In the Interest of: M.T., a Minor (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.S.T., FATHER No. 800 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at No.: CP-21-DP-0000212-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.M.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.T., FATHER No. 801 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at No.: CP-21-DP-0000211-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.T., BIOLOGICAL FATHER No. 802 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2016 J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at No.: CP-21-DP-0000213-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.T., FATHER No. 803 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at No.: CP-21-DP-0000214-2014 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.T., FATHER No. 804 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No.: 23 Adoptions 2016 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.S.T., FATHER No. 805 MDA 2016 -2- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No.: 22 Adoptions 2016 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: T.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.T., FATHER No. 806 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No.: 024-Adopt-2016 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: J.T., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: J.T., BIOLOGICAL FATHER No. 807 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at No.: 025-Adopt-2016 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MOULTON, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED JULY 14, 2017 ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. -3- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 In these consolidated and related appeals,1 J.T. (Father) appeals from the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) entered April 20, 2016, and April 21, 2016, that changed the goals of his children, D.T., M.T., T.T., and J.T. (Children), to adoption, and involuntarily terminated his parental rights to the Children.2 We affirm. Cumberland County Children and Youth Services (CYS) received legal and physical custody of the Children by ex parte orders of the trial court on November 20, 2014. The trial court ratified and confirmed the orders at a shelter care hearing on November 24, 2014. CYS petitioned for the ex parte orders after Mother obtained a protection from abuse order against Father and left the marital home while Father remained in the home and Paternal Grandmother provided assistance with the Children. Financial issues led to a lack of heat in the home, and to Father and Paternal Grandmother being overwhelmed and unable to care properly for the Children. The trial court adjudicated the Children dependent on December 11, 2014. Father’s Family Service Plan, created on February 3, 2015, and revised on January 27, 2016, required Father to cooperate with CYS; address and ____________________________________________ 1 This Court consolidated the appeals listed at 800 MDA 2016 through 803 MDA 2016 sua sponte in an order entered August 10, 2016. This Court consolidated the appeals listed at 804 MDA 2016 through 807 MDA 2016 sua sponte in an order entered July 21, 2016. The appeals are related in that they involve the same individual and consider the same set of facts. 2 The Children’s mother J.T. (Mother) voluntarily terminated her parental rights. -4- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 improve his mental health functioning; refrain from using drugs or alcohol; improve his parenting skills; maintain contact with the children; obtain stable housing; and address his anger. Father did not complete those goals. CYS filed its petitions to terminate Father’s parental rights on March 21, 2016. The trial court entered its orders terminating Father’s parental rights and changing the goals to adoption regarding M.T. and D.T. on April 20, 2016, and terminating Father’s parental rights and changing the goals to adoption regarding T.T. and J.T. on April 21, 2016. Father filed his notices of appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal on May 19, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Father raises the following questions on appeal: 1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion in changing the goal for [the Children] to adoption and terminating [Father’s] parental rights in that [Father] is able to provide for the [C]hildren with the essential parental care, control, and subsistence in the very near future? 2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err as a matter of law and abuse its discretion in changing the goal for [the Children] to adoption and terminating [Father’s] parental rights in that the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the [C]hildren no longer existed or were substantially eliminated? 3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in determining the best interest of the [C]hildren would be served by terminating [Father’s] parental rights? 4. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in determining the best interests of the [C]hildren would be served by changing the goal for [the] [C]hildren to adoption, terminating parental rights and placing the [C]hildren in foster care, when Father, with whom the [C]hildren have a significant bond, have [sic] presented as a resource for the [C]hildren and Father is presently available as a -5- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 resource with potentially appropriate housing in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania? (Father’s Brief, at 6). Our standard of review is as follows: In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence presented as well as the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will reverse the trial court’s order only if we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge’s decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Further, we have stated: Where the hearing court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we must affirm the hearing court even though the record could support an opposite result. We are bound by the findings of the trial court which have adequate support in the record so long as the findings do not evidence capricious disregard for competent and credible evidence. 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. Though we are not bound by the trial court’s inferences and deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial court’s sustainable findings. In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). In order to affirm the termination of parental rights, this Court need only agree with any one subsection of Section 2511(a). See In re B.L.W., -6- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004). Requests to have a natural parent’s parental rights terminated are governed by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, which provides, in pertinent part: § 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination (a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: * * * (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, [twelve] months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. * * * (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. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8), (b). It is well settled that a party seeking termination of a parent’s rights bears the burden of proving the grounds to so do by “clear and convincing -7- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 evidence,” a standard which requires evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). Further, 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 parentchild relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs. In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted). The trial court concluded that termination was appropriate under § 2511(a)(8). With regard to Section 2511(a)(8), in order to terminate parental rights, an agency must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) that the child has been removed from the care of the parent for at least twelve (12) months; (2) that the conditions which had led to the removal or placement of the child still exist; and (3) that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. In re: C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Adoption Act provides that a trial court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). The Act does not make specific reference to an evaluation of the bond between parent and child, but -8- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 our case law requires the evaluation of any such bond. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). However, this Court has held that the trial court is not required by statute or precedent to order a formal bonding evaluation performed by an expert. See In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008). We state our standard of review of a trial court’s determination to change a child’s goal as: When we review a trial court’s order to change the placement goal for a dependent child to adoption, our standard is abuse of discretion. In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine that the court’s judgment was manifestly unreasonable, that the court did not apply the law, or that the court’s action was a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, as shown by the record. In re: N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822-23 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted). We have examined the opinion entered by the trial court on June 21, 2016 in light of the record in this matter and are satisfied that that opinion is a complete and correct analysis of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County that terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(8) and (b), and changed the Children’s goals to adoption, on the basis of the concise, thoughtful, and well-written opinion of the Honorable Edward E. Guido. -9- J-S22039-17 & J-S22040-17 Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/14/2017 - 10 - Circulated 06/14/2017 09:53 AM

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.