Opinion
J-S15043-16 J-S15044-16 No. 2387 EDA 2015 No. 2392 EDA 2015 No. 2393 EDA 2015
04-11-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.A., A MINOR APPEAL OF: B.A., FATHER IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.A., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.E.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.E.M., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree July 15, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000329-2014 CP-51-DP-0001000-2011 Appeal from the Decree July 15, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000217-2014 CP-51-DP-0000999-2011 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, AND PLATT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to Superior Court.
In these related and consolidated appeals, Appellant, M.E.M. (Mother), appeals the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered July 15, 2015, that terminated her parental rights to her daughter, S.J.M., born May 24, 2006, and the decree entered July 15, 2015, that terminated her parental rights to her daughter S.M.A., born November 7, 2010 (collectively Children). Appellant, B.A. (Father), appeals the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered July 15, 2015, that terminated his parental rights to his daughter, S.M.A. We affirm the decrees on the basis of the trial court opinions.
This Court consolidated 2392 EDA 2015 and 2393 EDA 2015, sua sponte, on September 10, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. 2387 EDA 2105 is a related case in that Appellant, B.A, is the father of one of the children in the consolidated cases.
S.J.M.'s father, J.M., relinquished his parental rights voluntarily on April 9, 2014. ( See Confirm Consent, 6/05/15).
In its opinions, entered on October 14, 2015, in the appeal of Father, and October 15, 2014, in the appeal of Mother, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them at length here.
For the convenience of the reader, we note briefly that on July 3, 2014, the Department of Human Services of Philadelphia County (DHS), filed its petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights to the Children and Father's parental rights to S.M.A. The trial court held a hearing on those petitions, which occurred over the course of three days, on April 6, 2015, June 5, 2015, and July 15, 2015. The trial court entered its decrees terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), on July 15, 2015. Father's timely appeal followed on July 29, 2015. Mother's timely appeal followed on August 4, 2015.
Father timely filed his notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal on July 29, 2015; the trial court entered its opinion on October 14, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), (b); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Mother timely filed her notices of appeal and statements of errors complained of on appeal on August 4, 2015; the trial court entered its opinion on October 15, 2015. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), (b); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). --------
Mother raises the following questions on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [M]other, M.E.M.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(1) where [M]other presented evidence that she substantially met her Family Service Plan ("FSP") objectives and tried to perform her parental duties[?]
2. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [M]other, M.E.M.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(2) where [M]other presented evidence that she has remedied her situation by taking parenting [classes], completing a Drug and Alcohol Assessment and competing a Mental Health Evaluation[?] Mother has the present capacity to care for her [C]hildren.
3. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [M]other, M.E.M.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(5) where evidence was provided to establish that [C]hildren were removed from the
care of [F]ather and [M]other, and that [F]ather and [M]other are now capable of caring for their [C]hildren[?](Mother's Brief, at 7).
4. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [M]other, M.E.M.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(8) where evidence was presented to show that [M]other is now capable of caring for [C]hildren since she has completed parenting classes and additional services were not needed[?] Additionally, [M]other completed her parenting capacity evaluation.
5. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [M]other, M.E.M.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(b) where evidence was presented that established [C]hildren have a strong parental bond with [M]other and had lived with [M]other for the first part of their lives[?]
Father raises the following questions on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [F]ather, B.A.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(1) where [F]ather presented evidence that he substantially met his FSP goals and tried to perform his parental duties[?]
2. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [F]ather, B.A.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(2) where [F]ather presented evidence that he has remedied his situation by taking parenting [classes], anger management and receiving mental health treatment[?] Father has the present capacity to care for [S.M.A.].
3. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [F]ather, B.A.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(5) where evidence was provided to establish that [S.M.A.] was removed from the care of [F]ather and [M]other, and that [F]ather is now capable of caring for [S.M.A.] [?]
4. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [F]ather, B.A.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(a)(8) where evidence was presented to show that [F]ather is now capable of caring for [S.M.A.] since he has completed parenting [classes] and drug and alcohol treatment[?] Additionally, [F]ather completed his parenting capacity evaluation.(Father's Brief, at 7).
5. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of [F]ather, B.A.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. sections [sic] 2511(b) where evidence was presented that established [S.M.A.] had a strong parental bond with [Father] and had lived with [Father] for the first part of her life[?]
Our standard of review is as follows:
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, we have stated:
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.
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
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).conclusions only if they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial court's sustainable findings.
The trial court terminated Mother's and Father'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, which provides, in pertinent part:
(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.
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.
* * *
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement
of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
* * *
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
* * *
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a), (b).
(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.
It is well settled that 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 and quotation marks omitted). Further,
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).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Mother and Father have raised on appeal. The trial court opinions properly dispose of the questions presented. ( See Opinion, 10/14/15, at 4-9 (finding that (1) Father failed to perform his parental duties in the last six months immediately preceding filing of petition; (2) Father has been unable to provide S.M.A. with essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary for her mental and physical well-being since September 1, 2011; (3) Father has been incapable and reluctant to assume his parental duties since S.M.A.'s removal on September 1, 2011; (4) S.M.A. has been out of Father's care for forty-six months, conditions leading to placement continue to exist, and termination would best serve needs and welfare of S.M.A.; and (5) S.M.A. will not suffer any irreparable harm by terminating Father's parental rights and it is in her best interest to terminate Father's parental rights)); (Opinion, 10/15/15, at 4-11 (finding that (1) Mother failed to perform her parental duties during last six months preceding filing of petition; (2) Mother has been unable to provide Children with essential parental care control and subsistence necessary for their mental and physical well-being since September 2011; (3) Mother has been unable to assume her parental duties since Children were removed from home on September 1, 2011; (4) Children have been out of Mother's care for forty-six months, conditions leading to placement still exist, and termination would best serve needs and welfare of Children; and (5) Children will not suffer any irreparable harm by terminating Mother's parental rights and it is in their best interest to terminate her parental rights)). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinions.
Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/11/2016
Image materials not available for display.