From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re D.K.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 5, 2023
349 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 5, 2023)

Opinion

349 MDA 2023 J-S19003-23

09-05-2023

IN RE: D.K.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.M.-K., MOTHER


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2022-6825

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM

BENDER, P.J.E.

D.M.-K. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on February 23, 2023, that granted Lycoming County Children & Youth Services' (Agency) petition to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to D.K.M., born in June of 2015. Following our review, we affirm the order on appeal.

D.K.M.'s father is deceased.

The orphans' court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, which we need not reproduce herein. See Orphans' Court Opinion and Order (OCOO), 2/23/23, at 1-7. Essentially, D.K.M. was removed from Mother's care in May of 2021 based on evidence that Mother was using drugs and was unfit to care for D.K.M. In June of 2021, D.K.M. was adjudicated dependent and the Agency was granted legal and physical custody of the child. Over the ensuing two years, the Agency attempted to work with Mother to resolve the issues that led to D.K.M.'s adjudication of dependency to no avail. Ultimately, in August of 2022, the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to D.K.M. After a hearing on January 13, 2023, the orphans' court granted the Agency's petition.

We note that the record indicates Mother has four other children in addition to D.K.M. However, those children are not involved in this dependency proceeding.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The orphans' court filed a responsive opinion indicating that it was relying on the rationale set forth in its February 23, 2023 order and opinion granting the Agency's petition. Herein, Mother presents four issues for our review:

I. Whether the [orphans'] court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights when she has not failed to perform parental duties for a period of six months and has made every effort to have a relationship with her child.
II. Whether the [orphans'] court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights because the evidence established that Mother had made substantial progress to remedy her prior incapacity and is able to provide the child with the essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary for his physical and mental well-being.
III. Whether the [orphans'] court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights because the conditions that led to the removal or placement of the child do not continue to exist and the needs and welfare of the child would not be served by the termination of Mother's parental rights.
IV. Whether the [orphans'] court erred in terminating Mother's parental rights because the best interests of the child are not served by termination.

Mother's Brief at 6-7.

We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the following standard:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge's decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. 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.
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, we have explained that:
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."
Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)). 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. In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If competent evidence supports the trial court's findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

We are guided further by the following: Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated analysis.

Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights. 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 L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511; other citations omitted). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. R.N.J., 985 A.2d at 276.

In Mother's issues on appeal, she essentially avers that the orphans' court erred by concluding that the Agency demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that she had a settled purpose of relinquishing her parental claim to D.K.M., that she has voluntarily failed to perform her parental duties, and that she has not done the work necessary to overcome the obstacles of her addiction and mental health issues. Mother stresses that she has now "been in treatment for a lengthy period of time and will continue treatment in an intensive outpatient program." Mother's Brief at 20. She explains that, while in treatment, "[s]he has received substantial therapy for her mental health and is taking psychiatric medication." Id. Mother further claims that "[s]he has developed the appropriate parenting skills to provide D.K.M. with the necessary physical and mental well-being that he needs to thrive." Id. She concludes that, because she "is no longer incapacitated and … she has developed the skill set to properly parent D.K.M., the [orphans'] court erred in terminating her parental rights." Id. at 13. Mother further insists that it is not in D.K.M.'s best interest that her rights be terminated, especially because "he will be the only one of his siblings to be removed from his family." Id.

In reviewing Mother's arguments, we have considered the briefs of the parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Ryan M. Tira of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. Judge Tira's opinion thoroughly explains the basis for his conclusion that the Agency established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother's parental rights with respect to D.K.M. should be involuntarily terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8). See OCOO at 7-17. Additionally, Judge Tira provides a comprehensive discussion to support his conclusion that the Agency established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother's parental rights would not cause irreparable harm to D.K.M. and that his developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare will best be served by termination of Mother's parental rights. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); OCOO at 17-20. Notably, Judge Tira recognizes that Mother entered in-patient treatment and has received therapy, medication, and parenting classes. See OCOO at 16. The judge then explains why Mother's recent efforts and progress do not overcome the evidence demonstrating that the statutory grounds for termination have been met, and that termination will best serve the needs and welfare of D.K.M. See id. at 16-17. The record confirms that Judge Tira's decisions regarding both sections 2511(a) and (b) are supported by ample, competent evidence. Therefore, we adopt his opinion as our own, and affirm the order granting the Agency's petition to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights for the reasons set forth therein.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

(APPENDIX OMITTED)


Summaries of

In re D.K.M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 5, 2023
349 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 5, 2023)
Case details for

In re D.K.M.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: D.K.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.M.-K., MOTHER

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 5, 2023

Citations

349 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 5, 2023)