In Re: K.Y.R (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S08045-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: K.Y.R., D.Y.R., Minors, : : : : : : : : APPEAL OF: K.S., MOTHER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2807 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Decrees entered September 12, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Orphans' Court Division, at No(s): A2011-0008; A2011-0009 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, J.J. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: Filed: March 18, 2013 K.S. ( Mother ) appeals from the September 12, 2012 Decrees granting the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services ( LCOCYS ) Petitions to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her female children with I.R. ( Father ), K.Y.R., and D.Y.R., ( Children ), pursuant to section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).1 We affirm. K.Y.R. was born in August 2005, and D.Y.R. was born in July 2009. On February 16, 2011, LCOCYS filed a Petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. The trial court initially held hearings on the Petitions on October 6, 2011, and October 7, 2011. At the hearing on 1 On September 12, 2012, the trial court also involuntarily terminated the parental rights of Father. Father has not filed an appeal, and he is not a party to this appeal. J-S08045-13 October 6, 2011, LCOCYS presented the testimony of Dalton Rumfield, Jr., who has a private counseling practice, Alliance Counseling and Wellness Coaching. N.T., 10/6/11, at 10. LCOCYS also presented the testimony of Heather Hudson, a LCOCYS caseworker for D.Y.R. Id. at 40-41. Father testified on his own behalf. Id. at 110. After a continuance, the trial court conducted a hearing on November 17, 2011, at which Mother testified on her own behalf. N.T., 11/17/11, at 4. When a review of the record raised questions relating to the bond between the Children and their parents, the trial court scheduled a hearing, limited to that issue, for June 6, 2012. N.T., 6/6/12, at 14; Trial Court Adjudication, 9/12/12, at 19 n.1. At that hearing, LCOCYS presented the testimony of Heather Reed, a LCOCYS social worker, who testified as an expert in child development, regarding the Children s bond with their parents and foster parent. N.T., 6/6/12, at 15, 17, 19. On September 12, 2012, the trial court entered its Decrees terminating Mother s parental rights with regard to the Children under section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act. On October 1, 2012, Mother timely filed her Notice of appeal, along with her Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On appeal, Mother presents the following claim for our review: Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or abuse it s [sic] discretion in finding that the Lehigh County Office of Children -2- J-S08045-13 and Youth Services met the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) by clear and convincing evidence? Brief for Appellant at 7. In reviewing an appeal from the termination of parental rights, we review the appeal in accordance with the following standard. [A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court s determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. Id.; R.I.S., [36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality)]. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id. As [the Pennsylvania Supreme Court] discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. [The Supreme Court] observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., [608 Pa. at 28-30], 9 A.3d at 1190. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment; instead[, an appellate court] must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the record and the court s legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re -3- J-S08045-13 Adoption of Atencio, [539 Pa. 161, 165,] 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994). In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). Moreover, we have explained that [t]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. Id. (quoting In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)). 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. 508 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006). In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, We will focus on section 2511(a)(1) and (b), which provide, in relevant part, as follows: § 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. *** -4- J-S08045-13 (b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to 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. Although the trial court granted the Petition to terminate Mother s parental rights under section 2511(a) and (b), Mother challenges only the trial court s termination under section 2511(b). Accordingly, Mother has waived any challenge to section 2511(a). See Krebs v. United Refining Co., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that this Court will not ordinarily consider any issue if it has not been set forth in or suggested by an appellate brief s statement of questions involved, Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) ¦. ). In reviewing the evidence in support of termination under section 2511(b), we consider whether termination of parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. See In Re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child. Id. at 1287 (citation omitted). The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent- -5- J-S08045-13 child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id. In its Adjudication, the trial court set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the termination of Mother s parental rights. See Trial Court Adjudication, 9/12/12, at 1-20 (setting forth the trial court s findings of fact), 29-34 (setting forth the trial court s legal analysis and conclusions regarding termination of Mother s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)). The trial court s findings are supported by the evidence of record, and we agree with the legal analysis and conclusion of the trial court, as set forth in its Adjudication. See id. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s Adjudication with regard to Mother s claim. Decrees affirmed. -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.