From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

K.A. v. M.A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 3, 2015
J-S32045-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 3, 2015)

Opinion

J-S32045-15 No. 251 WDA 2015 No. 252 WDA 2015

06-03-2015

IN RE: K.A., a Minor, Appellee v. APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, Appellant IN RE: L.A., a Minor, Appellee v. APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order entered on January 21, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 277 of 2010 Appeal from the Order entered on January 21, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans' Court Division, No. TPR 079 of 2014 BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:

M.A. ("Mother") appeals the Order granting the Petitions filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families ("CYF") to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her son, K.A. (born 1/3/2003), and daughter, L.A. (born 2/16/1999) (collectively "Children"), pursuant to section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). We affirm

The trial court also terminated the parental rights of K.B. ("Father") and "Unknown Father." Father did not appeal the termination of his parental rights to the Children.

The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history of this case in its Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/15, at 1-4. We adopt the trial court's recitation for purposes of this appeal. See id .

On appeal, Mother raises the following question for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that CYF met its burden of proving[,] by clear and convincing evidence[,] that [the] termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the needs and the welfare of the [C]hildren pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?
Brief for Mother at 7.

Our standard of review is as follows:

[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court's determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. ... [O]ur standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.



... [U]nlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings
regarding the child and parents. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the record and the court's legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
In re Adoption of S.P ., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted).

Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Pursuant to that section, the burden is on the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J ., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). "[C]lear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony 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." Id . (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Satisfaction of any one subsection of section 2511(a), along with consideration of section 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re B.L.W ., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). In this case, Mother does not contest that there is competent evidence in the record to support the termination of her parental rights to the Children under at least one subsection of 2511(a). See Mother's Brief at 13. Rather, Mother challenges the trial court's decision to terminate her parental rights based upon section 2511(b), which states the following:

(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(b).

Regarding section 2511(b), the court inquires whether the termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the Children. See In re C.M.S ., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). "Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child." Id . at 1287 (citation omitted). The trial court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id .; see also In re Z.P ., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that "the court must take into account whether a bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship."); In re K.Z.S ., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explaining that, in cases where there is no evidence of any bond between the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists). Additionally, "the strength of emotional bond between a child and a potential adoptive parent is an important consideration in a 'best interests' analysis." In re I.J ., 972 A.2d 5, 13 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also In re T.S.M ., 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013) (stating that "courts considering termination must also consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster parents."). Moreover, trial courts are not required to use expert testimony when conducting a bonding analysis, and may utilize evaluations by social workers and caseworkers to show the bond between parents and their children. In re Z.P ., 994 A.2d at 1121. Finally, the focus in terminating parental rights under section 2511(a) is on the parent, but it is on the child under section 2511(b). In re Adoption of C.L.G ., 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).

On appeal, Mother contends that the termination of her parental rights may permanently sever the loving relationship between her and L.A. Mother's Brief at 13. Mother points out that Dr. Neil Rosenblum, a licensed clinical psychologist, provided expert testimony that L.A. has a relationship with Mother, she loves Mother, and there is a bond between them. Id . at 13-14. Mother claims that there is still a relationship between her and K.A., even though she is not visiting him. Id . at 14. Mother asserts that her older daughter has indicated that K.A. misses Mother and wants Mother to come home. Id . Mother desires to have contact with the Children, so that they can enjoy the benefit of her love and companionship. Id . Mother contends that the trial court's Orders should be reversed, as CYS failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of her parental rights best serves the needs and welfare of the Children. Id . at 14-15.

In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother's claim, set forth the relevant law, and concluded that her claim lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/15, at 5-11. We concur with the sound reasoning of the trial court and affirm on this basis. See id .

Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/3/2015

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

K.A. v. M.A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 3, 2015
J-S32045-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 3, 2015)
Case details for

K.A. v. M.A.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: K.A., a Minor, Appellee v. APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, Appellant…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 3, 2015

Citations

J-S32045-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 3, 2015)