Opinion
J-S14017-18 No. 2708 EDA 2017
04-11-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: G.I.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: E.T., FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000701-2016 BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
E.T. ("Father") appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his daughter G.I.M. ("Child"). Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court aptly summarized the factual and procedural history of this case, which we adopt for purposes of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, filed Oct. 11, 2017 (1925(a) Op.), at 1-16.
By way of background, Child (d.o.b. January 2008) is the daughter of Father and D.M. ("Mother"). Child has never resided with Father. Child was first adjudicated dependent in December 2014. Mother indicated to the Department of Human Services ("DHS") that she did not know the whereabouts of Father. After DHS obtained an address for Father via a Parent Locator Service ("PLS") search in December 2015, a letter was sent to him. Father did not respond to the letter but did attend a hearing in August 2016, where he acknowledged knowing that Child was under the care of DHS. After this hearing, Father began attending visitation with Child. Father's parental reunification objectives included obtaining appropriate housing for Child, completing parenting classes, and attending visitation.
Mother also filed an appeal (docketed in this Court at 2651 and 2652 EDA 2017) regarding both G.I.M. and another child I.G.M.D., whose father is another individual, K.D. --------
On August 5, 2016, DHS filed Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights. Following a hearing on July 20, 2017, the trial court granted the petition. Father filed this timely appeal.
Father raises five issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)?
2. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2)?
3. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5)?
4. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Appellant, [Father], under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8)?
5. Whether the trial court erred by finding, under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b), that termination of Appellant [Father] parental
rights best serves the child's developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare?Father's Brief at 5.
When considering an appeal from an order involuntarily terminating parental rights, we accept as true the trial court's findings of facts so long as they are supported by the record, and then determine whether the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion in rendering its decision. In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). A trial court's decision constitutes an abuse of discretion only if it is manifestly unreasonable or is the product of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
The party petitioning for termination bears the burden of proving all elements of the termination petition by clear and convincing evidence. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). Clear and convincing evidence is 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." Id. (quoting Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II , 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).
The termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, which requires a two-step analysis. In the first step, the party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct meets at least one of the 11 grounds for termination set forth in Section 2511(a). In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). If the court determines that the petitioner has proven at least one of the provisions of Section 2511(a), only then does it proceed to the second step of the analysis. Id. In the second step, the court must determine whether, considering the child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare, termination is in the best interests of the child. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 830 (Pa. 2012). In conducting this analysis, the court should examine the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.
Father argues that the termination of his parental rights was not appropriate under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), or (a)(8). See Father's Brief at 13-15. To this end, Father presents the overarching argument that once he became aware of Child's placement and the potential termination of his parental rights, he began attending court hearings and completed his parental reunification objections including: attending visitation, completing parenting classes, maintaining employment, and establishing a housing plan. Id. at 14. He also asserts that the trial court erred by terminating his parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b), because the evidence presented at trial established that a growing bond exists between Child and himself. Id. at 15-16.
The trial court rejected Father's arguments. It explained that clear and convincing evidence established that Father's parental rights were properly terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(1) & (a)(2) because he demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental rights. The court noted testimony establishing that Father initially failed to respond to correspondence from the DHS and failed to obtain and maintain appropriate housing for Child, instead proposing that Child live with Father's mother. See 1925(a) Op. at 19-21. Further, the trial court specifically determined Father's parental rights were properly terminated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) because the testimony established that Father's bond with Child was only just beginning and Child is strongly bonded with her foster mother. Id. at 21-22.
After reviewing the trial court's opinion, the record, the parties' briefs, and relevant law, we see no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, which we adopt and incorporate herein. See id. at 17-23.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/11/18
Image materials not available for display.