In the Int. of K.R., a Minor Appeal of: A.K. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S37033-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: K.R., a Minor, APPEAL OF: A.K., Mother, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 159 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered on December 18, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County, Orphans' Court Division, No. 10 of 2013 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., a Minor APPEAL OF: A.K., Mother, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 160 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered on December 18, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County, Orphans' Court Division, No. 5 - 2013 BEFORE: LAZARUS, STABILE and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 07, 2014 Petition filed by involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her minor children K.R. and J-S37033-14 § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).1 We affirm. The trial court set forth the relevant factual background and procedural history as follows: [CYS] filed a dependency [P]etition for [C]hildren on August 8, 2011. It alleged truancy issues, the inability of the parents to control [C]hildren, a chaotic family environment, the lack of [] parental supervision and the absence of providing ling of those [P]etitions, [CYS] had been providing services since September 2010. The Family Preservation Unit of Mifflin County services to the family from October 2010 until July 2011. At the termination of those services, the parents executed a voluntary placement agreement and [C]hildren were temporarily placed in foster care. A dependency hearing was held on August 18, 2011, where [C]hildren were adjudicated dependent. Legal and physical custody to [CYS] was the disposition. Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 1-2. The trial court developed multiple child permanency plans for Mother and Father to address the concerns that necessitated placement. Parental objectives for Mother included demonstrating proper parenting, maintaining housing and sufficient income, participating with FICS to learn and implement skills, re-establishing her role as parent, attending visits and following visit plans, cooperating with FICS and CYS, and completing her 1 Court Opinion, 12/13/13, at 1. Father does not appeal from the Order. -2- J-S37033-14 83; see also Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 10. Mother, testified that FICS recognized several areas of concern, including age appropriate expectations for Children, recognizing the proper parental role, and preventing domestic violence. See N.T., 8/13/13, at 131-32. FICS provided counseling sessions to help Mother understand how her low self-esteem and depression could affect her parenting. Id. at 133. Mother was resistant to counseling and missed more than half of her scheduled sessions. Id. friend and see her kids happy than have rules and boundaries and Id. at 135. Crownover further testified that Mother also lacked assertiveness as a parent and was unable to address inappropriate behavior by Children. Id. at 140-41. The trial court directed FICS to increase order to determine whether Mother could be available to parent Children. Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 11. Mother showed resistance in providing FICS with the requested information, and she showed no changes in her parenting behaviors. Id. at 12. Although Children had improved through these services, FICS found that Mother did not improve and generally resisted recommendations. Id.; see also N.T., 8/13/13, at 149-50. In February 2013, at the sixth permanency review hearing, the trial court -3- J-S37033-14 changed the goal from reunification to adoption for Children. Trial Court Opinion, 12/18/13, at 2. In April 2013, CYS filed Involuntary Termination of and (b). Id. The trial court held hearings in August 2013. At the hearing, CYS presented the testimony of Ray, who conducted a thorough evaluation of Mother, interviewed Children and the foster parents, and reviewed the records of FICS and CYS. N.T., 8/13/13, at 5, 25-26. Ray testified that Mother had borderline intelligence and a long pattern of personality dysfunction. Id. at 49-51; see also id. at 51-52 (stating Mother was selfcentered, narcissistic, manipulative, and struggled to cope with stress). He capacity to parent, to make good judgments for Children, and to provide structure. Id. at 56. Ray also testified that Mother was unable to provide for the psychological, emotional, and educational needs of Children. Id. at 57. Id. behavior was calmer with the foster parents than with Mother. Id. Ray testified that, in his expert opinion, the benefits of permanency through Mother. Id. at 71. Ray recommended that D.R. have no contact with -4- J-S37033-14 Mother or his other siblings for at least a significant period of time after adoption, until he understands that his adoptive home is permanent. Id. at 95-96. ambivalent. Id. at 70. He opined that K.R. felt responsible for Mother, and 2 Id. at 65. On the other hand, Ray believes that K.R. is thriving with the foster parents, and has stated that she would like to live with them if she cannot go home to Mother. Id. at but she carries a sense of responsibility for Mother and is unsure how to tell Mother she wishes to be adopted. See id. at 66-67. Ray recommended an home, every few months. Id. at 68. He indicated an understanding that the foster parents are amenable to the idea of an open adoption. Id. at 71. Ultimately, he opined that the worst scenario would be for either child to leave the household of the foster parents. Id. at 98-99. rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). Mother filed 2 Mother and K.R. Mother treats K.R. as a sister or friend, rather than as a child, and is unable to set boundaries. See N.T., 8/13/13, at 58, 65-66. As a result, K.R. developed a sense of responsibility for Mother and wishes to See id. -5- J-S37033-14 timely Notices of Appeal along with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statements. On appeal, Mother raises the following questions for our review: I. Did the trial court err in ordering involuntary termination of convincing and sufficient evidence that the needs and welfare of [C]hildren would be best served by such termination, and that the best interests of the children would be advanced by said termination, particularly by the severing of the Mother/child bond? II. Did the trial court err in refusing to dismiss the [ITPR] Petition when the evidence showed that the fifteen-year-old child[, K.R.,] did not consent to being adopted? ief at 4 (issues renumbered for ease of disposition). We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in accordance with the following standard: In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. The burden is upon the petitioner In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d -6- J-S37033-14 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 fact Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). presented and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003). Satisfaction of any one subsection of Section 2511(a), along with consideration of Section 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). the following: § 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: *** (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. -7- J-S37033-14 *** (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 giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. To satisfy the requirements of Section 2511(a)(2), the moving party repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or r In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). The grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) are not limited to affirmative misconduct; to the contrary, those grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties. In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002). Parents are required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities. Id. at 340. -8- J-S37033-14 A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parentchild relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting responsibilities while other provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted). In reviewing the evidence in support of termination under Section serve the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010). In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect of permanently severing that bond on the child. Id. In her first claim, Mother asserts that the trial court failed to conduct a d incorrectly applied the Brief at 16-17. Mother argues that there is no benefit to forcing K.R. to sever their relationship, especially because K.R. will become an adult soon after adoption proceedings take place. Id. at 13. Mother also claims that D.R., who is not yet old enough to require his consent to adoption, would suffer emotional pressure if his sister could visit Mother but he could not. -9- J-S37033-14 Id. at 13-14. Additionally, Mother asserts that she and her children were Father, and that she and her children should be permitted to work through that trauma together. Id. at 14-15. Here, the trial court correctly determined that based upon the above- unable to provide [C]hildren with the essential parental care necessary for their physical and mental well- 12, at 17; see also N.T., 8/13/13, at 56-57. Additionally, the record confirms the trial finding that convincing evidence that termination of the parental rights of . . . [Mother] would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of [C]hildren as required by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § In her second claim, Mother asserts that the trial court incorrectly 8. Mother claims that K.R. did not consent to adoption, and that therefore, s legal right to consent. Id. at 8, 11; - 10 - J-S37033-14 see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2711(a)(1) (stating that consent to adoption is required if the adoptee is over 12 years of age). Ray testified that the adoption decision was a difficult one for K.R., but that he believed environment for her. See N.T., 8/13/13, at 66. He also acknowledged that even children from the most abusive and torn homes have some desire to return home. Id. at 90-91. for adoption, an imminent adoption is See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that where an agency brings an ITPR petition, there is no requirement that a pending adoption exist before parental rights may be terminated); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § ITPR Petition. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/7/2014 - 11 -

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.