In Re: Adoption of: C.J., A Minor, Appeal of: S.B. ( 2016 )

J-S65043-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.J., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.B.
No. 584 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order April 26, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No.: CP-02-AP-0000126-2015
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.S.B.
No. 598 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order April 26, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No.: CP-02-AP-0000125-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2016
In these consolidated appeals,1 S.B. (Mother) appeals from the order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court), entered April
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S65043-16
26, 2016 that terminated her parental rights to her daughters, C.J., born
January of 2014, and M.B., born June of 2012 (Children). We affirm on the
basis of the trial court’s opinion.2
The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) filed
petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children on July 29,
2015. The trial court aptly summarized the events that led CYF to file those
petitions in its opinion entered June 1, 2016. (See Trial Court Opinion,
6/01/16, at 1-3). We direct the reader to that opinion for the facts of this
case.
The trial court held a hearing on CYF’s petitions on March 9, 2016.
Testifying at that hearing, in addition to Mother, were court-appointed
psychological evaluator, Dr. Beth Bliss; and CYF caseworker, Kelley Nelson.
C.J.’s father, C.G., did not appear at the hearing, despite notice. (See N.T.
Hearing, 3/09/16, at 8-9).
The trial court entered its orders terminating Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) on April 26, 2016.
Mother filed her notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
1
This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte, on May 3, 2016.
2
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of C.J.’s father, C.G.
C.G. did not appeal the termination of his rights. M.B.’s father, L.F., is
deceased.
-2-
J-S65043-16
appeal in the case of C.J. on April 25, 2016,3 and in the case of M.B., on
April 28, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court filed an opinion
on June 1, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii).
Mother raises the following question on appeal:
I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter
of law in concluding that [CYF] met its burden of proving that
termination of [] Mother’s parental rights best serves the needs
and welfare of the [C]hildren pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.[A.] §
2511(b) by clear and convincing evidence[?]
(Mother’s Brief, at 7).4
____________________________________________
3
Mother’s notice of appeal appears to have been filed a day before the final
order was entered. However, we will treat Mother’s notice as having been
properly filed after the order’s entry. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (“A notice of
appeal filed after the announcement of a determination but before the entry
of an appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the
day thereof.”).
4
Mother has waived any challenge to the termination of her parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a) by her failure to raise the issue in her
concise statement and in the statement of questions involved portion of her
brief. (See Rule 1925(b) Statement, Docket No. 125-2015; Rule 1925(b)
Statement, Docket No. 126-2015; Mother’s Brief, at 7); Krebs v. United
Refining Co. of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“We
will not ordinarily consider any issue if it has not been set forth in or
suggested by an appellate brief’s statement of questions involved, and any
issue not raised in a statement of matters complained of on appeal is
deemed waived.”) (citations omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (stating,
“Issues not included in the [Rule 1925(b) s]tatement and/or not raised in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). In
fact, the trial court observed that “Mother only appeals the [c]ourt’s decision
as to . . . 23 Pa.C.S.A. §[]2511(b).” (Trial Ct. Op., at 4; see also id. at 3
(“Mother does not contest that the [C]hildren have been out of her care for
the statutorily requisite timeframe due to her repeated and continued
neglect and failure to parent, nor does she argue that she has the ability to
remedy the conditions that led to the [C]hildren’s removal.”)).
-3-
J-S65043-16
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).
We have examined the opinion entered by the trial court on June 1,
2016, in light of the record in this matter and are satisfied that that opinion
is a complete and correct analysis of this case, particularly as it pertains to
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County that terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(8) and (b) on the basis of the concise, thoughtful, and
well-written opinion of the Honorable Kathryn Hens-Greco. (See Trial Ct.
Op., at 7 (finding “that CYF carried the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that [] Mother’s parental rights should be terminated
and that the [C]hildren’s best interests will be served thereby.”)); see also
id. at 3-6.
Orders affirmed.
-4-
J-S65043-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/7/2016
-5-
Circulated 10/03/2016 02:20 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DlVISION
...... ,. ... ~ ~.
