Opinion
J-S14016-20 No. 3252 EDA 2019 No. 3253 EDA 2019 No. 3254 EDA 2019 No. 3255 EDA 2019
03-30-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.L., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.L., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: N.C.L., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.L., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: N.D.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.L., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: N.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.L., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 17, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000985-2018 Appeal from the Order Entered October 17, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000438-2019 Appeal from the Order Entered October 17, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000431-2019 Appeal from the Order Entered October 17, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0001014-2018 BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:
Appellant, A.L. ("Mother"), appeals from the orders entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petitions of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor children, N.C.L. and N.D.S. ("Children"), and changed Children's permanency goal to adoption. We affirm.
The initials "N.L." and "N.C.L." listed in the caption refer to the same child, and the initials "N.S." and "N.D.S." listed in the caption refer to the same child.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, we add that DHS filed petitions on June 10, 2019, and June 12, 2019, to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to Children, and to change Children's permanency goal to adoption. Following a hearing on October 17, 2019, the court granted DHS' petitions and issued orders terminating Mother's parental rights to each Child, as well as orders changing each Child's permanency goal to adoption. Mother timely filed notices of appeal as to each order, as well as contemporaneous statements of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925. This Court consolidated Mother's appeals sua sponte on December 26, 2019.
Separate guardian ad litem ("GAL") and legal counsel represented Children during the termination/goal change proceedings.
T.E.S. is the natural father of N.C.L., and D.K.S. is the natural father of N.D.S. On October 17, 2019, the court also terminated T.E.S.' and D.K.S.' parental rights to their respective children. Neither father has appealed.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATE [MOTHER]'S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO HER CHILDREN N.C.L. AND N.D.S., WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE WARRANTING SUCH DETERMINATION?(Mother's Brief at 5).
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO CHANGE...CHILDREN'S PERMANENCY GOAL FROM REUNIFICATION WITH THE PARENT TO ADOPTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT SUCH DECISION WOULD BEST PROTECT...CHILDREN'S NEEDS AND WELFARE AND BE IN...CHILD[REN]'S BEST INTERESTS?
On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006).
In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine that the court's judgment was "manifestly unreasonable," that the court did not apply the law, or that the court's action was "a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will," as shown by the record. We are bound by the trial court's findings of fact that have support in the record. The trial court, not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the
witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm, "even if the record could also support an opposite result."Id. at 822-23 (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, we conclude Mother's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, dated December 12, 2019, at 11-20) (finding: (1) Children have been in placement since April 2018; at termination hearing, Ms. Taylor, case manager since July 2018, credibly testified that Children came into DHS' care due to N.C.L's truancy and Department of Licenses and Inspections' report of uninhabitable condition of Mother's home; Mother failed to comply with Single Case Plan ("SCP") objectives to undergo drug testing throughout life of case; Mother attended drug testing only once; Mother also failed to show proof of compliance with SCP objectives to obtain employment and secure housing; Mother failed to regularly attend supervised visits and was removed from visitation schedule for noncompliance; during Children's home visit in October 2018, N.C.L. had to use his birthday money to buy food, because there was no food or pots and pans in Mother's home; Children have been in same foster home with same foster mother; Ms. Taylor noted Children have strong bond with foster mother, who fulfills Children's needs, while Children lack strong bond with Mother; Ms. Taylor opined Children would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights to Children were terminated; Mother failed in her duty to make diligent efforts and actively participate in services that would help her assume her parental responsibilities; Mother remained without housing, claimed to have been sober for only two weeks, and failed to provide documentation of employment; Mother made no progress in remedying conditions that brought Children into care and is unable to provide Children proper parental care and control; (2) DHS made reasonable efforts to give Mother opportunity for reunification with Children; Mother, however, did not use referrals and resources DHS provided her; Mother failed to appear for drug testing, obtain housing, provide documentation of employment, and appear for supervised visits with Children; evidence established change in Children's permanency goal to adoption was disposition best suited to Children's safety, protection, and physical, mental, and moral welfare). Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/ _________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/30/2020
Image materials not available for display.