Opinion
J-S51045-16 No. 487 EDA 2016
09-01-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.J.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.M., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree January 12, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: 51-FN-001446-2014 CP-51-AP-0000522-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, T.M. (Mother), appeals from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered January 12, 2016, that terminated her parental rights to her son, A.J.M. (Child), born in May of 2011, and changed Child's goal to adoption. We affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
In a separate decree, on the same date, the trial court also granted the petition for the involuntary termination of the parental rights of Child's father. Only the decree as to Mother is at issue in this appeal.
The trial court aptly summarized the events that led the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to file a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 3/16/16, at unnumbered pages 1-2). We respectfully refer the reader to that opinion for a complete recitation of the facts of this case.
For the convenience of the reader, we note briefly that in February of 2014 Mother left Child, then still two years of age, in the care and custody of his paternal grandmother. ( See id.). Mother moved into the home of a male friend. Mother has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. She suffers from bi-polar disorder. She also has violent tendencies, a history of domestic violence and transiency.
On August 14, 2015, DHS filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on January 12, 2016. The only person to testify at that hearing was DHS caseworker, Jasmin Ellum. The trial court entered its decree terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) on January 12, 2016.
Mother timely filed her notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal on February 9, 2016. The trial court entered its opinion on March 16, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Mother raises two questions on appeal:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err when it found that the Department of Human Services by clear and convincing evidence had met its burden to terminate [Mother's] parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), §2511(a)(2); §2511(a)(5) and §2511(a)(8)[?]
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err when it found that the termination of [M]other's parental rights was in [C]hild's best interests and that the Department of Human Services had met its burden pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(b)[?](Mother's Brief, at vi).
Our scope and standard of review are well-settled:
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).
Further,
Where the hearing court's findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we must affirm the hearing court even though the record could support an opposite result.
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).We are bound by the findings of the trial court which have adequate support in the record so long as the findings do not evidence capricious disregard for competent and credible evidence. 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. Though we are not bound by the trial court's inferences and deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial court's sustainable findings.
We also note our standard of review of a change of goal:
When we review a trial court's order to change the placement goal for a dependent child to adoption, our standard is abuse of discretion. In order to conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion, we must determine that the court's judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not apply the law, or that the court's action was a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the record.In the Interest of S.G., 922 A.2d 943, 946 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).
Here, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). In order to affirm the termination of parental rights, this Court need only agree with any one subsection of Section 2511(a). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004).
Requests to have a natural parent's parental rights terminated are governed by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 (The Adoption Act), which provides, in pertinent part:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.
* * *
(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(a)(1), (b).
A party seeking termination of a parent's rights bears the burden of proving the grounds to so do by "clear and convincing evidence," a standard which requires 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." In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Furthermore,
A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one's parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs.In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
To terminate parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(1), the person or agency seeking termination must demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that, for a period of at least six months prior to the filing of the petition, the parent's conduct demonstrates a settled purpose to relinquish parental rights or that the parent has refused or failed to perform parental duties. See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2003).
With respect to subsection 2511(a)(1), our Supreme Court has held:
Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the parent's explanation for his or her conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to Section 2511(b).In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M. II , 708 A.2d 88, 92 (Pa. 1998) (citation omitted). Additionally,
the trial court must consider the whole history of a given case and not mechanically apply the six-month statutory provision. The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case and consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination of his or her parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary termination.In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).
The Adoption Act provides that a trial court "shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). The Act does not make specific reference to an evaluation of the bond between parent and child but our case law requires the evaluation of any such bond. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). However, this Court has held that the trial court is not required by statute or precedent to order a formal bonding evaluation performed by an expert. In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Ct. Op., at 2-5) (concluding that: (1) for a period of six months leading up to the filing of the petition, Mother refused or failed to perform her parental duties; and (2) DHS met its burden by clear and convincing evidence to prove that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of Child). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/1/2016
Image materials not available for display.