Opinion
J-A04033-17 No. 2421 EDA 2016 No. 2424 EDA 2016 No. 2425 EDA 2016 No. 2426 EDA 2016 No. 2427 EDA 2016
04-26-2017
IN RE: S.N.H. APPEAL OF: J.M.H., FATHER IN RE: A.N.H. APPEAL OF: J.M.H., FATHER IN RE: M.R.H. APPEAL OF: J.M.H., FATHER IN RE: A.M.H. APPEAL OF: J.M.H., FATHER IN RE: L.A.H. APPEAL OF: J.M.H., FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree June 30, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No.: 2015-A9032 Appeal from the Decree June 30, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No.: 2014-A9129 Appeal from the Decree June 30, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No.: 2014-A9128 Appeal from the Decree June 30, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No.: 2014-A9127 Appeal from the Decree June 30, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Orphans' Court at No.: 2014-A9130 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
In these consolidated appeals, J.M.H. (Father), appeals from the decrees of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court), entered June 30, 2016, that terminated his parental rights to his children: A.M.H., born in January of 2007; M.R.H., born in December of 2007; A.N.H., born in December of 2008; L.A.H., born in November of 2011; and S.N.H., born in November of 2013 (Children). We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
This Court consolidated these appeals sua sponte on August 23, 2016.
T.A.H., (Mother), has also appealed the decrees of the trial court of June 30, 2016, which terminated her parental rights as to the same five Children. We address Mother's appeal in a separate memorandum under Docket Nos. 2370, 2371, 2372, 2373, and 2374 EDA 2016.
We have changed the name of M.R.H. in the caption from M.H. to M.R.H. to reflect the trial court's designation and to eliminate any possible confusion caused by different nomenclature in Mother's and Father's appeals.
The Bucks County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) filed petitions to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to the Children on December 26, 2014 and March 27, 2015. The trial court aptly summarized the events that led CYF to file those petitions in its September 13, 2016 opinion. We direct the reader to that opinion for the facts of these cases.
The December 26, 2014 petitions concerned A.M.H., M.R.H., A.N.H., and L.A.H. The March 27, 2015 petition concerned S.N.H.
The trial court held hearings on CYF's petitions on August 19, 2015, February 16, 2016, February 18, 2016, and March 11, 2016. Testifying at those hearings were CYS caseworker Desiree Mullen; the Children's maternal grandmother, D.D.; Lenape Valley Foundation caseworker, Deborah Hudson; Bucks County Counseling counselor, Richard Brown; Family Services Association parenting instructor, Joan Pfender; and Pastoral Counselor, Jill Klein.
The transcript of the hearing of March 11, 2016, is not part of the record. According to the trial court, it has been transcribed but it has not been entered in the record because Mother, although she ordered it, has not paid for the transcription. We have examined the record and we find that neither Mother, in her brief, nor the trial court, in its opinions, cite to the hearing of March 11, 2016. Accordingly, as it appears that nothing in the March 11, 2016 transcript is material to the claims of the parties, we have decided this matter without reference to it. See Commonwealth v. Preston , 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) (appellate court is limited to considering only materials in certified record when resolving an issue) (citation omitted). --------
The trial court entered its decrees terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) on June 30, 2016. Father filed his notices of appeal and statements of errors complained of on appeal July 26, 2016. The trial court entered its opinion on September 13, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Father raises the following questions on appeal:
[1]. Whether the [trial] court erred in terminating Father's parental rights when the Agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the statutory grounds for termination in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §[§] 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8)[?]
2. Whether the [trial] court erred in terminating Father's parental rights when the Agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's parental rights best serves the needs and welfare of the children in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. §[§] 2511(a)(5), (8), and (b)[?](Father's Brief, at 3).
Our standard of review is as follows:
In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence presented as well as the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will reverse the trial court's order only if we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge's decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict.In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
Further, we have stated:
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 M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).We are bound by the findings of the trial court which have adequate support in the record so long as the findings do not evidence capricious disregard for competent and credible evidence. The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence. Though we are not bound by the trial court's inferences and deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial court's sustainable findings.
The trial court terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). In order to affirm the termination of parental rights, this Court need only agree with any one subsection of Section 2511(a). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004).
Requests to have a natural parent's parental rights terminated are governed by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, which provides, in pertinent part:
§ 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:
* * *
(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.
* * *
23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2) and (b).
(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.
Here, the trial court concluded that termination was appropriate under Section 2511(a)(2). It is well settled that a party seeking termination of a parent's rights bears the burden of proving the grounds to so do by "clear and convincing evidence," a standard which requires evidence 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." In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). Further,
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. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one's parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs. . . .In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted).
The Adoption Act provides that a trial court "shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). The Act does not make specific reference to an evaluation of the bond between parent and child, but our case law requires the evaluation of any such bond. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). However, this Court has held that the trial court is not required by statute or precedent to order a formal bonding evaluation performed by an expert. See In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008).
We have examined the opinion entered by the trial court on September 13, 2016, in light of the record in this matter and are satisfied that the opinion provides a complete and correct analyses of Father's claims. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/16, at 16-20 (concluding that (1) Children have lacked proper parental care and control necessary for their well-being and Father has not and cannot remedy his parental incapacitating conditions within a reasonable period; (2) Children have been in care for six months or more and reasons for placement still exist; (3) Children have been in care for at least twelve months; and (4) termination of Father's parental rights serves Children's best intersts)).
Accordingly, we affirm the decrees of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County that terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) on the basis of the concise, thoughtful, and well-written opinion of the Honorable Gary B. Gilman.
Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/26/2017
Image materials not available for display.