J-S27032-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M.P.E. A/K/A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
D.E., A MINOR PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER
No. 2977 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000749-2015
CP-51-DP-0125918-2009
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.L.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER
No. 2978 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000751-2015
CP-51-DP-0001624-2014
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.K.E., III, A IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR PENNSYLVANIA
J-S27032-17
APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER
No. 2979 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000750-2015
CP-51-DP-0125919-2009
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.E.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER
No. 2980 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000747-2015
CP-51-DP-0001626-2014
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.J.E., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.K.E., JR., FATHER
No. 2981 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree and Order Dated August 17, 2016
-2-
J-S27032-17
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000748-2015
CP-51-DP-0001625-2014
FID: 51-FN-470888-2009
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JUNE 22, 2017
In these consolidated appeals,1 T.K.E., Jr. (Father) appeals the decrees
and orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered
August 17, 2016, that terminated his parental rights to his children,
D.M.P.E., T.K.E., III, A.L.E., J.E.E., and J.J.E. (Children), and changed the
Children’s permanency goals to adoption. We affirm.2
Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services (DHS) filed petitions to
terminate Father’s parental rights to the Children on October 23, 2015. The
trial court aptly summarized the events that led DHS to file those petitions in
its opinion entered December 15, 2016. We direct the reader to that opinion
for the facts of this case.
The trial court held hearings on DHS’ petitions on February 24, 2016,
and August 17, 2016. Neither Mother nor Father was present at the
February 24 hearing, but both were represented by counsel. (See N.T.
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
This Court consolidated these appeals, sua sponte, on October 13, 2016.
2
The trial court terminated the parental rights of the Children’s mother, J.P.
(Mother), on February 24, 2016. Mother did not appeal that termination.
-3-
J-S27032-17
Hearing, 2/24/16, at 2, 4). Father was transported from prison to attend
the hearing on August 17. (See N.T. Hearing, 8/17/16, at 8). Testifying at
the hearings, in addition to Father, was caseworker Khaliah Moody. The trial
court entered its decrees terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), and its orders changing the
permanency goals to adoption pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351, on August
17, 2016. Father filed his timely notices of appeal and statements of errors
complained of on appeal on September 12, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i).3
Father raises the following question on appeal:
A. Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by
entering an order on August 17, 2016 involuntarily terminating
the parental rights of [F]ather where [F]ather attempted to
contact DHS/CUA [(Community Umbrella Agency)] on numerous
occasions to be notified of his objectives and to visit with his
[C]hildren without any response?
(Father’s Brief, at 5).
We have examined the opinion entered by the trial court on December
15, 2016, in light of the record in this matter, and we are satisfied that it is
a complete and correct analysis of this case. Further, with respect to
Father’s chief argument alleging DHS’ failure to provide reasonable
reunification efforts, we observe that our Supreme Court has held:
____________________________________________
3
The trial court entered an opinion on December 15, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(ii).
-4-
J-S27032-17
Neither [f]ather nor the Superior Court point to any Pennsylvania
or federal provision that requires delaying permanency for a
child due to the failure of an agency to provide reasonable
services, when a court has otherwise held that grounds for
termination have been established and the court has determined
that termination is in the best interests of the child by clear and
convincing evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the Superior
Court erred in reversing the trial court’s termination of [f]ather’s
parental rights as a result of CYS’s failure to provide reasonable
efforts to enable [f]ather to reunify with Child.
In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 676 (Pa. 2014); (see also Father’s Brief, at 7-
9, 12). In light of this precedent, we conclude that Father’s claim is
meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm the decrees and orders of the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County that terminated Father’s parental rights to his
Children and changed their goals to adoption, on the basis of the trial court’s
opinion.
Decrees and orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/22/2017
-5-
Circulated 06/09/2017 03:29 PM