In the Int. of: K.T., Appeal of: M.W.T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Int. of: K.T., Appeal of: M.W.T.

DecidedJune 8, 2021

Docket1245 MDA 2020

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Int. of: K.T., Appeal of: M.W.T. (In the Int. of: K.T., Appeal of: M.W.T.) 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

In the Int. of: K.T., Appeal of: M.W.T., (Pa. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S10020-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.T., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: M.W.T., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1245 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered September 8, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-21-DP-0000100-2019

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.T., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: M.W.T., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1262 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 9, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 051-ADOPT-2020

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JUNE 8, 2021

M.W.T. (“Father”) appeals from the order changing the placement

permanency goal for his daughter, K.T. (“Child”), to adoption, and the decree

terminating his parental rights to Child. Father’s counsel has filed an Anders

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S10020-21

brief1 and motion to withdraw. We affirm both the order and decree of the trial

court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Child was born in October 2015. In early 2019, the Cumberland County

Children and Youth Services (“the Agency”) learned that both Father and

Child’s mother (“Mother”) had relapsed in their cocaine addictions, and

Father’s mobility had been impaired due to a stroke. See Trial Court Opinion,

filed 12/28/2020, at 3; N.T., 8/25/20, at 19. When the Agency caseworker

visited Child’s home, both of her parents were under the influence of drugs or

alcohol to the extent that neither could appropriately care for Child.

Confirmation of Verbal Order for Emergency Protective Custody, 7/16/19, at

1. In July 2019, the trial court held a shelter care hearing and entered an

emergency protective order placing Child in kinship care. Id. Child has

remained in kinship care since that time.

The court thereafter held a dependency adjudication hearing and found

Child to be dependent due to her parents’ drug and/or alcohol addictions and

Father’s physical limitations and domestic abuse toward Mother.

Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition, 8/20/19, at 1. The court

ordered Father to cooperate with the Agency in developing a sobriety plan and

participate in a domestic violence program. Id. at 2-3. The court listed the

permanent placement goal as reunification of Child with her parents, with a

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267,

1275 (Pa.Super. 1992) (extending Anders to appeals from involuntary termination of parental rights).

-2- J-S10020-21

concurrent goal of adoption. Id. at 2. The court held a judicial conference in

November 2019, and permanency review hearings in January and June 2020.

The Agency filed a Petition for Goal Change Permanency Hearing in June

2020, requesting the trial court change Child’s permanent placement goal to

adoption. The Agency also filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of

Parental rights in August 2020, seeking termination of Father’s parental rights

to Child under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).

The court2 held a two-day hearing on both petitions on August 25 and

September 1, 2020. At the hearing, the Agency introduced evidence that

Father had failed to complete domestic violence counseling and drug and

alcohol outpatient services. See Trial Court Op. at 6-7; N.T. 8/25/20, at 28-

30, 42-43, 54, 56. Father was discharged from his drug testing program for

noncompliance in June 2020. Trial Court Op. at 7. The Agency also introduced

evidence that Father stopped having weekly visits with Child in March 2020

due to the Covid-19 public health emergency. Father and Child continued with

weekly telephone visits until April 2020, when Child began to refuse to speak

with Father on the phone and alluded to witnessing his violence against

Mother. See N.T., 8/25/20, at 32-34, 40-41, 54-55, 57. Meanwhile, the

Agency presented evidence that Child “appears healthy, happy, and well-

adjusted” to her kinship home, and “all of her physical and emotion[al] needs

are being met.” Trial Court Op. at 5; see also N.T., 8/25/20, at 35-36, 61.

2 A single judge presided over both the dependency and orphan’s court cases.

-3- J-S10020-21

Father testified that he was enrolled in a domestic abuse counseling

program and was regularly attending drug and alcohol counseling. N.T.,

9/1/20, at 13-14, 24. Father testified his weekly visits with Child had been

happy until the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic quarantine restrictions in

March 2020, and that he had tried to maintain telephone contact with Child

until she refused. Id. at 25-37. Father claimed Mother had falsely accused

him of assaulting her and explained that he had initially refused to undergo

domestic violence counseling because he had previously completed the same

program. Id. at 18-23. Father requested the court allow him more time to

achieve compliance with his objectives. Id. at 39.

Following the hearing, the court entered an order changing the

permanency goal for Child to adoption, and a decree terminating Father’s

parental rights to Child.3 Father appealed.

Father’s counsel has submitted an Anders Brief and motion to

withdraw. Counsel seeking to withdraw pursuant to Anders must file a brief

in which counsel (1) summarizes the procedural history and facts of the case,

with citations to the record; (2) refers to anything in the record that arguably

supports the appeal; (3) sets forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is

frivolous; and (4) sets forth counsel’s reasons for so concluding.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Counsel’s

withdrawal request must also state that counsel has examined the record and

3 The court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child.

-4- J-S10020-21

determined the appeal is frivolous. Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d

1030, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). Counsel must furnish a copy of the

Anders brief to the appellant, and advise the appellant that he or she has the

immediate right to retain other counsel or proceed pro se. Id.

We find counsel’s brief conforms to the above requirements. Counsel

has also attached a copy of the letter he sent to Father, in which counsel

enclosed a copy of his Anders brief and withdraw request, explaining to

Father his right to pursue the appeal pro se or through other counsel. Father

has not exercised these rights. We therefore turn to our own review of whether

Father’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Santiago, 978 A.2d at 355 n.5.

In the Anders brief, Father’s counsel poses the following issues:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit an error of law when it found, despite a lack of clear and convincing evidence, that the child’s permanent placement goal of reunification was neither appropriate, nor feasible[,] and ordered a goal change to adoption, thus contravening section 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6531(f)?

2.

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