Opinion
J-S67016-17 J-S67017-17 No. 1988 EDA 2017 No. 1993 EDA 2017 No. 1996 EDA 2017 No. 1997 EDA 2017 No. 2003 EDA 2017 No. 2004 EDA 2017
01-11-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M.-S., D.M.-S., J.M.-S, J.S., D.S., MINOR CHILDREN APPEAL OF: D.S., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M.-S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M.-S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered May 26, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 22 O.C.A. 2017, 23 O.C.A. 2017, 24 O.C.A. 2017, 25 O.C.A. 2017, 26 O.C.A. 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 26, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 22 O.C.A. 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 26, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 23 O.C.A. 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 26, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 24 O.C.A. 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 26, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 25 O.C.A. 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 26, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 26 O.C.A. 2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
D.S. ("Father") and J.M. ("Mother") appeal from the Orders granting the Petitions filed by Monroe County Children and Youth Services ("CYS"), involuntarily terminating their parental rights to J.M.-S. (a son, born in January 2002), Do.M.-S. (a daughter, born in May 2003), Da.M.-S. (a daughter, born in October 2004), J.S. (a son, born in January 2008) and D.S. (a daughter, born in June 2009) (collectively, "Children"), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). We affirm.
The trial court entered five separate Orders, which terminated the parental rights of both Father and Mother as to each child on separate dockets. Father improperly filed a single appeal from the Orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note (stating that "[w]here ... one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or relating to more than one judgment, separate notices of appeal must be filed."). However, if Father had filed separate appeals, those appeals would have been consolidated. Thus, we discern no prejudice arising from Father's procedural misstep, and we decline to quash Father's appeal. Mother filed separate appeals from the Orders, and this Court, sua sponte, consolidated Mother's appeals. Because these consecutively listed appeals arise from the same set of facts and raise similar challenges to the Orders, we consolidated the appeals for disposition.
In its Opinion, the trial court aptly summarized the relevant factual and procedural history underlying this case, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/17, at 1-15.
On appeal, Father raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did [CYS] fail to present clear and convincing evidence that termination of [F]ather's parental rights served the needs and interests of [C]hildren?
2. Did [the] trial court err in terminating [F]ather's parental rights without clear and convincing evidence that termination of
[F]ather's parental rights served the needs and interests of [C]hildren?Father's Brief at 23.
We note that although Father's Statement of Questions Presented includes two separate issues, Father identified only one issue in his Concise Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (providing that "[t]he Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge"). Additionally, the Argument section of Father's brief includes a discussion of only one issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that "[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued"). However, because the issues identified in Father's Concise Statement and the Argument section of his brief can fairly be read to include both of his Questions Presented, we find his claims sufficiently preserved for our review. --------
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [] Orphan[s'] Court err and/or abuse its discretion in concluding that clear and convincing evidence was presented that [Mother] either evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing [her] parental claim to [Children], or refused or failed to perform [her] parental duties?
2. Did the [] Orphan[s'] Court err and/or abuse its discretion in finding that clear and convincing evidence had been presented that [Mother] cannot or will not remedy the conditions which led to the removal of [C]hildren?
3. Did the [] Orphan[s'] Court err and/or abuse its discretion in finding that clear and convincing evidence had been presented that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of [Children], when there was no evidence that the termination of [] Mother's parental rights would aid in achieving permanency for [C]hildren?
4. Did the [] Orphan[s'] Court err and/or abuse its discretion in determining that the termination of [Mother's] parental rights would serve the developmental, physical and emotional needs
and welfare of [Children] in consideration of the bond between [] Mother and [C]hildren?Mother's Brief at 17-18.
Our standard of review is as follows:
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court's determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court 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. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).
[U]nlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the record and the court's legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
Father and Mother each challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented by CYS. Additionally, Father and Mother both argue that the trial court afforded undue weight to their respective incarcerations in terminating their parental rights to Children. See Father's Brief at 26-29; Mother's Brief at 34-36.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant law, detailed its considerations in terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights, and concluded that CYS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father's and Mother's parental rights was in Children's best interests pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). See Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/17, at 15-34; see also id. at 3 (wherein the trial court incorporated by reference its statement of reasons, made on the record during the termination hearing, for terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights); N.T., 5/26/17, at 69-80 (wherein the trial court summarized its reasons for terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights). We note that we need only affirm the trial court's decision with regard to one subsection of section 2511(a), along with consideration of section 2511(b). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). However, we agree with the trial court's analysis and determinations as to each of these subsections, and discerning no abuse of discretion or error of law, we adopt the trial court's recitation as though fully set forth herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/17, at 15-34.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/11/18
Image materials not available for display.