_
:-_.·".j\'
IN THE INTEREST OF: C .J.; M.D.A.F. a/k/a CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL
M.B., minor children
Docket No.: CP-02-AP-0126;
APPEAL OF: S.B., natural mother CP-02-AP-O 125
584 WDA 2016 & 598 WDA 2016
;_,1,
OPINION
HENS-GRECO, J. June l, 2015
· On March 9, 2016, following a one-day hearing on, the above captioned matter in which S .B.
. ; ·'. . : '. '.,·
("Mother") appeared with counsel, this Court issued an ordergranting the petition of the Allegheny
I • ( • '., 'I ( ' • '
County Office of Children, Youth and Families ("CYF") for involuntary termination of Mother's
parental rights, the naturai parent to two-year-old C.J. (born l/1/2014) and nearly four-year-old M.B.
··(born 6/2/2012), pursuant to 23 Pa. C:S :A. .§§ 2s·11(a)(2), (a)(S), (a)(8), and ·§2511 (b ). The Court also
.
terminated
. . the rights of C.G., C.J.'s biological
'
father;
.
C.G. did not appear
. .
at the hearing despite proper
service and does.not- appeal. M.B.'s father, L.Ff,li$Jqe'Ceased. For the reasons set forth below, the Order'
of this Court terminating the Mother's rights to the children should be affirmed.
A. Relevant Factual History
The family came to the attention of the Allegheny County Office of Children Youth and Families
~.. :i d1~~:..t~.·: .. ~ :l~.~~ir,ng :):1 t.;t·-·
("CYF") on September 18, 2013 after reports of domestic-violence between Mother and C.G ., the
I r ·t •' : ··q
). • 1,-:·i' l'I!'I ..··,:ti'
..\ }. i"
~· ·I '···:
j ' '
biological father of C.J. and reports that Mother and the children were homeless. See Transcript of
I .
. : .:., ....
• I
. Testimony ("T:T."), dated March 9, 2016,:at 52.·C~f.· 1 :_·.! ,I,
'· , • ' ;.• ,. u: '.: r. ,. ,. ,, 1··.:•I ,· , :, , , , •
underweight and had been diagnosed as "failure'ro:1,:thi'i'!'11· ve':'''Jd:, at'43-44. Most of those associated
'
concerns have been rectified, although the child still has a heart condition that is monitored every couple
of months. Id., at 79. The children have been out of Mother's care since July 18, 2014 when they were
placed with Mother's cousin, their pre-adoptive foster mother E.G. The children were adjudicated
dependent on August 11, 2014. Mother wasi ihcar&'1irittt11·~·t)the time and-stipulated to the children's ·
'1., .
dependency.
CYF established a Family Service Plan ("FSP") with Mother to aid her in her reunification with
tier daughters. FSPs are comprised of goals, which are designed to address and resolve the conditions
• I
that led to children's removal from parental care. Mother's goals included: address domestic violence;
address mental health issues including1aitg~ii:matnfge\n'~Htf'-:adt;Iress: parenting issues; obtain employment;
:·' .. '.;Ji,! 1 :~ \ 11. 1,\" '. ;·:c :,u.:!.::\'.' H.1.i:/, ,._,.. •. . ·.: 1.
mainiain contact and cooperation with th:e\1ge11'2y(tii1di'-i;,,iif1Milh the children and eventually meet their
··\ •'
basic needs. Id., at 49-52. Mother largely refused to address any of these goals.
: Mother provided descriptions of the domestic violence to CYF, but she continued to return to
C.G. and, at least initially, refused to obtain-a Prcreetion.Frem Abuse Order against him. Id., at 49-50.
Furthermore, she refused.to engage in domestic vicftbri~e'.ltrehtnient untifSeP,ternber 2015, two months
I ·. .
. . . . 1:.
after the TPR petition was filed. There Was evidence 'that Mother had contact with C.G. as late as
January.2016. Mother has serious housing issues and an inability to provide for the children . At the
•
TPR hearing, Mother testified that she has two jobs. Id., at 87. But throughout the course of this case,
2
' . ,. . •. .i.il·'·.
. ,,,; .
