In Re: R.L.B., Appeal of: R.G.N. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S34044-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: R.L.B., A MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: R.G.N. : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 237 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered January 21, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., AND OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2014 red in the affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Father raises two issues for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW BY DETERMINING NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE SUFFERED BY THE MINOR CHILD IN TERMI RENTAL RIGHTS. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW BY FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE TO [FATHER] PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(C). J-S34044-14 ( Preliminarily, we observe generally that issues not raised in a Rule 1925 statement will be deemed waived. Commonwealth v. Castillo, 585 Pa. 395, 403, 888 A.2d 775, 780 (2005) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lord, statement must properly specify the error to be addressed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa.Super. 2001). In other to identify and address the issue [an appellant] wishe[s] Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equi Id. The to guess at the issues on appeal. Id. Thus, if a concise statement is too vague, the court may find waiver and disregard any argument. Id. See also In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (applying Rule 1925 waiver standards in family law context); In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa.Super. 2006) (holding mother waived claim challenging termination of her parental rights because it was not included in her concise statement). Instantly, Father presented his first issue on appeal in his concise -2- J-S34044-14 error of law by determining no adverse consequences will be suffered by that the court failed to consider the differences in income and earning capacity between Father a better financially support Child fails to make clear this precise argument, which could result in waiver of his claim on appeal. See Reeves, supra. Nevertheless, we will review the 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) analysis. The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental rights cases are as follows: When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the decision is supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the] finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking -3- J-S34044-14 termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the opposite result. In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination In re C.P., 901 security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of Id. (internal citation omitted). The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children. In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa.Super. 2001). There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this court has held that the parental obligation -4- J-S34044-14 is a positive performance. duty which requires affirmative This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child. Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance in the Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his or her ability, even in difficult circumstances. 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 parent-child relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more ntal responsibilities while others provide the child with [the In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. to have prope Id. at 856. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James G. Arner, we co -5- J-S34044-14 comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 13, 2014, at 1-4) (finding: (1) Child is autistic and Mother cares for Child support for Child since 2009 or had any contact with Child since then other than two letters he sent Child after Mother filed petition for involuntary known Child since Child was five months old and has assumed financial responsibility for Child over past fiv incarcerated since August 24, 2010 serving two to six year sentence; Father will serve his maximum sentence and remain incarcerated until 2016 because Father refuses to participate in prison programs which could otherwise earn Father early release; Child does not know Father; Father is unrealistic in his assessment that he will soon get out of prison and will win millions of dollars in lawsuit alleging unlawful incarceration, and then have d will not rights; (2) through oversight, court failed to give Father notice per Section -6- J-S34044-14 2511(c), which provides that after court enters order of termination, court shall advise parent of his continuing right to update personal and medical error does not constitute basis for reversing termination order; court can remedy error by providing Father notice per Section 2511(c) after decision opinion.1 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/6/2014 1 On April 29, 2014, Mother and her husband filed a motion for counsel fees, husband lack financial resources to litigate the appeal. We deny the motion. -7-
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.
