Opinion
J-S76031-17 No. 1156 EDA 2017 No. 1157 EDA 2017
01-25-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.S.L.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: T.K.A.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree March 21, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0001006-2016 CP-51-DP-0001713-2015 Appeal from the Decree March 21, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0001005-2016 CP-51-DP-0001714-2015 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
In these consolidated cases, T.S. (Mother), appeals from the decrees that granted the petition to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her children, T.S.L.M., and T.K.A.M. (Children) (born 10/10 and 2/04, respectively), that was filed by Philadelphia's Department of Human Services (DHS) on October 25, 2016. We affirm.
This Court consolidated these cases sua sponte, on May 8, 2017.
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the Children's father, E.N. (Father). Father did not appeal that termination.
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. We refer the reader to the trial court's July 6, 2017 opinion, in which the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 7/06/17, at 1-6).
Mother raises the following questions on appeal:
Mother filed her notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal on April 4, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court filed an opinion on July 6, 2017. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii). --------
1. Did the [trial court] err in summarily denying [Mother's] Motion for Recusal, without due consideration, prior to proceeding to a Goal Change and Termination of Parental Rights Hearing?
2. Did the [trial court] err in finding that [DHS] had met its burden in proving grounds under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8), by "clear and convincing evidence"?
3. Did the [trial court] err in finding that DHS had met its burden to prove that termination would be in the [Children's] best interests, under § 2511(b)?
4. Did the [trial court] err in denying Due Process and Equal Protection of Law to [Mother] as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?(Mother's Brief, at 4) (some spacing provided).
Our standard of review of a trial court's order involuntarily terminating parental rights 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).
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 Mother has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Ct. Op., at 8-16) (finding: (1) motion for recusal properly denied where trial court determined it could hear and decide case fairly and without prejudice; (2) DHS produced clear and convincing evidence that over six months before filing of termination petition, Mother failed to perform parental duties, and Children had been in foster care for eighteen months at time of trial; (3) DHS produced clear and convincing evidence that it has made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with Children and conditions that led to placement of Children continue to exist; (4) DHS produced clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in best interest of Children's physical, intellectual, moral, and emotional well-being; (5) DHS produced clear and convincing evidence that no bond exists between Mother and Children; (6) DHS produced clear and convincing evidence that adoption would be in Children's best interest; and (7) Mother's due process rights were not violated). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/25/18
Image materials not available for display.