J-S10045-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.D.M., JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER : No. 3090 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered September 29, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2013-A0196
IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.D.M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER : No. 3091 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered September 29, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2013-A0195
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, J., AND PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2015
Appellant, C.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court, which granted
the petition of Appellee, the Montgomery Office of Children and Youth
Services (“OCY”), for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights as
to her minor children, J.D.M. and C.D.M. (“Children”).1 We affirm.
1
Children’s birth father is not a party to this appeal. He voluntarily
relinquished his parental rights to Children at the termination hearing on
March 19, 2014.
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S10045-15
In its opinion, the Orphans’ court fully and correctly sets for the
relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no
reason to restate them.
Mother raises several issues for our review:
WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
THAT [OCY] PROVED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF 23 PA.C.S.A. [§]
2511(A)(1), (2) AND (8) FOR THE INVOLUNTARY
TERMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS?
WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE CAUSES OF THE
ALLEGED INCAPACITY, ABUSE, NEGLECT OR REFUSAL
CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE REMEDIED BY [MOTHER]
PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(A)(2), WHEN [OCY]
FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR
[MOTHER’S] DISABILITIES, AND FAILED TO PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL ASSISTANCE IN MAINTAINING STABLE
HOUSING AND OTHER SERVICES?
WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN TERMINATING THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF
[MOTHER] ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
SUCH AS INADEQUATE HOUSING, FURNISHINGS,
INCOME, CLOTHING AND MEDICAL CARE, WHEN THOSE
FACTORS WERE BEYOND [MOTHER’S] CONTROL
PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(B), AND WHEN
[OCY] FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR [MOTHER’S] DISABILITIES AND FAILED TO PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL ASSISTANCE IN MAINTAINING STABLE
HOUSING AND OTHER SERVICES?
WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENTAL,
PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS AND WELFARE OF
[CHILDREN] WILL BE BEST SERVED BY THE TERMINATION
OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 23
PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(B), WHEN THERE IS A STRONG AND
LOVING BOND BETWEEN [MOTHER] AND THE CHILDREN,
-2-
J-S10045-15
AND SEVERANCE OF THAT BOND WILL CAUSE
IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE CHILDREN?
WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
[OCY’S] PETITION TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM
REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION WHEN THE GOAL OF
REUNIFICATION REMAINS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND
FEASIBLE GOAL BASED ON THE STATUTORY FACTORS SET
FORTH IN 42 PA.C.S.A. [§] 6351(F)?
WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
[OCY’S] PETITION TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM
REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION WHEN [OCY] FAILED TO
MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO FINALIZE THE
PERMANENCY PLAN GOAL OF REUNIFICATION?
WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT HAD SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF
CHANGING THE GOAL FROM REUNIFICATION TO
ADOPTION WHEN THE COURT DID NOT CONSULT WITH
THE CHILDREN REGARDING THE PERMANENCY PLAN
PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A. [§] 6351(E)(1)?
(Mother’s Brief at 4-5).2
Appellate review in 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
2
Mother’s brief on appeal presents no legal argument based on Section
6351, as recited in Mother’s issues 5 through 7. Mother merely quotes the
statute and draws conclusions based on her interpretation of the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, we give these issues no further
attention.
-3-
J-S10045-15
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
-4-
J-S10045-15
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Lois E.
Murphy, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The Orphans’ court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Orphans’ Court Opinion, filed September 29, 2014, at 5-
17) (finding: Children were removed from Mother on September 21, 2011,
at Mother’s own initiative by calling OCY; Mother suffers from multiple
medical and mental health issues, including multiple sclerosis and bipolar
disorder; Mother acknowledges history of drug abuse, including abuse of
prescription drugs, methamphetamines, amphetamines, and cocaine;
Mother, for some time, actively worked toward reunification with Children
per OCY’s goals; however, among other circumstances, Children’s birth
father was released from jail and took from Mother money meant for
housing, and Mother subsequently lost housing; Mother appeared intoxicated
on some visits with Children; Mother missed approximately 50 percent of
visits and 60 percent of scheduled phone calls; Mother allowed birth father
to be present on unsupervised visits with Children, though birth father was
not to attend because he was found intoxicated previously while around
Children; Mother failed to obtain recommended long-term outpatient
psychotherapy; Mother tested positive in drug tests on at least eight
occasions; Mother acknowledged history of health, financial, and housing
instability; Mother refused to provide current address to OCY caseworker;
Mother is unable to provide Children with essential parental care, control, or
-5-
J-S10045-15
sustenance necessary for their physical and mental well-being; the causes of
Mother’s incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal cannot or will not be
remedied; Mother has not provided housing, met Children’s needs, or
maintained consistent parent-child relationship; OCY proved by clear and
convincing evidence that Mother failed and refused to perform her parental
duties for 36 months, beyond 6-month period prior to filing of petitions;
conditions leading to placement of Children continue to exist and cannot or
will not be remedied by Mother; Mother lacks capacity to meet all obligations
of providing safe, secure, and nurturing home for Children; OCY met its
burden of proof under Section 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(8); per Section
2511(b), parental bond between Mother and Children is attenuated; Children
have developed significant bond with foster parents; Children are very well
loved and entrenched in foster home; Children’s emotional needs and
welfare are best met by termination of Mother’s parental rights, and Children
will not suffer irreparable harm as result of termination; OCY made
reasonable efforts to attempt to reunify Children with Mother, but court
found adoption appropriate; OCY established basis for terminating Mother’s
parental rights to Children). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of
Mother’s parental rights to Children on the basis of the Orphans’ court
opinion.
Orders affirmed.
-6-
J-S10045-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/12/2015
-7-