From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Interest of L.A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 15, 2016
J-S66016-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 15, 2016)

Opinion

J-S66016-16 J-S66017-16 No. 621 MDA 2016 No. 622 MDA 2016

09-15-2016

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.A., A MINOR APPEAL OF: H.A., FATHER IN RE: ADOPTION OF: L.A., A MINOR APPEAL OF: H.A., FATHER


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Decree Entered March 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-21-DP-0000012-2015 Appeal from the Order Entered March 18, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 14 Adoptions 2016 BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.

Appellant, H.A. ("Father") appeals from the decree and order entered on March 18, 2016, which, respectively, involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his female child, L.A., ("Child"), born in January 2015, pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (b), and changed the permanency goal to adoption pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351.

We consolidated these appeals sua sponte.

In a separate decree entered March 18, 2016, the trial court voluntarily terminated the parental rights of Child's mother, J.H. ("Mother"). Mother has not challenged the termination of her parental rights, nor is she a party to this appeal. --------

The trial court aptly set forth the factual background and procedural history of this appeal, which we adopt herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 5/26/16, at 1-8. On February 29, 2015, Cumberland County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights. The trial court held a hearing on March 16, 2016, and terminated Father's rights on that same date. Father timely filed notices of appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).

Father asserts the trial court erred in finding: 1) CYS presented evidence that met its burden of proof; 2) Child's best interest would be served by termination of Father's parental rights; and 3) Child's best interests would be served by changing the goal to adoption and terminating Father's parental rights, when the evidence indicated that the original reasons for Child's placement no longer exist or have been substantially eliminated. Father argues he has met the most significant goal of his family service plan, and now is able to provide stable housing for Child, with the assistance of his sister, who previously presented as a resource for Child.

As this Court may affirm the trial court's decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of § 2511(a), we focus on subsections (a)(2) and (b). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). With regard to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination under those subsections of the Adoption Act and the change of goal under the Juvenile Act, based on our review of the testimonial evidence, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law by the trial court. See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (setting forth the standard of review for termination and goal change).

Regarding § 2511(b), Father failed to visit Child, and his visits were discontinued. Thus, although the trial court did not expressly find an absence of a bond between Father and Child, Child has been in placement for nearly the entirety of her life, so the evidence supports such a finding. See In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that no bond that is worth preserving is formed between a child and parent where the child is in foster care for most of the child's life, and the resulting bond with the parent is attenuated). Child's guardian ad litem ("GAL") observed Child in the home with the pre-adoptive kinship foster parents, and testified Child appeared to be very bonded with the foster parents, and the household seemed appropriate for Child. The foster mother testified that Child is bonded to the other kinship foster child in the home. The trial court thoroughly discussed the best interests of Child in its opinion. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm the decree and order based on the trial court's May 26, 2016 opinion.

Decree and order affirmed. Motion to consider brief granted. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/15/2016

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

In re Interest of L.A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 15, 2016
J-S66016-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 15, 2016)
Case details for

In re Interest of L.A.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF: L.A., A MINOR APPEAL OF: H.A., FATHER IN RE: ADOPTION…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Sep 15, 2016

Citations

J-S66016-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 15, 2016)