J-A32003-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: K.J.K. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: T.W. :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1260 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 85249
BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2017
T.W. (Stepfather) appeals the order entered July 12, 2017, in the Court
of Common Pleas of Berks County, that denied his petition to terminate the
parental rights of M.K. (Father) to K.J.K. (Child), the minor child of Father and
T.J.W. (Mother), to adopt Child. We are unable to address the merits of this
appeal, and therefore remand for a supplemental opinion.
In this appeal, we apply the following standard of review:
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard
when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for
termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our
standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the
findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if
they are supported by the record. In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d
1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are supported,
appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an
error of law or abused its discretion. Id.; R.I.S., [614 Pa. 275,
284,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A32003-17
been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely
because the reviewing court might have reached a different
conclusion. Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors
America, Inc., 613 Pa. 371, 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011);
Christianson v. Ely, 575 Pa. 647, 838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa.
2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of
discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
As we discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for applying an
abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. We
observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not
equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold
record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the
relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other
hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at
1190. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite
result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases,
an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial
court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment;
instead we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual
findings are supported by the record and the court’s legal
conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of
discretion. In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066
(Pa. 1994).
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-827 (Pa. 2012).
The trial court has authored an opinion, dated July 12, 2017, in support
of its order. However, the trial court’s opinion contains a “discussion” and
“findings,” without any citation to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) or (b) and no legal
analysis of whether Appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence
under § 2511(a)(1) or whether the trial court denied termination solely under
§ 2511(b). Without such an analysis, we cannot conduct meaningful appellate
review of the parties’ assertions of error.
Therefore, we find it necessary to remand this case to the trial court for
a comprehensive opinion reflecting a full discussion of the testimony
-2-
J-A32003-17
presented at the hearing, the trial court’s credibility determinations and an
analysis of the evidence under Section 2511(a)(1) and (b), and particularly as
it relates to any bond between Father and Child. The trial court’s supplemental
opinion is due in this Court in 20 days.
Appellant shall have seven days thereafter to file a supplemental brief,
and Father and Child shall have seven days to file responsive briefs. The
Prothonotary is directed to set a briefing schedule for the supplemental briefs
and list the appeal before the next available argument panel following receipt
of the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) supplemental opinion.
Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction retained. Panel
jurisdiction relinquished.
-3-