J-S94009-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: H.J.L., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
APPEAL OF: J.A.S., FATHER
Appellant No. 1381 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree July 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 36-2016-0552
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 22, 2016
J.A.S. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order involuntarily
terminating his parental rights to his daughter, H.J.L. (Child) (born 7/2009).
After careful review, we affirm.1
From 2006 through 2014, Lancaster County Children and Youth Social
Service Agency (Agency) received multiple reports of child neglect,
unsanitary home conditions, domestic violence, inappropriate persons
residing in Child’s home and drug dealing in the home where Child resided
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Child’s Guardian Ad Litem has indicated that he concurs with the position of
petitioner, Lancaster County Children and Youth Social Service Agency.
J-S94009-16
with Mother.2 In addition, Mother tested positive for marijuana and heroin
use. Father resided in the house with Mother and Child until February 2013,
when he was incarcerated for robbery, resisting arrest and related offenses.
Father remained in county prison until February 2014; this was the last time
he saw Child. In February 2014, Father was transferred to SCI-Camp Hill; in
July 2014, he was transferred to SCI-Retreat. Father is due to be released
from prison in February 2017.
In January 2015, the Agency filed for temporary physical and legal
custody of Child; she was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
In November 2015, Child was placed in a foster home where she remains to
date; it is a pre-adoptive placement. Child has bonded with her foster
parents and attends weekly therapy sessions where she addresses her
emotional distress, anger problems, and anxiety issues.
After receiving a letter from an Agency employee in 2015, Father
requested contact with Child. In late November 2015, Father began to write
Child letters on a weekly/bi-weekly basis.
On January 19, 2016, the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily
terminate Father’s parental rights to Child. On May 23, 2016, and July 18,
____________________________________________
2
Mother consented to termination of her parental rights to Child in July
2016. She is not a party to this appeal.
-2-
J-S94009-16
2016, the court held termination hearings.3 On July 22, 2016, the court
terminated Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant sections 2511(a)(1),
(a)(2), (a)(5), and (b) of the Adoption Act.4 Father filed a timely appeal in
which he raises the following issues for our consideration:
(1) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in
terminating the parental rights of Father where he exerted
[a] sincere and genuine effort to maintaining the parent-
child relationship, used the resources available to him to
preserve the parental relationship, exercised reasonable
firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the way of
maintaining the relationship, and where Father may be
released from prison in a reasonable period of time?
(2) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in finding
that there is clear and convincing evidence that it is in
H.J.L.’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights?
We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental
rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560,
563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining
whether the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence. Id.
Moreover,
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the
burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish
by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for
doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is
defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and
____________________________________________
3
On April 11, 2016, the court also held a review hearing where Father,
Mother, and several agency employees testified.
4
See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2910.
-3-
J-S94009-16
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.” It is well established that a court must examine the
individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all
explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence
in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants
termination.
In re adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
omitted). See also In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party
seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination under
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs
and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)).
After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and relevant case law,
we affirm the trial court’s order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental
rights to Child on the basis of the well-written decision authored by the
Honorable Leslie Gorbey. While Father may have the “intent to improve his
parenting capacity and ability to provide for H.J.L.,” Appellant’s Brief, at 17,
this does not overcome the fact that he has failed to assert a place of
importance in Child’s life while he has been incarcerated. See In re
Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 828 (Pa. 2012) (while incarceration neither
compels nor precludes termination, it is potentially determinative factor in
court’s conclusion that grounds for termination exist under section
2511(a)(2) where repeated and continued incapacity of parent due to
incarceration has caused child to be without essential parental care, control
or subsistence and causes of incapacity cannot or will not be remedied). In
-4-
J-S94009-16
addition, even though Father may believe that Child “deserves the
opportunity to have a relationship with [him,]” Appellant’s Brief, at 17, this
does not change the fact that Father simply cannot meet “the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of [Child].” 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Father has not seen his daughter for more than half of
her young life, he has not asked the Agency about Child’s wellbeing, there is
no apparent parent-child bond, and Child has no desire to respond to
Father’s letters. Finally, the positive impact that the foster parents have had
on Child’s emotional and developmental needs is significant and supports the
trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights under section
2511(b). N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/23/16, at 26, 49. See In the
Interest of T.A.C., 110 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2015).
Order affirmed.5
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/22/2016
____________________________________________
5
We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Gorbey’s opinion in the
event of further proceedings in the matter.
-5-