• ' . !' :,11i:;·
both when the child were with Mother and when they were without her care, Mother did not have .
sufficient funds to provide-clothing, food or diapers unless they were provided to her by CYF. Id., at 51.
Troubi:ing too is the fact that Mother refused to maintain consistent contact with CYF. After the
children were removed in July 2014, contact was virtually lost until January-February 2015, and then
. -. ' .
. ! ·C:~~:1·l1-:.~I\ ~;~~1 t:n~r.~.:·;iV.\~t,P >J 1'.:.,. • •
lost until May 2015, which seemed to impilove uhf:i'I September 20 l 5 only to fall off again. Mother
,, : . I ,1 , , _,' ~ \:' I
· ' ::Ii·., . ;
visited with her children only a few times for the rest of 2015. In the beginning, after the children's
removal, she had made a couple visits and then had been arrested. When Mother was released in
. .
September 2014, there were still no visitsuntil December 2014. There were no visits from January
through May 2015. From May onward there were 66 sc~eduled visits; Mother missed 50 of them.
; l{.I,~ ·.;:·~J(i,1t)'"'!~ ·~~ 1• . ;}_~:.
However, because the children were placed with.kin, the foster mother informally allowed Mathena
.. i ,{°i
visit the ch_ildren. It is clear that the foster mother allowed these visits, but the Court finds that they did
not odclir ~ith the regularity that Mother claims. Mother has had difficulty meeting her own basic
needs. Id., at 50. Her housing has never been permanent - living between the Women's Shelter and with
C.G. _Critically, she has never addressed her mental health issues. There is no proof that any of the
, , , :,~: '.; ::~1 ;,; •L r., i"\/·::J .: i t·t1:·; ~> / ·~:.n l
necessary treatment occurred prior to'fatt11:acy.120116'i;_F'.i:\it.0f:tHe.:dale:ofthe hearing, the children had been ,·
'
without parental care.for 20 months, and it was clear that Mother is unable to remedy the conditions that.
led to their removal. On March 9, 2016, this Court granted CYF's petition and terminated Mother's
.
parental rights. J ·_·::: l i )( ·-. ·.~ i ! . ' - ,'
,:· B~<§~~.n.d~rd .
~d. \. ·!.i k:11') if.\··~. r~\Sk.~: :._·
1·: • ._',f" lli1
CYF based its petition to terminate Mother's.parental rights on 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511 (a)(2), (a)(5),
and (a)(8). Mother does not contest that the children have been out of her care for the statutorily requisite
timefrarne due to.her repeated and continued neglect and· refusal to parent, nor does she-argue that she has
the ability to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal. These conditions remain, and those
:r . -; .
. . .. .
issues are settled. Mother only appeals the Courr's.deeision as to the second, necessary step to the Court's
. · · . ;; ~ ;~r ,.J -~ ; f.: .
termination framework, as mandated by case law=and23Pa,.C.S.A. §25ll(b).
:r··i· '·,· . · :_.:;.·'·:·.: r :· !"
· Once the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights have. been clearly shown,
the Court must consider whether the termination would meet the needs and welfare of the child under
subsection §251 I (b ):
! (b) Other considerations. - The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary
.consideration to the developmental, phy~.Lc11hind. emotional needs and welfare of the child. The
: rights of a parent shall not be terniiitated1sMef/ti1:rth-ei basisof environmental factors such as
inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found Lo be beyond the·
control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)( l.), (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 petitions.
23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511 (b). A party seeking, teiminationof parental rights must establish by clear and
convincing evidence· that the parent's conduct satlsftes-auleast one of the statutory grounds for
., _,;:·.: ··'!.111· :il
termination; if it is determined that this httiiden,oB'()tkmf Bafbeei1.met; ltflen the trial court must next
I' . ' •
:; • ' I•: ::: ' ~ •
consider the second step of the process, which entails a determination of whether termination best serves
the needs and welfare of the child. In re S.D. T., Jr., 934 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007). In. reviewing an
order terminating parental rights, the appellate court "is limited to determining whether the decision of
the trial court is supported by competent evidence . ; Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or
. ! '-·~· ~ 1t.r.ii l Jd t J ( : c·nl.-fifi!J . : .~rtiot it
insufficient evidentiary support for the,lri.ial·:t0.L%t1isid~ci~·i~1i-)i~hc:idecree·must stand." In re S.H., 879
\ ~ ;:.J_~--"u·1i~1f i\r11.f. :·
A.2d 802, 809 (Pa. Super. . 2005). Furthermore,
.
