Opinion
J-S56020-18 No. 670 MDA 2018 No. 671 MDA 2018
12-03-2018
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.J., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.J., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.J., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.J., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered, March 20, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 9-ADOPT-2018. Appeal from the Order Entered, March 20, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-28-DP-0000025-2016. BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:
C.J. (Mother) appeals from the order that involuntarily terminated her rights to her 5-year-old son, D.J. (Child), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2); (a)(5); (a)(8); and (b).,
The court also terminated the rights of D.S. (Father) who did not appear for the termination hearing and does not appeal now.
Because there was no conflict, Child's best interests and his legal interests were simultaneously represented by Attorney Kristen Hamilton. See N.T., 3/20/18, at 96-97.
As evidenced by the dual caption, Mother initially raised matters relating to both the termination of her parental rights and the order changing the goal of the dependency case from reunification to adoption. Mother has since abandoned the goal change portion of her contest; in her appellate brief, she sets forth two questions involved, both of which reference only the termination. First, she alleges there was insufficient evidence to support the grounds for termination under § 2511(a). Second, she alleges that even if there were grounds, termination would not be in Child's best interests under § 2511(b).
We are mindful of our well-settled standard of review:
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated analysis.
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).
In this case, the orphans' court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). We need only agree with the orphans' court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), in order to affirm. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super.2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004).
The learned Judge Angela R. Krom authored an extensive, well-reasoned Rule 1925(a) opinion supporting the orphans' court decision. Upon our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion. Because it thoroughly addresses the matters raised on appeal, we adopt, as our own, the orphans' court opinion insofar as it pertains to the termination issue. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the orphans' court opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.
We redact the parties' names from the orphans' court opinion, but otherwise keep intact the entirety of the document; we do not adopt that section of the opinion addressing Mother's abandoned goal change issue.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/03/2018
Image materials not available for display.