Opinion
276 MDA 2023 J-A16019-23
09-21-2023
IN RE: ADOPTION OF L.M.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: G.L. AND A.L.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered January 20, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 49-ADOPT-2022
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM
BENDER, P.J.E.
G.L. and A.L. ("Appellants") are the maternal grandparents of L.M.M. ("Child") (born in December of 2019). Appellants appeal from the orphans' court's January 20, 2023 order denying their "Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Natural Father." After careful consideration, we affirm.
At the time the January 20, 2023 order was entered, Mother had indicated a desire to voluntarily terminate her parental rights to L.M.M.; however, no final order had been entered by the court regarding Mother's parental rights. Mother is not a party to this appeal.
The orphans' court sets forth a detailed recitation of the facts of this case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion filed on March 23, 2023. See Orphans' Court Opinion (OCO), 3/23/23, at 3-7. Briefly, Child was born when Father and Mother were both seventeen years old. See OCO at 3. Child, along with Father and Mother, lived with Appellants immediately after Child's birth. Eventually, Mother and Father both moved out of Appellants' home, but Child remained living with them. In 2020, Appellants filed a custody action against Father, resulting in a custody agreement whereby Appellants have primary custody of Child and Father has visitation rights. Over the ensuing years, Father maintained a relationship with Child and visited Child in accordance with the custody agreement, albeit at times sporadically. In May of 2022, Father filed for modification of the custody agreement. Three weeks later, Appellants filed the petition to terminate his parental rights.
The orphans' court appointed a guardian ad litem and an attorney for Child, as well as counsel for Father. On October 3, 2022, and November 7, 2022, the court held a bifurcated hearing on Appellants' petition to terminate Father's parental rights. On January 19, 2023, the court issued an order denying that petition. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal, accompanied by a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The court filed a responsive opinion on March 23, 2023.
Herein, Appellants state five issues for our review:
1. Whether the [orphans' c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion in that its determinations were manifestly unreasonable as to both Sections 23 Pa.C.S. [§§] 2511(a)(1) and 2511(a)(2) when the testimonial record is viewed in its entirety.
2. Whether the [orphans' c]ourt erred and abused its discretion by placing manifestly unreasonable "significant" weight upon Father's filing a custody modification petition just before the filing of the petition for termination, where Father failed to seek any significant change in the limited visitation arrangement and still intended for ... [C]hild to stay in the primary custody of
Grandparent Appellants and for [Appellants] to continue to provide virtually all childcare for ... Child.
3. Whether the [orphans' c]ourt erred and abused its discretion through manifest unreasonableness, where the [orphans' c]ourt virtually excused Father from performing parental duties arising from Father's choice to merely see . Child for several hours at a time and only sporadically.
4. Whether the [orphans' c]ourt erred and abused its discretion through manifest unreasonableness, where the [orphans' c]ourt indicated/suggested that termination is not necessary where Father will be allowed to continue to see . Child after adoption, thus potentially endangering the ability to terminate parental rights pursuant to the PA Adoption Act where an Act 101 Agreement is offered by Adoptive Parents.
5. Whether the [orphans' c]ourt erred and abused its discretion through manifest unreasonableness where the [orphans' c]ourt completely ignored and failed to properly consider the developmental, physical and emotional needs of the child, as required by 23 Pa.C.S. [§] 2511(b).
Appellants' Brief at 4-5 (some formatting altered).
Initially, we note that Appellants' second and fourth issues are waived based on their failure to present those claims in their Rule 1925 statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) ("Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived."). Regarding Appellants' remaining claims, we note that our review is guided by the following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: "our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child."
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. ... 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.
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 court's findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court's decision, even if the record could support an opposite result.
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115-16 (Pa. Super. 2010) (cleaned up).
Here, in assessing Appellants' arguments, we have reviewed their brief, Father's brief, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also considered the thorough opinion of the Honorable Christylee L. Peck of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. We conclude that Judge Peck's thoughtful analysis sufficiently addresses the issues Appellants raise herein. Moreover, our review of the record reveals evidentiary support for Judge Peck's decision to deny Appellants' petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Appellants have failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or error of law in that ruling. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Peck's decision as our own, and affirm the order denying Appellants' petition to terminate Father's parental rights for the reasons set forth therein.
Order affirmed.