J-A06013-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.B., JR. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: R.B & H.B., PARENTS
No. 1597 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order August 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 1 of 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: R.B & H.B., PARENTS
No. 1598 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order August 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 2 of 2015
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: R.B & H.B., PARENTS
No. 1599 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order August 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 3 of 2015
J-A06013-16
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: R.B & H.B., PARENTS
No. 1600 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order August 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 4 of 2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE & DUBOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.,: FILED APRIL 25, 2016
Appellants, R.B. (“Father”) and H.B. (“Mother”) (collectively,
“Parents”), appeal from the orders entered August 6, 2015, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Mifflin County, involuntarily terminating the parental rights
of Mother and Father to R.B., Jr., born in June of 2007; A.B. and D.B., twins
born in July of 2008; and S.B., born in July 2013 (collectively, “Children”).
We affirm.1
On March 7, 2013, Mifflin County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”)
became involved with the family after the family moved to Mifflin County
from York County.2 Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/15, at 11. R.B., Jr., A.B. and
____________________________________________
1
This Court consolidated these appeals by Order dated October 15, 2015.
2
York County Children and Youth Services had been providing Mother and
Father with almost 24-hour, 7-days a week support and assistance from
2008 until Mother and Father moved to Mifflin County on March 7, 2013.
-2-
J-A06013-16
D.B. were adjudicated dependent on April 11, 2013. Id. at 1-2. S.B. was
taken into Emergency Protective Custody after her birth and adjudicated
dependent on August 9, 2013. Id. at 2. Children remain in foster care. Id.
at 14.
On January 15, 2015, CYS filed Petitions to Involuntarily Terminate the
Parental Rights of Parents as to all Children. The trial court held a hearing
on these petitions on May 18, 2015. The trial court opinion carefully details
the relevant testimony from the hearing, and we adopt the trial court’s
recitation of the facts. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/15, at 2-9. Of particular
importance, the trial court heard testimony from David Ray, a licensed
psychologist, and Charles Middlestead, who holds a Ph.D. in human
development and psychology, both of whom had evaluated Parents and
Children. Both evaluators opined that Parents were incapable of providing
necessary and continuous parental care to Children. On August 6, 2015, the
trial court entered orders involuntarily terminating Parents’ parental rights to
Children.
Parents timely appealed and filed a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). They
raise the following issues:
1. The [trial] court improperly ignored the requirements of Title
23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)[(2)] and in doing so relied on
prior records not in evidence.
2. The [trial] court improperly ignored the requirements of Title
23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(5).
-3-
J-A06013-16
3. The [trial] court improperly ignored the requirements of Title
23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(8).
4. The [trial] court arbitrarily and capriciously denied the
existence of parental bonding with the [C]hildren.
Parents’ Brief at 2.
Our standard of review regarding orders terminating parental rights is
as follows:
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 S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005) (quoting In re C.S., 761
A.2d 1197, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2000)).
In termination cases, the burden is upon the petitioner to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the
termination of parental rights are valid. In re S.H., supra at 806. We have
previously stated 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.” In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d
1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003).
-4-
J-A06013-16
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) (quoting In re Diaz, 669 A.2d 372, 375 (Pa. Super. 1995)).
“[I]f 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) (quoting In re: N.C.,
N.E.C., 763 A.2d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2000)). Additionally, this Court
“need only agree with [the trial court’s] decision as to any one subsection in
order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d
380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004).
In terminating Parents’ parental rights, the trial court relied upon, inter
alia, Sections 2511(a)(2) and (b) of the Adoption Act, which provide as
follows:
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a
child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the
following grounds:
...
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to
be without essential parental care, control or
subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-
being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity,
abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied
by the parent.
...
-5-
J-A06013-16
(b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the
rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare
of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated
solely on the basis of environmental factors such as
inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and
medical care if found to be beyond the control of the
parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to
subsection (a)(1), (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 petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (b).
