Opinion
J-S35045-16 No. 3654 EDA 2015
04-29-2016
IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO K.N. AND X.H. APPEAL OF: N.L.H., Biological Mother
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree November 6, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Orphans' Court at No(s): A2014-0058 & A2014-0059 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E. and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
N.L.H. ("Mother") appeals from the Decrees granting the Petitions filed by the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services ("CYS") to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her minor male children, K.N., born in May 2005, and X.H., born in November 2007 (collectively, "Children"), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).,
Mother filed one appeal from two separate Decrees, each of which terminated her parental rights as to one child. Although filing one appeal from separate orders is generally discouraged, Mother's arguments regarding each child are identical and arise from the same set of facts. See Baker v. Baker , 624 A.2d 655, 656 (Pa. Super. 1993) (considering an appeal from separate orders where appellant's arguments were identical and stemmed from the same factual precedent). Additionally, the trial court issued one Opinion to address both Decrees. See Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidi , 100 A.3d 587, 589 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that an appeal from two separate orders was not fatal where the trial court addressed the issues pertaining to both orders). Therefore, under these circumstances, this procedural error is not fatal to Mother's appeal.
CYS also filed Petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to her twin daughters, born in August 2012. The twins were adjudicated dependent on September 4, 2013. On February 3, 2015, CYS filed withdrawals of the Petitions regarding the twin daughters. Ultimately, a Dependency Division Order was entered on September 22, 2015, authorizing the return of the twins to Mother, and the trial court permitted CYS to withdraw the Petitions regarding the twin daughters.
The trial court also involuntarily terminated the parental rights of J.N., the father of K.N., and P.J. a/k/a J.P., the father of X.H.
In its Opinion, the trial court aptly summarized the factual and procedural history of this case, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/6/12, at 2-13.
Relevantly, CYS received referrals regarding K.N.'s truancy, as well as concerns about Children's hygiene, malnourishment, and emotional problems. After CYS filed Dependency Petitions, Mother placed Children with a relative. The Petitions were subsequently withdrawn. The relative subsequently became unable to care for Children, and Mother voluntarily placed Children in foster care in December 2012.
Children were adjudicated dependent on January 8, 2013. After a hearing on January 29, 2013, the trial court set reunification goals. Mother did not comply with most of the court-ordered services, and she did not cooperate regarding either Children's or her own mental health services.
Since the original foster care placement, Children have been moved several times, including multiple stays in a psychiatric hospital, therapeutic residential treatment placements, therapeutic foster home placements, and emergency room visits. Mother did not consistently visit with Children during many of these placements, and she did not visit Children at all in more than a year prior to the final permanency review hearing.
On September 24, 2014, CYS filed Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights ("ITPR") Petitions against Mother under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights as to Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). Mother filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement.
On appeal, Mother raises the following question for our review:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law by terminating Mother's parental rights in finding that termination best meets the need[s] and welfare of [] Children[,] where the [trial] court failed to discern the effect that severance of the bond would have on [] Children[,] and where there is no permanent placement for [] Children[?]Mother's Brief at 7.
We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in accordance with the following standard:
In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence presented as well as the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will reverse the trial court's order only if we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge's decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict.In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. The burden is upon the petitioner "to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid." In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). "[C]lear 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. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Further, 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 the 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).
Satisfaction of any one subsection of Section 2511(a), along with consideration of Section 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). In this case, Mother only challenges the trial court's determination as to Section 2511(b), which states the following:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination.
* * *
(b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).
Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the ITPR Petitions without properly considering the effect of severing the bond between Mother and Children. Mother's Brief at 11, 12-14. Mother claims that the trial court failed to conduct a proper "best interests" analysis under Section 2511(b). Id. at 13. Further, Mother asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the ITPR Petitions despite a lack of permanent placement for Children. Id. at 14-15. Mother argues that even if her bond with Children is maladaptive, it is the only bond they have, and that bond should not be severed without a permanent placement. Id.
The trial court set forth the relevant law regarding Section 2511(b), and determined that it was in Children's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/6/15, at 19-21. Upon our review, the trial court appropriately applied Section 2511(b) to this case, and we adopt its Opinion for the purpose of this appeal. See id.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the ITPR Petitions.
Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/29/2016
Image materials not available for display.