother's issues merit no relief. The Family Court's Opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Family Court Opinion, filed May 5, 2017, at 3-6) (finding: Child has been in DHS' custody since 12/19/13, when court adjudicated him dependent; record shows Mother's ongoing unwillingness to provide parental care or control for Child and her failure to remedy conditions which brought Child into DHS' care; Community Umbrella Agency ("CUA") representative testified that Mother's Single Case Plan objectives were to obtain appropriate housing, engage in drug and alcohol treatment, participate in mental health treatment, and visit Child; Mother failed to complete these objectives; CUA representative explained Mother was unaware of and unable to address Child's medical needs; CUA representative indicated that Child's foster parents are able and willing to meet Child's medical needs; CUA representative further testified that Child is not bonded with Mother and termination of Mother's parental rights would be in Child's best interests; court found CUA representative's testimony credible; DHS presented clear and convincing evidence for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights under Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b)). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the Family Court's Opinion.
Child became known to DHS due to Mother's lack of appropriate housing and supervision, drug activity in the home, Mother's medical neglect of Child, and Mother's untreated mental health issues.
Child suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and Reactive Attachment Disorder. The CUA representative testified that Child is more responsive to his foster mother and is more engaged in school in foster mother's care. Testimony during the termination hearing also revealed that Mother threatened to burn down foster mother's home. --------
Order affirmed.
Judge Dubow did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Judgment Entered. /s/ _________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 11/21/2017
Image materials not available for display.