From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re G.I.M.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 11, 2018
J-S14016-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2018)

Opinion

J-S14016-18 No. 2651 EDA 2017 No. 2652 EDA 2017

04-11-2018

IN THE INTEREST OF: G.I.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: I.G.M.-D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.M., MOTHER


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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, CP-51-DP-0002734-2014 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-0000702-2016, CP-51-DP-0002737-2014 BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

D.M. ("Mother") appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her daughters, G.I.M. and I.G.M.D. ("the Children"). Mother claims a lack of notice of the termination hearing and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

In its Pa.R.A.P. 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 1-15.

By way of background, G.I.M. (born January 2008) and I.G.M.D. (born September 2011) are Mother's daughters. E.T. is G.I.M.'s father and K.D. is I.G.M.D.'s father. Both Children have never resided with their respective fathers. The Children were first adjudicated dependent in December 2014, following an incident in October 2014 where Mother left the Children to wander on a street corner while she injected drugs. Mother's parental reunification objectives included drug and alcohol treatment; mental health treatment; parenting, anger management, and employment courses; visitation with the Children; and the procurement of suitable housing for the Children.

The instant termination order also terminated the parental rights of E.T. and K.D. E.T. also filed an appeal, which is docketed in this Court at 2708 EDA 2017. K.D. did not appeal.

Mother raises three issues for our review:

1. Did the court err or abuse its discretion when terminating Mother's parental rights under § 2511(a) when Mother was denied [] a hearing for ineffective or no service of notice of said hearing, and terminating Mother's parental rights on non-competent or insufficient evidence?

2. Did the court err or abuse its discretion when terminating Mother's parental rights under § 2511(a) when Mother has completed some of her plan goals, and terminating Mother's parental rights on non-competent or insufficient evidence?
3. Did the court err or abuse its discretion when terminating Mother's parental rights under § 2511(b) without analyses of the legal interests of the Children, and therefore, terminating Mother's parental rights on non-competent or insufficient evidence?
Mother's Brief at 2.

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 the record supports them, 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. In re L.M., 923 A.2d at 511.

In her first issue, Mother asserts that that the trial court erred by terminating her parental rights without affording her proper notice as required under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2513. Mother contends that the Department of Human Services ("DHS") failed to utilize all possible avenues to locate her to provide her with notice of her termination hearing. See Mother's Brief at 6-7. Mother also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by terminating her parental rights under Section 2511(a) because she has experienced periods of sobriety, completed parenting classes, and could complete her reunification objectives if given the opportunity. Id.

Section 2513 provides "[a]t least ten days' notice shall be given to the parent . . . whose rights are to be terminated by personal service or by registered mail to his or their last known address or by such other means as the court may require." 23 Pa.C.S. § 2513(b). --------

The trial court rejected Mother's arguments by initially noting that counsel for DHS had attempted to serve two trial subpoenas on Mother on three occasions at addresses obtained through a Parent Locator Service (PLS) search. See 1925(a) Op. at 18-19. Thus, the court determined that DHS's attempts at service constituted "reasonable efforts," especially in light of Mother's failure to provide the agency with an updated address, despite the fact that the Children were in placement. Id. The trial court emphasized that Mother's parental rights were properly terminated because the testimony established that she had failed to perform parental duties, obtain and maintain proper housing, complete drug and alcohol treatment, obtain employment, and maintain sobriety long enough to achieve unsupervised visitation with the Children. Id. at 19-20.

Next, in a combined argument addressing both her second and third issues, Mother argues that the trial court erroneously terminated Mother's parental rights because there was no "concrete evidence" of the Children's wishes regarding whether the Children wished to abandon their legal connection to Mother. See Mother's Brief at 7-8. Mother claims the evidence on this point was "mixed," and points to testimony that the Children considered both foster mother and Mother to be their "mothers." Id. at 8. The trial court rejected Mother's argument. It pointed out that the court had appointed legal counsel for the Children, who actively advocated for the Children at hearings. See 1925(a) Op. at 21-22. Further, the court reviewed the evidence and concluded that the Children were not bonded with Mother but did share a strong, positive bond with their foster mother. Id. at 21.

Accordingly, after review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the relevant law, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, which we adopt and incorporate herein. See id. at 16-24.

Order affirmed. Judge Ott joins the memorandum. Judge Ransom concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/11/18

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

In re G.I.M.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 11, 2018
J-S14016-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2018)
Case details for

In re G.I.M.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF: G.I.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: D.M., MOTHER IN THE…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 11, 2018

Citations

J-S14016-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2018)