In the Interest of: J.K.A.B., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Interest of: J.K.A.B., a Minor

DecidedAugust 3, 2018

Docket4082 EDA 2017

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Interest of: J.K.A.B., a Minor (In the Interest of: J.K.A.B., a Minor) 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 Interest of: J.K.A.B., a Minor, (Pa. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S33033-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.K.A.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.B., MOTHER : : : : : No. 4082 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered November 14, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000775-2017, CP-51-DP-0002461-2014

BEFORE: OTT, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 03, 2018

Appellant, S.B. (“Mother”), appeals the order entered by the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granting the petition of the

Department of Human Services (“DHS”) and involuntarily terminating her

parental rights to her minor, dependent son, J.K.A.B. (“Child”), born in

October 2014, pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2),

(5), (8), and (b).1 Although Mother is solely appealing the termination order

at docket number CP-51-AP-0000775-2017, her notice of appeal also

references the dependency docket, CP-51-DP-0002461-2014. We affirm the ____________________________________________

1 By separate order entered on August 28, 2017, the trial court involuntarily terminated the parental rights of Child’s father, J.B. (“Father”) and of those of unknown putative father. Father filed an appeal addressed by a separate memorandum at Superior Court Docket No. 3435 EDA 2017. No unknown father has filed an appeal or is a party to the instant appeal. In addition, at the August 28, 2017 hearing, the court also ruled on dependency issues as to Mother’s youngest child, A.J., who is not the subject of the instant appeal. ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S33033-18

trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights (docketed at CP-51-AP-

0000775-2017) and quash Mother’s appeal on the dependency docket (CP-

51-DP-0002461-2014).

The trial court summarized the relevant procedural and factual history,

in part, as follows:

On October 20, 2014, [DHS] received a General Protective Services (“GPS”) report alleging that the Child and Mother tested positive for marijuana at Child’s birth.[2] Child was placed in a foster home through Tabor Child’s Services, where Child has remained since placement.[3] An adjudicatory hearing was held on February 23, 2015, before the Honorable Jonathan Irvine who adjudicated [] Child dependent.

Throughout the involvement of DHS and later the Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”), the court held regularly scheduled Permanency Review hearings to monitor the parent[s’] compliance with court orders and the CUA Single Case Plan (“SCP”). These SCP meetings were held to assist the family with complying with all objectives and to provide any and all appropriate services as an aid to facilitate reunification. On November 7, 2014, CUA held the initial Single Case Plan (“SCP”) meeting. The goal was reunification. The objectives for Mother were the following: (1) to attend parenting classes; (2) to participate in programs with Achieving Reunification Center (“ARC”); (3) to visit Child; (4) to have a parenting capacity evaluation (“PCE), and (5) to follow the recommendations of the PCE. . . . ____________________________________________

2 The family had been known to DHS since at least February 2012 due to the death of a child of Mother. During investigation, DHS learned that yet two other children died in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, 8/4/17, Exhibit “A,” Statement of Facts, ¶¶a-d. The cause of the deaths of two of the three children were undetermined. Id.

3 As testified to by CUA case manager, Nick Sarro, Child was initially placed in a foster home, then placed with Maternal Grandmother for four months, and finally placed in his current foster home in January 2016. Notes of Testimony (“N.T.”), 8/28/17, at 40.

-2- J-S33033-18

Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O.”), 2/16/18, at 2-3.

On August 4, 2017, DHS filed separate petitions to involuntarily

terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and for a goal change. The

trial court conducted hearings on August 28, 2017 and November 14, 2017.

DHS presented the testimony of Nick Sarro, CUA case manager; Brianna

Randolph, CUA visitation coach; and Dr. William Russell, who conducted two

parenting capacity evaluations of Mother and was stipulated to be an expert

in assessing parenting capacity. Mother, who was present and represented

by counsel, testified on her own behalf. Child was represented by both a

Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) and legal counsel, who both supported the

termination of Mother’s parental rights.4

While the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights at the August

28, 2017 hearing, the court held its decision with respect to Child’s

permanency goal in abeyance for Mother to have the opportunity to sign a

voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights, and the matter was re-listed

for November 14, 2017. ____________________________________________

4 This Court has recently held that we will address sua sponte the responsibility of an orphans’ court to appoint counsel pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 2313(a). See In re K.J.H., 180 A.3d 411, 413 (Pa.Super. 2018). In In re Adoption of L.B.M., ___Pa.___, 161 A.3d 172, 180 (2017) (plurality), our Supreme Court held that Section 2313(a) requires that counsel be appointed to represent the legal interests of any child involved in a contested involuntary termination proceeding. The Court defined a child’s legal interest as synonymous with his or her preferred outcome. As the trial court in this case appointed a GAL for to advocate for Child’s best interests and legal counsel to advocate for Child’s legal interests, we find the trial court fulfilled its responsibility to appoint counsel pursuant to Section 2313(a).

-3- J-S33033-18

At the November 14, 2017 hearing, after Mother declined to voluntarily

terminate her parental rights, the trial court placed its decision on the record

to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b); this order was docketed at CP-

51-AP-0000775-2017. Further, by a separate order entered the same day,

the trial court changed Child’s permanency goal from reunification to

adoption; this order was docketed at CP-51-DP-0002461-2014.

On December 8, 2017, Mother filed one notice of appeal as well as a

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

1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).5 The notice of appeal indicated that Mother was

appealing “the order in this matter on the 14th day of November of 2017” on

Docket No. CP-51-AP-0000775-2017; however, there is also a handwritten

notation adding Docket No. CP- 51-DP-0002461-2014 to the notice of appeal.

Notice of Appeal, 12/8/17, at 1.

On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did [DHS] sustain the burden that Mother’s rights should be terminated when there was evidence that Mother had completed and/or had been actively completing her permanency goals?

2. Was there sufficient evidence presented to establish that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate Mother’s parental rights?

____________________________________________

5 Notably, counsel then submitted another and different Rule 1925(b) statement with his appellate brief.

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