Opinion
J-S51018-19 No. 561 MDA 2019
10-08-2019
IN RE: R.E.R.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: K.S., III, FATHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree Entered November 13, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Orphans' Court at No(s): OC-2017-38 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Appellant, K.S., III ("Father"), appeals from the decree entered in the Orphans' court of the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of Appellees, D.M.P. ("Mother") and M.D.P. ("Stepfather"), for involuntary termination of Father's parental rights to his minor child, R.E.R.S. ("Child"). We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Father and Mother are the natural parents of Child, born in December 2015. Father has been incarcerated since July 18, 2015 (before Child was born), and is currently serving a sentence of eleven (11) to twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment for third-degree murder. Mother is now married to Stepfather. On December 11, 2017, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition for involuntary termination of Father's parental rights to Child. Father filed a pro se affidavit on January 19, 2018, in opposition to the termination petition. The Orphans' court appointed counsel for Father and an attorney-guardian ad litem ("GAL") for Child. On May 9, 2018, and October 10, 2018, the court held hearings on the termination petition. At the time of the hearings, Child was less than three years old. The court ultimately granted the petition on November 13, 2018, and terminated Father's parental rights to Child. Father filed a timely pro se notice of appeal on November 21, 2018.
See In Re: T.S., ___ Pa. ___, 192 A.3d 1080 (2018), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1187, 203 L.Ed.2d 220 (2019) (establishing presumption that child who is three years of age or younger cannot form subjective, articulable preference to be advanced during contested termination proceedings).
Notwithstanding the procedural anomalies surrounding the filing of Father's notice of appeal, the court ultimately directed the clerk of courts to mark the notice of appeal as filed on November 21, 2018. --------
On April 11, 2019, Father's counsel filed in this Court an application to withdraw. The Orphans' court ordered Father on April 16, 2019, to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On April 17, 2019, this Court granted counsel's application to withdraw, remanded for the Orphans' court to determine whether Father was eligible for appointment of new counsel, and retained jurisdiction. On April 29, 2019, the Orphans' court appointed new counsel for Father.
Father filed a pro se Rule 1925 statement on May 6, 2019. On May 7, 2019, new counsel filed a motion for an extension of time to file a Rule 1925 statement, which the Orphans' court granted the following day. On June 6, 2019, Father filed another pro se Rule 1925 statement. Father filed a counseled Rule 1925 statement on June 24, 2019.
Father raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE [ORPHANS'] COURT LACKED COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S INFERENCES OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT [APPELLEES] PROVED, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION UNDER 23 PA.C.S.[A.] § 2511(A)(1)[?](Father's Brief at 4).
WHETHER THE [ORPHANS'] COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT CONTINUING PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR [APPELLANT] WOULD BE CONTRARY TO...CHILD'S BEST INTEREST[?]
Appellate review in 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).
Section 2512 governs who may bring a petition to terminate parental rights, and what the petition must contain, as follows:
§ 2512. Petition for involuntary termination
(a) Who may file.—A petition to terminate parental rights with respect to a child under the age of 18 years may be filed by any of the following:
(1) Either parent when termination is sought with respect to the other parent.
(2) An agency.
(3) The individual having custody or standing in loco parentis to the child and who has filed a report of intention to adopt required by section 2531 (relating to report of intention to adopt).
(4) An attorney representing a child or a guardian ad litem representing a child who has been adjudicated dependent under 42 Pa.C.S.A § 6341(c) (relating to adjudication).
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2512. If the petitioner is not an agency, then the petition must include "an averment that an adoption is presently contemplated or that a person with a present intention to adopt exists." In re Adoption of J.F.D., 782 A.2d 564, 567 (Pa.Super. 2001). In any event, the burden of proof remains with the petitioning party, who must establish valid grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa.Super. 2003).
(b) Contents.—The petition shall set forth specifically those grounds and facts alleged as the basis for terminating parental rights. The petition filed under this section shall also contain an averment that the petitioner will assume custody of the child until such time as the child is adopted. If the petitioner is an agency it shall not be required to aver that an adoption is presently contemplated nor that a person with a present intention to adopt exists.
* * *
After a thorough review of the record, Father's brief, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable George N. Zanic, P.J., we conclude Father's issues merit no relief. The Orphans' court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Orphans' Court Opinion, filed November 16, 2018, at 3-5) (finding: Father has failed to perform any parental duties for Child during six months preceding termination petition; Father has been incarcerated for Child's entire life; for majority of Child's life, Father has had no contact with Child, because he claims he was unaware of Mother's whereabouts; Father began communicating with Child via cards and biweekly phone calls only after Mother and Stepfather filed termination petition; Stepfather has assumed role of stepparent for Child and has cared for Child for several years; Child has developed bond with Stepfather, and Child looks to him as paternal role model; it is in best interest of Child to maintain stability in loving, supportive environment she has at Mother and Stepfather's home; it is not in best interest of Child to visit Father in prison or communicate with Father via mail and biweekly phone calls). Accordingly, we affirm based on the Orphans' court opinion.
Decree affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/8/2019
Image materials not available for display.