In Re: M.B. and M.M. Appeal of: A.B.

J -S19011-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: M.B. AND M.M. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: A.B. No. 1762 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Decree Entered October 7, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans' Court at No(s): 31-16-0025, 31-16-0026 BEFORE: GANTMAN, Pa, BENDER, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2017 Appellant, A.B. ("Mother"), appeals from the decree entered in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas Orphans' Court, which granted the petitions of the Huntingdon County Children's Services ("Agency") for involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor children, M.B. and M.M. ("Children"). We affirm. In its opinion, the Orphans' Court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.' ' Despite the court's entry of a single termination decree, which terminated Mother's rights to both M.B. and M.M., we observe that it was improper for Mother to file a single notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 341 (providing that where one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket, or relating to more than (Footnote Continued Next Page) *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J -S19011-17 Mother raises five issues for our review: WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF [MOTHER] IN REGARDS TO [CHILDREN?] WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE AGENCY PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER...EVIDENCED A SETTLED PURPOSE OR INTENT TO GIVE UP OR FAILED TO PROVIDE PARENTAL DUTIES FOR THE SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE PETITION[?] WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT [MOTHER] COULD NOT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT CAUSED THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN[?] WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CONDITIONS WHICH LED TO THE REMOVAL OR PLACEMENT OF [CHILDREN] CONTINUED TO EXIST AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD BEST SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF [CHILDREN][?] WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED BY ASKING QUESTIONS CONCERNING AN EVICTION OF [MOTHER] IN AN UNRELATED MATTER THAT [THE COURT] PRESIDED OVER AND WHICH AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED CONCERNING AN EVICTION ACTION AGAINST [MOTHER?] (Mother's Brief at 4-5). Appellate review of 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 (Footnote Continued) one judgment, separate notices of appeal are required). Nevertheless, we decline to reject Mother's appeal on this basis. -2 J -S19011-17 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.1., 972 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 .7.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.1., 936 A.2d -3 J -S19011-17 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008)). Agency filed petitions for the involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to Children on the following grounds: § 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination (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: (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties. (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. (b) Other considerations.-The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to - 4 - J -S19011-17 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.A. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b). "Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along with consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions." In re Z.P., supra at 1117. Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of...her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Termination under Section 2511(a)(1) involves the following: To satisfy the requirements of [S]ection 2511(a)(1), the moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties. In addition, Section 2511 does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child and refusal or failure to - 5 - J -S19011-17 perform parental duties. Accordingly, parental rights may be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) if the parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental duties. Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the parent's explanation for...her conduct; (2) the post - abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to Section 2511(b). In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Regarding the six-month period prior to filing the termination petition: [T]he trial court must consider the whole history of a given case and not mechanically apply the six-month statutory provision. The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case and consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination of...her parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary termination. In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted). "Termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(5) requires that: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for at least six months; (2) the conditions which led to removal and placement of the child continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child." In re Z.P., supra at 1118. "[T]o terminate parental rights under Section 2511(a)(8), the - 6 - J -S19011-17 following factors must be demonstrated: (1) [t]he child has been removed from parental care for 12 months or more from the date of removal; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child." In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1275-76 (Pa.Super. 2003). "Section 2511(a)(8) sets a 12 -month time frame for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal by the court." In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003). Once the 12 - month period has been established, the court must next determine whether the conditions that led to the child's removal continue to exist, despite the reasonable good faith efforts of the Agency supplied over a realistic time period. Id. Termination under Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent's current willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused placement or the availability or efficacy of Agency services. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 396 (Pa.Super. 2003); In re Adoption of M.E.P., supra. Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination will meet the child's needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.Super. 2006). "Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent -child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the -7 J -S19011-17 bond." Id. Significantly: In this context, the court must take into account whether a bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship. When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation. In re Z.P., supra at 1121 (internal citations omitted). "The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be considered unfit and have...her rights terminated." In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001). This Court has said: There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance. This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child. Because achild needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a parent exert [herself] to take and maintain a place of importance in the child's life. - 8 - J -S19011-17 Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the parent -child relationship to the best of...her ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent -child relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one's parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs. In re B.,N.M., supra at 855 (internal citations omitted). "[A] parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of...her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill...her parental duties, to the child's right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of [the child's] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment." Id. at 856. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well -reasoned opinion of the Honorable George N. Zanic, 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 November 17, 2016, at 5-12) (finding: throughout dependency hearings, Agency was concerned with Children's medical neglect, lack of supervision, and home conditions; Mother waited several days to obtain necessary medication [for M.B.'s pneumonia]; Mother did not properly treat Children's lice for extended time; Mother ignored many safety concerns; Mother's home conditions also created health -9 J -S19011-17 and safety risk to Children; caseworkers observed, inter a/ia, sink used as garbage can, spilled ash trays, dirty diapers lying around home, bathtub filled with water, knives and razors left out, food left on floor, and child safety gates left open; Mother failed to maintain home improvements; as of June, 2016, caseworker noted health and safety concerns continued in Mother's home; caseworkers went above and beyond to assist Mother for almost 18 months, but Mother still lacks ability to establish safe and healthy environment for Children; Mother did not believe Children were in danger in her home; termination of Mother's parental rights was proper under Sections 2511(a)(1), (5), and (8); under Section 2511(b), Children were not upset to return to foster home after their visits with Mother ended; Children have extremely close bond with foster parents; severing bond with Mother is in Children's best interests; Children deserve permanency and healthy environment, which Mother is incapable of providing; regarding Mother's claim that court improperly questioned Mother about eviction proceedings, Mother's eviction was previously addressed during dependency proceedings, which are incorporated into record; permanency review orders stated Mother voluntarily agreed to move out of public housing after receiving eviction notice due to home conditions; court addressed eviction proceeding, but only considered it minimally relevant). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the Orphans' Court opinion. Decree affirmed. - 10 - J -S19011-17 Judgment Entered. J seph D. Seletyn, Prothonotary Date: 3/20/2017 Circulated 03/07/2017 02:36 PM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUNTINGDON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION IN RE: M.B. No. 2016-0025 DOB: 12/ /2013 : IN RE: M.M. No. 2016-0026 DOB: 4 . '2012 MEMORANDUM After hearing held on October 5 and 6, 2016, pursuant to a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, this Court was tasked with determining whether Petitioner had established by clear and convincing evidence that -~ppellanfsTnereinafter "Natural Mother") parenlaTrigflls witn respect to····- ·· M.M. and M.B. should be terminated. On October 7, 2016, we entered a decree terminating the parental rights of Natural Mother. We now write to fulfill our duties pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 192S(a). Natural Mother's Concise Statement of Matters Complained raised five issues that are related to the termination proceedings, which are: (1) this Court erred in terminating the parental rights of Natural Mother, (2) this Court erred in finding the Agency presented clear and convincing evidence of a settled intent to give up six months prior to filing the petition, (3) this Court erred in finding that Natural Mother could not correct any deficiencies in a reasonable time, (4) this Court erred in finding the conditions that lead to removal continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children, and (5) this Court erred by asking questions about an eviction of Natural Mother in unrelated matter that he presided over in which an agreement was entered concerning an eviction action. Background 1. A. B. ("Natural Mother") is the natural mother of minor children M.B. and M.M. 1 FILED Noverrhec I 1 , 20 & Virginia Cooper Register of Wills )~~.s and Clerk of the Orphans' Court \ .. Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania 2. I<·