Opinion
J-S07017-20 No. 3042 EDA 2019 No. 3043 EDA 2019
03-05-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.R., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: N.I.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.R., FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered October 2, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000338-2019 Appeal from the Order Entered October 2, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000339-2019 BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., KING, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, M.R. ("Father"), appeals from the orders entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petitions of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") for involuntary termination of Father's parental rights to his minor children, R.M.R. and N.I.R. ("Children"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, we add that this Court consolidated Father's appeals sua sponte on November 18, 2019.
Father raises one issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATING FATHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO [CHILDREN]?(Father's Brief at 6).
Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: "our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child."In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. ... 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear
and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.
In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008)).
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court's findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court's decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2004).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph L. Fernandes, we conclude Father's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 20, 2019, at 5-16) (finding: court terminated Father's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); at time of termination hearing, Children had been in DHS care for 20 months, nearly their entire lives; Father either failed or refused to successfully complete his objectives and could not place himself in position to parent in six month period prior to filing of termination petitions; Father was noncompliant with dual-diagnosis, drug screen, and domestic violence prevention objectives; although Father's visits with Children were appropriate, Father's attendance at visits was inconsistent; Children's needs are met by foster parents; Children are well-bonded with foster parents, and they look to foster parents for support and comfort; Children do not share parent/child bond with Father). The record supports the court's decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. See In re Z.P., supra. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court's opinion.
Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 3/5/20
Image materials not available for display.