In the Interest of: J.G. a Minor, Appeal of: L.S. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S36001-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A.L.G., A MINOR : : : : APPEAL OF: L.S., MOTHER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2424 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order July 23, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000396-2013; CP-51-DP-0000377-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 25, 2014 from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case.1 Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.2 1 The briefing schedule in this case was delayed due to the absence of the termination hearing transcript. As a result, this Court directed the parties to comply with the procedure for filing a statement in the absence of transcript per Pa.R.A.P. 1923. Following upon statement, the court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion and transmitted the certified record to this Court. 2 On page two of its opinion, the trial court states that the Department of -aunt, to be an inappropriate resource for Child. The record makes clear, however, DHS _____________________________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36001-14 Mother raises two issues for our review: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY TERMINATING THE OTHER, UNDER 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511 SUBSECTIONS (A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(5), AND § 2511(A)(8)? WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING, UNDER 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(B), THAT TERMINATION OF RIGHTS BEST SERVES C DEVELOPMENTAL, PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS AND WELFARE? 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. comprehensively presented. discusses and properly disposes of the questions (See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 4, 2014, at 11-19) (finding: (1) DHS established grounds for involuntary termination of (a)(8), but court will focus its analysis on subsection (a)(1); in six months parental rights, Mother repeatedly failed to comply with Family Service Plan 3 Eileen Storm, DHS social worker, testified Mother was determined Y.S. was an appropriate caregiver for Child, and released Child 3 (b) providing Child with adequate supervision at all times; (c) learning and understanding age appropriate behavior and expectations for Child; (d) -2- J-S36001-14 not compliant with drug and alcohol program, various DHS recommendations, court-ordered appointments, and rehabilitative programs; -half (2½) years in custody of DHS, or to put herself in position to provide appropriate parenting to Child; Mother did not utilize available resources s her intent to relinquish parental rights and refusal or failure to perform parental duties; (2) testimony at hearing made clear Child would not suffer irreparable harm parental rights; Child has no beneficial relationship with Mother; Mother 4 - providing adequate and safe living conditions; (e) protecting Child from further abuse; (f) achieving and maintaining recovery from drug and alcohol problems; (g) stabilizing mental health issues; and (h) maintaining the -compliance with FSP goals while Child inter alia, Mother failed drug tests; the Achieving Reunification Center discharged Mother twice for nonparticipation; Self, Inc., an outpatient treatment program, discharged Mother after sustained absence from treatment and inconsistency with submitting urine screens; and Wedge Medical Center discharged Mother from another outpatient treatment program after she missed more than thirty allegations Mother was selling drugs out of her home and obtained an order 4 Additionally, of the eighty (80) scheduled supervised visits with Child, Mother missed forty-seven (47) of those visits. -3- J-S36001-14 relationship with Y.S. is one of mother and child;5 Mother does not provide love, comfort, security, or stability for Child; Mother did not even attend termination hearing despite having received notice; DHS established its burden under Section 2511(a) and (b), by clear and convincing evidence).6 Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/25/2014 5 On pages 16-18 of its opinion, the trial court refers to Y.S. -aunt. 6 December 2012. At the termination hearing, DHS produced a recorded log dicating Mother had three visits with Child since December 2012, the last of which took place on June 28, 2013. -4-
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.
