Opinion
J-A10044-16 No. 1650 WDA 2015
06-09-2016
IN RE: ADOPTION OF D.P., MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: M.H., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order September 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 63-15-0176 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PANELLA, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, M.H. ("Mother"), appeals from the order entered in the Washington County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of the Washington County Children & Youth Services Agency ("CYS") for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor child, D.P. ("Child"). We affirm.
D.P. ("Father") also appeals from the order which granted involuntary termination of his parental rights to Child, at docket No. 1615 WDA 2015.
In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
We add only that the court granted CYS' petition for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (b), on September 18, 2015. On Monday, October 19, 2015, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal along with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Mother raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER, BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, THE COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING [MOTHER'S] PARENTAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2511(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE ADOPTION ACT, WHEN MOTHER COULD BE EXPECTED TO REMEDY THE ISSUES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH [NECESSITATED] PLACEMENT WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME?(Mother's Brief at 4).
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TERMINATION OF [MOTHER'S] PARENTAL RIGHTS SERVED CHILD'S NEEDS AND WELFARE WHEN TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THAT A CLOSE BOND EXISTED AND THAT DETRIMENTAL HARM WOULD BE SUFFERED IF THE BOND WOULD BE SEVERED.
Mother does not challenge the court's termination of her parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Michael J. Lucas, we conclude Mother's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinions discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. ( See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, filed September 18, 2015, at 10-11; Trial Court Opinion, filed November 23, 2015, at 14-20) (finding: in 2014, Mother pled guilty in West Virginia to charges relating to endangerment of Child; Mother remained incarcerated at time of termination hearing and had not yet begun services in compliance with permanency plan; at time of termination hearing, Mother's release date was between July 2015 and June 2016; Child had been in placement for twenty-two of last thirty-two months at time of hearing; evidence showed Mother made little progress since Child's initial placement with CYS in 2012; Mother also made no progress at alleviating circumstances which led to Child's second placement in 2014; conditions which twice necessitated Child's placement continue to exist, and Mother presented no reliable or persuasive evidence to demonstrate that she can or will remedy those conditions within reasonable period of time; CYS caseworker credibly testified Mother's contact with Child was limited during her incarceration, consisting of "sporadic" phone calls when Mother had "money on the books," and gifts of candy; from time of incarceration until termination hearing, Mother provided no financial support for Child; CYS caseworker expressed concern that if Child were returned to care of his parents, Child would encounter difficulties due to unhealthy relationship between Mother and Father; CYS caseworker testified involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights will serve Child's best interests and need for permanency; Child is doing well in Paternal Grandmother's home and Paternal Grandmother wants to adopt Child; although Child has some bond with Mother, that bond is not beneficial; CYS met its burden for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights under Section 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (b)). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinions.
Paternal Grandmother testified Mother also sent Child cards occasionally.
Mother complains the court should not have considered Paternal Grandmother's testimony that she would permit continuing contact between Mother and Child upon termination of Mother's parental rights. Mother failed to raise this claim in her Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) statement, so it is waived. See Commonwealth v. Castillo , 585 Pa. 395, 888 A.2d 775 (2005) (holding generally that any issues not raised in Rule 1925 concise statement will be deemed waived on appeal); In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (explaining waiver rules under Rule 1925 apply in context of family law cases).
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary DATE: 6/9/2016
Image materials not available for display.