In the Interest of: E.S.C.L., a Minor (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S26001-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: E.S.C.L., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: S.C., MOTHER No. 3016 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Decree entered September 26, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000024-2013 IN THE INTEREST OF: Y.F., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: S.C., MOTHER No. 3017 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Decree entered September 26, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court, at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000025-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E: FILED JUNE 24, 2014 terminating her parental rights to E.S.C.L. (born in July of 2011) and Y.F. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b), and adoption.1 We affirm. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 J.L is not a party to the current appeal, but voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to Y.F. R.F. is not a party to this appeal, nor did he file his own appeal. J-S26001-14 The trial court opinion sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case as follows: received information alleging there were five children under the age of five living in the home. Upon investigation, [DHS] visited the home and found clothing clutter and appliances were filthy. Y.F. had been left by [M]other in the care of her paternal not return. [Paternal Grandmother] subsequently applied for custody of Y.F. and was denied. On June 26, 2007 [DHS] obtained an Order of Protective Custody for Y.F. and placed Y.F. in foster care through Delta Community Suppor whereabouts were unknown. At a permanency review hearing before Honorable Brenda Frazier-Clemons held on May 7, 2008, a Clinical Evaluation Unit issued report of non-compliance of [M]other was presented and incorporated by reference. On October 10, 2010, [DHS] Y.F. resided with [M]other, who used and abused drugs regularly. The report alleged [M]other had an altercation in a home with an unidentified male with Y.F. present in the home. The report further alleged [M]other was observed in the city streets naked and appeared under the influence of drugs. Mother was taken to the hospital for mental health treatment. The report was substantiated. Between November 10, 2010 and April 30, 2011, [DHS] made whereabouts and safety. Mother advised [DHS] Y.F. resided out of state in North Carolina with a relative. On April 30, 2011, [DHS] received a [GPS] report alleging [M]other alleged [M]other used drugs and failed to function as an adult as a result of the drug abuse. Mother gave birth to another child, E.S.C.L., born [in June of] 2011. The [DHS] received a [GPS] report which alleged that [M]other gave birth to E.S.C.L., and both [M]other and [E.S.C.L.] tested positive for drugs. It was alleged [M]other had a history of drug abuse. The report was substantiated. -2- J-S26001-14 [In June of] 2011, [DHS] received a supplemental report that On June 8, 2011, [DHS] interviewed Mother who admitted consistent drug abuse for three years. Mother identified On June 9, 2011, [DHS] spoke with [M]other, who denied drug use and requested to care for [the Children]. A safety plan was implemented by [DHS] which placed [M]other in the Gaudenzia House drug treatment program with [the Children]. Mother was instructed not to leave the Gaudenzia House drug treatment program with [the Children]. On June 10, 2011, Mother tested positive for illegal drugs and left the Gaudenzia House drug treatment program with Y.F. Father removed E.S.C.L. from Gaudenzia House and took E.S.CL. to his home. Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/13, at 1-2 (unpaginated). On June 23, 2011, the Children were adjudicated dependent. On July FSP objectives for Mother and Father were (1) to obtain appropriate housing; (2) to participate in parenting program; (3) to participate in drug and alcohol treatment; (4) to participate in mental health evaluations; (5) to obtain employment and remain employed; and (6) to obtain parenting capacity and bonding evaluations. On November 11, 2013, DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate adoption. On September 26, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. On that same day, the trial court entered its decrees terminating -3- J-S26001-14 § permanency goals to adoption. Mother timely filed notices of appeal, along with concise statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). This Court consolidated these cases on November 25, 2013. Mother raises the following issue. 1. Did the trial court err in determining that it was in the best Our standard of review regarding orders terminating parental rights is 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, or insufficient evidentiary Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in decision is supported by competent evidence. In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005). In termination cases, 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. Id. at 806. We have previously stated: -4- J-S26001-14 The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence. In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003). The termination of parental rights is controlled by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Under this statute, the trial court must engage in a bifurcated process in which it initially focuses on the conduct of the parent under Section 2511(a). See In the Interest of B.C., 36 A.3d 601 (Pa. Super. 2012). If the trial Section 2511(a), it must then engage in an analysis of the best interests of the child under Section 2511(b). See id. as it relates to her conduct under Section 2511(a); but, rather, she limits of the best interests of the Children under Section 2511(b). Thus, Mother has waived any challenge to Section 2511(a). Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that DHS met its burden of proving by clear and convincing -5- J-S26001-14 evid needs and welfare of the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Section 2511(b) provides, in pertinent part: (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. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Pursuant to Section 2511(b), the trial court must take into account whether a natural parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc). In In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005), and stability are involved in the inquiry into needs and welfare of must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id. However, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008). major aspect of the Subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the court when determining what is in the best interest of the child. The mere existence of an emotional bond does not preclude the examine the status of the bond to determine whether its -6- J-S26001-14 relation As we explained in In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 483 (Pa. Super. 2010): [I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability the child might have with the foster parent. Additionally, this Court stated that the trial court should consider the importance of continuity of relationships and whether any existing parent-child bond can be severed without detrimental effects on the child. In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/13, at 5 (unpaginated). Ms. Curry-Bey and Mr. 41, 57. Mr. Mack also testified that Mother and Children do not have a true parentId. at 56. Ms. Curry-Bey testified that there is a parent-child bond between foster parents and the Children, and that the foster parents provide a safe home for the Children. Id. at 39-40. Furthermore, the trial court found that the Children have bonded with their foster parents. 12/12/13, at 5 (unpaginated). -7- Trial Court Opinion, J-S26001-14 14. The trial court did not find this evidence sufficient, Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/13, at 5 (unpaginated), and our review reveals that the evidence of her child, alone, does not preclude a termination. See In re L.M., 923 and affection for a child, alone, will not preclude termination of parental rights). Likewise, we have stated that the mere existence of a bond or attachment of a child to a parent will not necessarily result in the denial of a termination petition. See In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court Children pursuant to section 2511(b). parental rights. Decrees affirmed. Judge Shogan concurs in the result. -8- J-S26001-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/24/2014 -9-

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.