Opinion
No. 442 EDA 2021 No. 443 EDA 2021
06-24-2021
In the INTEREST OF: D.L., a Minor Appeal of: T.L., Father In the Interest of: D.L., a Minor Appeal of: T.L., Father
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
T.L. (Father) appeals from the orders entered on February 3, 2021, involuntarily terminating his parental rights to D.L. (Child), born in December of 2018, and changing the goal for Child from reunification to adoption. We affirm.
On appeal, Father's brief provides the following questions for our review:
1. [W]hether the trial court committed reversible error when it involuntarily terminated [F]ather's parental rights, where such determination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence under the [A]doption [A]ct, 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 2511(a)(2).
2. [W]hether the trial court committed reversible error when it involuntarily terminated [F]ather's parental rights without giving primary consideration to the effect that the termination would have on the developmental, physical and emotional needs of the [C]hild as required by the [A]doption [A]ct, 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 2511(b).
3. [W]hether the trial court erred in involuntarily terminat[ing] [F]ather's parental rights as [Father] was not given single case plan goals to accomplish, nor was considered a viable reunification resource from the outset due to his incarceration. 42 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 6351 and 23 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 2511(b).
Although Father lists these three issues in his brief, he has not included a section with discussion relating to the third issue. Furthermore, he has omitted any argument relating to the goal change order and, therefore, we conclude that he has waived that issue. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), R.L.P. v. R.F.M., 110 A.3d 201, 208-09 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that arguments not appropriately developed are waived).
We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the following standard:
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are 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 insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge's decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court's decision is supported by competent evidence.
In re R.N.J. , 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H. , 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005) ). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. R.N.J. , 985 A.2d at 276. Moreover, we have explained that:
The standard of clear 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. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003) ). 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. In re M.G. , 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If competent evidence supports the trial court's findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B. , 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the Honorable Joseph Fernandes of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated March 25, 2021. We conclude that Judge Fernandes’ well-reasoned decision properly disposes of the issues raised by Father. In particular, Judge Fernandes notes that "Father has been incarcerated pre-trial for the life of the case and has been charged with and alleged to have committed Mother's murder." Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/2021, at 11. The judge also observed that "Father has had no contact with Child and has not seen her since the day of Mother's death when ... Child was five-days old." Id. at 12. Furthermore, Father has not taken any affirmative action to show interest in Child during the twenty-six months she has been committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services. The judge concluded that "[g]iven ... Child's age and her lack of visits with Father, Child does not know Father." Id. Rather, Child has been in the care of her maternal aunt, who has met Child's needs. Thus, we conclude that Judge Fernandes’ opinion properly disposes of the issues Father raises in this appeal. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Fernandes’ opinion as our own and affirm the orders appealed from on that basis.
Orders affirmed.
Attachment
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?