In the Interest of: L.D.T., a Minor (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A28030-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: L.D.T., A MINOR APPEAL OF: W.T., FATHER AND J.M., MOTHER : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1878 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s): 14 OCA 2017 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017 W.T. (“Father”) and J.M. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the May 16, 2017 order involuntarily terminating their parental rights to L.D.T., a female, born in November 2015, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (8), and (b). We affirm. In the statement of questions involved in their brief, Appellants state the following issues: (1) “Whether Children and Youth fail[ed] to present clear and convincing evidence that termination of [F]ather[’s] and [M]other’s parental rights served the needs and interest of . . . L.D.T.?”; and (2) “Did the trial court err in terminating [F]ather[’s] and [M]other’s parental rights without clear and convincing evidence that termination of [M]other’s parental rights served the needs and interests of . . . L.D.T.?” Appellants’ Brief, at 7. J-A28030-17 Appellants, however, did not raise these issues in their concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). Therefore, we are constrained to find Appellants’ issues on appeal waived. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011) (holding that “any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the authority to countenance deviations from the Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions or selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are responsible for complying with the Rule’s requirements; [and] Rule 1925 violations may be raised by the appellate court sua sponte”). We affirm the order involuntarily terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to L.D.T. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/21/2017 -2-
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.
