J-A10030-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: K.M.S. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF J.M.S., BIRTH FATHER
No. 1858 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order October 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 7 of 2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PANELLA, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED MAY 18, 2016
The matter before us is an Order of Termination filed by the trial court
on October 21, 2015. In that order, the trial court terminated the parental
rights of J.M.S., the father of the child in issue. Because the trial court has
not provided the parties or this Court with any type of analysis or discussion
of the evidence, we remand.
J.M.S. is the natural father of the minor child, K.M.S. After the birth
mother terminated her parental rights by way of a confirmed consent, the
Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau took custody of the child, and the
child was placed in a foster home.
The child was adjudicated dependent on November 1, 2013. Father
has been incarcerated for major periods of time since the child’s placement
J-A10030-16
in foster care. Eventually, the Bureau filed a Petition for Termination of
Parental Rights against Father. A trial was held on September 17, 2015.
Following the trial, the trial court entered a form order on October 21,
2015, placing check marks in the boxes that contain the statutory language
to support a termination. This language is not oriented toward the facts of
this case, but is generic for any termination case.
Father filed an appeal, and then submitted to the trial court a Concise
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, which was filed on
November 20, 2015. Although the Concise Statement contains very general
allegations that the trial court erred in its decision to grant termination, it
does reference arguments that:
1. The trial court erred in finding that no bond existed between Father
and his child;
2. The termination was based on environmental factors which were
beyond the control of Father; and
3. The trial court erred in finding that the termination would best
serve the needs and welfare of the child.
In response, the trial court filed a “STATEMENT IN LIEU OF OPINION”
which did not address the issues raised by Father, but instead, in a summary
and cursory fashion, provided:
In response to Appellant/Father’s Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, filed on
November 20, 2015, this Court will rely upon the Order of
Court entered in this matter on October 21, 2015, along
with the record of the proceedings held on March 11,
2015 and September 17, 2015, respectively, and will
issue no further Opinion.
-2-
J-A10030-16
There is no review of the evidence or analysis of the grounds for termination
in the transcripts from March 11 or September 17, 2015.
“[O]ur 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 I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8-9 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation
omitted). We employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order
to determine whether the trial court's decision was supported by competent
evidence. See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en
banc).
In this case, we are unable to exercise proper appellate review due to
the trial court’s failure to author an independent judicial opinion supported
by independent factual findings. See In re K.P., 872 A.2d 1227, 1231-1232
(Pa. Super. 2005). Accordingly, this case is remanded for an evaluation by
the trial court of the petition and supporting evidence presented by the
Bureau.
The trial court must file an opinion in this Court within thirty days of
the date of this memorandum. Upon receipt of the record in this Court,
Appellant’s counsel shall be granted thirty days to file a supplemental brief.
Upon the filing of Appellant’s supplemental brief, Appellee’s counsel shall be
granted thirty days to file a supplemental brief. The Prothonotary is directed
-3-
J-A10030-16
to then relist this case on the next available Argument List following receipt
of the trial court’s opinion.
Jurisdiction retained. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with
this memorandum.
-4-