thetrial court is "the sole determiner of the credibility
. of
witnesses and resolves all conflicts in testimony." Id., .c · · C.,niscussion
The only question in this case is whether·G¥Fhas ·proven that termination serves the children's
. ~- : ~ ' . . t ' 1 •
best needs and welfare pursuant to §25.ll~b:):i_r.)31.i.~~'..{e~ti.ft:e~\·th,at one cannot just consider whether there is
/:,,_; .,.\·.iti'..:i;.:;;.;· .;.~(i··i. . . . .
a bond, that a bond does not always make'a 'ho11ie"e1'i;{,'froii'1he1ff safe' and nurturing. Id. 'at 29.' Dr. Bliss I
testified that Mother's pervasive pattern of traits is "extremely problematic for the girls." ld., at 21.
While· Dr. 8 I iss opined that Mother cannot change her personality traits, therapy could have al lowed her
• • • • ~ I : ' I ' •
:' . '··.·,,.;· •. ! \', ' .
to manage those traits and correct some of the behavior. Id. But now the children have been out of
; .,·, ... :.l • ·1·· I• ' ..... I
Mother's care for close to two years - since C.J. was"s'fx:'~ion'ths old arid' since M.B. was two.
> .:~. :.-.i/' .:t;:/1, .. :.r .· ... · ,· : ; -r,
1 !, ••
Meanwhile, Mother has not shown that'sh~{has' ·~arkt:°d 011 any of her mental health issues. Id. At the
time of the evaluation, Mother was still taking no responsibility for her actions and minimizing or
denying any issues with the law or her abusive partner. Id., at 2 l-22. Mother has shown that her issues
have caused instability. Given the young age of the children, instability can detrimentally affect their
development. ld., at 22. Dr. Bliss tes~iJi¢~ tJi?ti;lf, ri:~~f~Hlroiia-.ortant to get stability as quickly as
. :1;-'.- . \··>:'·~·-.;/~ . . -.l;/.: . . '.\ . :.~.11. .
possible. Id. Dr. Bliss opined that so mudi;ti'ine:hns:rprissedrihat ri1'l'y successful treatment would only
occur in the long term. Id., at 32.
While a future relationship with Mother could be beneficial to the children, it is not necessary .
• f '
And if ties were completely severed, any adverseaffect on the children - mainly the older M.B. - would
be temporary and outweighed by the positive.benefilf:11i~y.:i~CDuld receive from the termination. Id., at
· mentally grow into healthy children. Id. Bu,t it cannot be understated the importance of a child's
development free from domestic violence and, given.Mother's history with domestic violence, the
certainty that the children would be exposed to it if placed in her care.
:P· : .
' l" : t, .
·: · ~ .. ti.~~)c;:°.,) ~'· i.: ~ . i
D. Conclusion
After a careful review of all the evidence and for the reasons set forth above, this Court
concluded that CYF carried the burden ofprovingbyclear and convincing evidence that rhe Mother's
' .' ! . ·, •.: ~ \ 1 '' ;· : : - ~·\'' ;}
parental rights should be terminated and that the children's best interests will be served thereby. For
·: . ,· · ·, .. \·!H )1,~}\"\ 1 ~ 1 .~i ...
these reasons, the decision of the Court ~ht>~1l9 be-affirmed.
, .. 1·'·;·: ', ' i . !·,:1.f'r :•!
\
.BY THE COURT:
, J.
. ,
., .~
1•' .
: '; '·
:./:;, .• 1·;~t.t1ui( l;,.~· flff n- ,,:·J.
:,·,;;,1-.t
. -. i ~ .
. • r•
.
.,;,
: •
•., ! :•.·
,. ·: ,;; .1':- ·'
,1. ,,' ' •• (
:, .. ,}·: ;.
'. :,·:·.·