Adoption of T.M.C., Appeal of: J.S.R.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Adoption of T.M.C., Appeal of: J.S.R.

DecidedMay 17, 2019

Docket3414 EDA 2018

StatusUnpublished

This text of Adoption of T.M.C., Appeal of: J.S.R. (Adoption of T.M.C., Appeal of: J.S.R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adoption of T.M.C., Appeal of: J.S.R., (Pa. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A10039-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.M.C. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : APPEAL OF: J.S.R., MOTHER : No. 3414 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered October 25, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 2018-A0118

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 17, 2019

Appellant, J.S.R. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which terminated Mother’s

parental rights to her minor child, T.M.C. (“Child”). We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The

Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth (“OCY”) first became

involved with Mother in November 2015, when Mother was fifteen years old.

Due to Mother’s behavioral problems and unwillingness to cooperate with any

OCY services, OCY took custody of Mother in April 2016. Shortly after, it was

discovered that Mother was pregnant with Child. Mother gave birth to Child

in October 2016.

In February 2017, Mother attempted to run away with Child from the

mother-baby facility where Mother was living. As a result, OCY took custody

of Child and placed Child in foster care. Due to Mother’s failure to meet her

Family Service Plan objectives, OCY filed a petition on June 19, 2018, for J-A10039-19

involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

2511(a)(1), (2), (8), and (b). The court held a termination hearing on October

24 and 25, 2018.1 Following the hearing, the court granted OCY’s petition.2

Mother timely filed a notice of appeal on November 26, 2018, as well as a

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Mother raises the following issue for our review:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE EXISTED TO TERMINATE BIRTH MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER 23 PA.C.S. SECTION 2511(A)(1), (2), (8).

(Mother’s Brief at 7).

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 evidence, ____________________________________________

1 Throughout the termination proceedings, the same attorney-guardian ad litem (“GAL”) represented Child’s interests. Because Child was less than three years old at the time of the termination proceedings, we can presume, absent any evidence in the record to the contrary, that there was no conflict between Child’s best interests and her legal interests. See In Re: T.S., ___ Pa. ___, 192 A.3d 1080 (2018) , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1187, 203 L.Ed.2d 220 (2019) (holding appointment of second counsel for child, in contested termination proceedings, is not required to represent separate legal interests of child, where child’s legal interests and best interests do not diverge; due to child’s young age (less than three years old), presumption exists that child was too young to express subjective preferred outcome of termination proceedings; therefore attorney-GAL could fulfill statutory mandate for appointment of counsel and represent both best interests and legal interests of child).

2 Father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights on October 24, 2018.

-2- J-A10039-19

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.J., 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 J.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.J., 936 A.2d

1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165

-3- J-A10039-19

(2008)).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the careful decision of the Honorable Cheryl L. Austin, we

conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.

(See Trial Court Opinion, dated December 5, 2018, at 11-19) (finding: Mother

suffers from numerous mental health issues but has failed to take advantage

of opportunities to enable her to care for Child; Mother has neglected her

parental duties and expects others to care for Child; Mother provided no

credible testimony of plans to remedy her mental health issues; instead,

Mother blames agencies for her lack of treatment; Mother has made no efforts

to obtain sufficient and consistent contact with Child, and there is only minimal

bond between them; all of Mother’s visits with Child have been supervised

since Child’s placement; Child is thriving in foster home and is bonded to foster

parents; Child looks to foster parents to meet all of her needs; Child will not

suffer detrimental harm as result of terminating Mother’s parental rights;

termination was proper under Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (8) and (b)).

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.

Order affirmed.

-4- J-A10039-19

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/17/19

-5- Circulated 05/10/2019 02:59 PM 2018-A0118.5.2 1925(a) Opinion, Page 1

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.M.C. ORPHANS' COURT NUMBER 2018wA0118

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI