Opinion
J-S68042-19 No. 1211 WDA 2019
01-17-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., NATURAL MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered July 10, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-040-2019 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, A.M. ("Mother"), appeals from the order entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families ("CYF") for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor child, M.R. ("Child"). We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Mother and N.R. ("Father") are the natural parents of Child, born in May 2013.
Child first came to the attention of [CYF] in June 2014, when he was about a year old. Child experienced two relatively brief periods of placement in foster care when neither Parent was available to provide care for him. During both these periods, Mother was incarcerated and Father was in a work-release program related to his criminal court matters. This [c]ourt adjudicated Child dependent in September 2014 and was able to return Child to Parents' care in late October 2014 while Parents continued to pursue their drug treatment programs. Parents successfully satisfied the
[c]ourt's and CYF's expectations, and the first dependency matter concluded in May 2015.(Trial Court Opinion, filed September 26, 2019, at 2-3) (internal citations omitted). On February 25, 2019, CYF filed a petition to terminate parents' parental rights to Child. Following a hearing on July 9, 2019, the court entered an order on July 10, 2019, terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights. On August 9, 2019, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and a contemporaneous statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Unfortunately, Parents failed to maintain their recovery. Child again came to CYF's attention in March 2018 when Child was not quite five years old, after CYF received a report that Mother appeared impaired at school drop-off and pick-up. Upon investigation, Mother screened positive for cocaine and opiates. Father was incarcerated at the time. CYF obtained an emergency custody authorization ("ECA") and placed Child in foster care, where he has remained. On May 1, 2018, the [c]ourt again adjudicated...Child dependent, noting both Parents' "need to engage in appropriate levels of [drug and alcohol] treatment and to re-establish and maintain sobriety" as well as both Parents' need to "maintain their relationship" with Child.
Separate guardian ad litem ("GAL") and legal counsel represented Child during the dependency/termination proceedings.
Father filed a separate appeal from the order, which is docketed at No. 1210 WDA 2019 (J-S68041-19).
Mother raises the following issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND/OR ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT TERMINATION OF...MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF...CHILD PURSUANT TO
23 PA.C.S. § 2511(B)?(Mother's Brief at 6).
Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: "our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child."In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. ... 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may
uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court's findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court's decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2004).In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Eleanor L. Bush, we conclude Mother's issue merits no relief. The trial court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 26, 2019, at 9-11) (finding: as of termination hearing, Child had been in placement for 16 months; expert evaluator, Dr. Rosenblum, testified Child had sufficient contact with Mother through first 4 years of Child's life to demonstrate some level of attachment to her; Mother's involvement with Child since Child's placement, however, was inconsistent and unreliable; Mother also did not make progress to overcome her substance abuse issues and admitted drug use as recently as spring 2019; Child has become attached to foster mother, who is responsive to Child's emotional and developmental needs; Child is happy and thriving in foster home and relies on foster mother to meet his daily needs; thus, Dr. Rosenblum opined while Child might experience some degree of loss resulting from termination of Mother's parental rights, Child had already begun to cope with that emotional loss; in light of Mother's chronic substance abuse and lack of progress, court concluded Child's need for safety, permanency, and stability outweighs possible benefit to Child in maintaining relationship with Mother; evidence showed termination of Mother's parental rights to Child best served Child's needs and welfare). The record supports the court's decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/17/2020
Image materials not available for display.