In the Interest of: S.M.F.-B. Appeal of: M.L.B. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S43001-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.F.-B. APPEAL OF: M.L.B., JR., FATHER : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 233 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered December 17, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP00000234-2011 CP-51-DP-0123505-2009 FID 51-FN-471009-2009 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.A.F.-B. APPEAL OF: M.L.B., JR., FATHER : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 234 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered December 17, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP00000233-2011 CP-51-DP-0123504-2009 FID 51-FN-471009-2009 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J. and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 16, 2014 the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor children, S.M.F.-B. and M.A.F.-B. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant ______________________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S43001-14 facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Father raises two issues for our review: DID THE DEPARTMENT [ SUSTAIN [ITS] BURDEN BE TERMINATED? SHOULD DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT IT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CHILD[REN] TO TERMINATE GHTS? After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Edward C. l court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 5, 2014, at 18-19; 21-28) (finding: (1) Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8), but court focused its analysis on Section (a)(1); in six months preceding filing of petition for involuntary 1 Father did not comply with court-ordered drug and alcohol programs; Father did not complete Family School, failed to 1 obtaining and maintaining appropriate housing; (3) meeting regularly with agency social workers; (4) cooperating with home evaluations; (5) making himself available to sign any forms requiring parental consent; (6) following recommendations of the Clinical Evaluation Unit; and (7) maintaining -2- J-S43001-14 medical appointments, educational meetings, or attend scheduled supervised visits at agency; Father did not obtain unsupervised visits during four years Children were in custody of DHS; Father failed to utilize available resources; refusal or failure to perform parental duties; Father has history of drug abuse and his failure to complete drug and alcohol treatment is disturbing; disconcerting; nothing in record demonstrated Father can provide for Children; (2) under Section 2511(b), evidence showed Children would not have no beneficial relationship with Father; relationship between Children and maternal grandparents is akin to parents and children; testimony of DHS caseworkers was credible; DHS sustained its burden by clear and convincing evidence).2 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial Orders affirmed. 2 with their othe raise this issue in his concise statement and did not raise this claim at the termination hearing; thus, this issue is waived. See Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 403, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (2005) (holding issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived on appeal); In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (applying Rule 1925 waiver standards in family law context). See also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating issues not raised in trial court are waived and cannot be raised for first time on appeal). -3- J-S43001-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/16/2014 -4- Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM Circulated 06/27/2014 03:41 PM

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.