With respect to Section 2511(a)(2), the grounds for termination of
parental rights, due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied, are not
limited to affirmative misconduct; “to the contrary, those grounds may
include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties.” In
re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002). Nevertheless, parents are
required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption
of full parental responsibilities. Id. at 340. A child’s life “simply cannot be
put on hold in the hope that [a parent] will summon the ability to handle the
responsibilities of parenting.” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 732 (Pa. Super.
2008). Rather, “a parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and
rearing of his child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental
duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or
her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” In re B., N.M.,
856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004).
-6-
J-A06013-16
On appeal, Parents argue that CYS failed to present any evidence to
establish irremediable defects in parental capacity. The trial court, however,
found that CYS presented clear and convincing evidence establishing the
termination grounds found in Section 2511(a)(2) relative to both Mother and
Father. Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/15, at 10. The court noted that Parents’
incapacity has been on-going since 2008, and concluded that to delay
termination would prevent Children from receiving essential parental care
and permanency. Id. at 11.
The record reveals the trial court took into consideration that the
repeated and continued incapacity, neglect or refusal of Parents caused
Children to be without essential parental care, and that the condition and
causes of the incapacity, neglect and refusal of Parents cannot or will not be
remedied by them. After our careful review of the certified record, briefs,
and trial court opinion in regards to this issue, we find that the trial court’s
credibility and weight determinations are supported by competent evidence
in the record. See In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d at 394. The trial
court opinion thoroughly examines and explains its findings with regard to
Section 2511(a)(2), and its findings are supported by sufficient, competent
evidence in the record. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/15, at 10-11 (finding
that both psychology professionals credibly testified as to Parents’ incapacity
to care for Children at that time and for the foreseeable future; services
have been provided to Parents since 2008; Parents have been unable to
-7-
J-A06013-16
progress since 2008 and, in fact, terminated services in Mifflin County
prematurely; and neither expert could state with any certainty that Parents
are able to generate effective solutions to novel situations). Accordingly, we
adopt the trial court’s opinion in regards to Section 2511(a)(2).
The trial court must also consider how terminating Parents’ parental
rights would affect the needs and welfare of Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2511(b). Pursuant to Section 2511(b), the trial court specifically must
consider whether termination of parental rights would best serve the
developmental, physical and emotional needs of the child. See In re
C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Intangibles such as
love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the
needs and welfare of the child.” Id. at 1287 (citation omitted). This Court
has instructed that the trial court “must also discern the nature and status of
the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of
permanently severing that bond.” See id. A parent’s love of his or her
child, alone, does not preclude a termination order. See In re L.M., 923
A.2d 505, 512 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Parents argue that the record supports their affection for Children, and
the Children’s affection for them. The trial court concluded that while
Parents love Children, it would be in the best interests of Children to sever
an insecure bond that is currently having a negative impact on Children.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/15, at 14. The court concluded that maintaining
-8-
J-A06013-16
Parents’ rights would deprive Children of a permanent, healthy, safe, and
secure parent-child relationship that they currently had with their foster
parents. Id.
After careful review of the record, we find that the competent evidence
in the record supports the trial court’s determination that there was not a
meaningful bond between Parents and Children such that, if severed, would
be detrimental to Children, and that the termination of Parents’ parental
rights would best serve the needs and welfare of Children. Thus, we will not
disturb the trial court’s determinations. See In re M.G., 855 A.2d at 73-74.
The trial court opinion comprehensively and correctly analyzes the pertinent
facts and legal standards. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court’s analysis as
our own on this issue and affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
See Trial Court Opinion, 8/6/15, at 13-15 (finding that both experts credibly
testified regarding the lack of a strong bond between Parents and Children;
that the effects of terminating Parents’ parental rights would be minimal due
to the extensive time Children have spent in foster care; and that the
benefits of permanent placement would far outweigh the effects of
terminating the parental rights).
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-9-
J-A06013-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/25/2016
- 10 -