Opinion
J-S93031-16 No. 1142 EDA 2016
01-23-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.J.E., A MINOR APPEAL OF: S.E., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree March 2, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000589-2014 CP-51-DP-0001622-2013 FID# 51-FN-459064-2009 BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, S.E. (Mother), appeals from the decree granting the petition filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) for the involuntary termination of her parental rights to A.J.E. (Child). We affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them here.
In her brief, Mother raises the following five questions for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sec. 2511(a)(1) without clear and convincing evidence of [M]other's intent to relinquish her parental claim or refusal to perform her parental duties[?](Mother's Brief, at 7).
2. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sec. 2511(a)(2) without clear and convincing evidence of [M]other's present incapacity to perform parental duties[?]
3. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sec. 2511(a)(5) without clear and convincing evidence to prove that reasonable efforts were made by [the] Department of Human Services to provide [M]other with additional services and that the conditions that led to placement of the [C]hild continue to exist[?]
4. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sec. 2511(a)(8) without clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that led to placement of the [C]child continue to exist when [M]other presented evidence of compliance with the goals and objectives of her family service plan[?]
5. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sec. 2511(b) without clear and convincing evidence that there is no parental bond between [M]other and [C]hild and that termination would serve the best interest of the [C]hild[?]
In reviewing an order involving termination of parental rights, our scope of review is broad, and all the evidence as well as the hearing court's factual and legal determinations will be considered. In re N.C., 763 A.2d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000). The standard of review is limited to determining whether the decree of the lower court is supported by competent evidence and whether it gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child. Id. (citing Adoption of Atencio , 539 Pa. 161, 650 A.2d 1064 (1994)).
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, 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 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 hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.
In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003).
In re Julissa O., 746 A.2d 1137, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quoting In re Adoption of Atencio , 650 A.2d at 1066) (citations omitted).
In terminating the rights of a parent, the court must give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b); In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 708 A.2d 88, 92 (1998). Where the hearing court's findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we must affirm the hearing court even though the record could support an opposite result. In re Adoption of Atencio , supra , 650 A.2d at 1066
(Pa. 1994); In re Adoption of B.D.S., 494 Pa. 171, 431 A.2d 203, 206 (1981).Id. at 1123.
It bears noting that counsel for Mother failed to specify which subsections of the statute were being challenged in the statement of errors. ( See Statement of Matters [sic], 4/01/16); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). "The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge." Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). We could conclude that all such issues were waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). However, we decline to find waiver, in the interest of judicial economy.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Mother has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 6/02/16, at 4-13) (concluding: (1) trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights where record contains clear and convincing evidence that Mother is not ready, willing or able to parent Child, and has failed to do so for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition; (2) testimony of DHS witnesses was unwavering and credible; (3) clear and convincing evidence established that there was no parental bond, and termination of Mother's parental rights would not destroy an existing beneficial relationship; and (4) change of permanency goal from reunification to adoption was proper.). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Decree affirmed.
Judge Dubow did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/23/2017
Image materials not available for display.