Opinion
J. S09014/15 J. S09015/15 No. 1361 WDA 2014 No. 1362 WDA 2014 No. 1363 WDA 2014 No. 1364 WDA 2014 No. 1365 WDA 2014 No. 1366 WDA 2014 No. 1367 WDA 2014 No. 1368 WDA 2014
04-10-2015
IN THE INTEREST OF: H.B., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.B., NATURAL MOTHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: D.B., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.B., NATURAL MOTHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: R.B. III, A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.B., NATURAL MOTHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: B.G.B., A/K/A M.B., A/K/A M.B., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.B., NATURAL MOTHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: H.B., A MINOR ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT APPEAL OF: R.B. II, NATURAL FATHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B., A MINOR ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT APPEAL OF: R.B. II, NATURAL FATHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: R.B. III, A MINOR ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT APPEAL OF: R.B., NATURAL FATHER, Appellant IN THE INTEREST OF: D.B., A MINOR ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT APPEAL OF: R.B. II, NATURAL FATHER, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order, July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Domestic Relations Division at No. 127 of 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. 128 of 2013
Appeal from the Order, July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. 129 of 2013
Appeal from the Order, July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Domestic Relations Division at No. 130 of 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. 127 of 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. 130 of 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. 129 of 2013
Appeal from the Order, July 17, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. 128 of 2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES AND ALLEN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
M.B. ("Mother") and R.B. II ("Father") ("the parents") appeal the orders dated July 17, 2014, that changed the permanency goals for H.B., D.B., R.B. III, and B.G.B. ("the Children") from reunification with parents with a concurrent goal of adoption, to adoption. We have consolidated the cases sua sponte . After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court 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.
Mother raises three questions on appeal:
1. DID THE JUVENILE COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THE CONCURRENT PLACEMENT GOAL OF REUNIFICATION/ADOPTION WAS NO LONGER FEASIBLE, DISPENSED WITH THE CONCURRENT PLACEMENT GOAL OF REUNIFICATION AFTER LESS THAN NINE MONTHS AT NUMBERS 1362-1364 AND AFTER LESS THAN FIVE MONTHS AT NUMBER 1361, AND DIRECTED THE AGENCY TO PROVIDE NO FURTHER SERVICES AND/OR VISITATION TO M.B.?Mother's brief at 14.
2. DID THE JUVENILE COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DENIED THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S REQUEST TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE NINE-YEAR-OLD CHILD ABOUT WHETHER SHE DESIRED TO RETURN HOME TO HER MOTHER?
3. DID THE JUVENILE COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT IDENTIFIED NON-RELATIVE FOSTER PARENTS AS THE ADOPTIVE RESOURCE FOR THE CHILDREN DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF SUITABLE AND WILLING BIOLOGICAL RELATIVES AND WAS THE JUVENILE COURT'S PLACEMENT DECISION CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED?
Father raises one general question on appeal:
Whether the trial court erred by changing the goal to adoption[?]Father's brief at 2.
We note Father's statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 1925(b) raised four issues: (1) the trial court erred in changing the goal to adoption because the testimony and evidence presented at the time of the hearing was insufficient to support such a change; (2) the trial court erred by finding that Father was not compliant with his family service plan because the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support such a finding; (3) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence as proof of Father's non-compliance with his family service plan; specifically, the out-of-court statements of Auglaize County Social Service Supervisor Michelle Brown; and (4) the trial court erred to the extent it relied upon Father's asserted non-compliance with his Auglaize County family service plan as proof of non-compliance with his Erie County family service plan, given that, at the time of the hearing, an adjudication/disposition had yet to be held in Auglaize County. In its September 16, 2014 opinion, the trial court addressed each of these issues.
After a thorough review of the record, the parent's briefs, the applicable law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude there is no merit to any of the issues the parents have raised on appeal. The trial court's 43-page opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/10/2015
Image materials not available for display.