J - S35013 - 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF: I.J.A. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: L.R.A. - S., FATHER No. 1822 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Decree October 28 , 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s): 39 In Adoption 2016 BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JUNE 06, 2017 L.R.A. - S. (Father) appeals from the decree, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his minor daughter, I.J.A. (Child), (born 6/2013), pur suant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), & (b) of the Adoption Act. 1 Father’s counsel has also filed a petition to withdraw from representation, pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. McClendon , 434 A.2d 1185 , (Pa. 1981). After careful review, we affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. Child was born in June 2013 in Marion, Florida. In July 2014, Mother moved to Erie County, Pennsylvania, with Child; Father remained in Florida

____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101 - 2910.J - S35013 - 17

- 2 -

where he was incarcer ated on a probation violation in Marion County jail. 2 On October 31, 2014, Child was removed from Mother’s 3 care and placed in the temporary protective custody of Erie County Office of Children and Youth (ECOCY/the Agency); the Agency had concerns about M other’s history of drug abuse, unstable mental health, and unstable housing. On November 4, 2014, the Agency filed a dependency petition alleging that Child was without proper parental care or control due to Mother’s drug and mental health issues and Fath er’s incarceration. After a hearing, Child was adjudicated dependent on November 18, 2014. After a dispositional hearing in December 2014, the court implemented permanency plans for Mother and Father. Father’s plan included the following conditions: t hat Father contact the Agency upon his release from prison in order to have a treatment plan, including visitation, developed; and that Father avail himself of any services that he may benefit from while incarcerated. At subsequent permanency hearings hel d in April 2015, June 2015, and October 2015, the court found that Father was not in compliance with the plan. Following the October 2015 permanency hearing, Child was

____________________________________________ 2 Father has a criminal history dating back to 2010, in Florida, for strong armed robbery, resisting arrest, fleeing and eluding law enforcement, battery, and grand theft auto.
3 On October 29, 2016, the court entered a decree acknowledging that Mother executed a consent to adopt petition with reg ard to Child and that her parental rights were terminated. Decree, 10/27/16. Mother is not a party to this appeal.J - S35013 - 17

- 3 -

returned to Mother’s care. In December 2015, Child was removed from Mother’s care and placed in the protective physical and legal custody of the Agency. At a January 2016 combined shelter care and permanency hearing, the court found sufficient evidence was presented to prove that continuation or return of Child to parents was not in her be st interest; the court ordered the placement goal be changed to adoption. Child was placed in a pre
adoptive foster home where she bonded with her foster family. On May 11, 2016, the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s and Fathe r’s parental rights to Child. On October 28, 2016, the court held a termination hearing at which Father, ECOCY caseworkers and counselors, and Child’s foster mother testified. On October 28, 2016, the court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights to Child. On November 23, 2016, Father’s attorney, W. Charles Sacco, Esquire, filed a timely notice of appeal as well as a statement of intent to file an Anders brief, alleging that “no
- non - frivolous appellate issues exist and [that he] intends to file a Petition to Withdraw as counsel and brief [and that he] filed this statement in lieu of a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4).” See In the Interest of J.T. , 983 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appl ying Anders procedures and Rule 1925(c)(4) to appeals involving the termination of parental rights). Pursuant to Anders , when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous and wishes to withdraw representation, he or she must do the following:J - S35013 - 17

- 4 -

(1) petition th e court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record . . ., counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to anything that might arguably support the appeal, but which does not resemble a "no
- merit" letter or amicus curiae brief; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points he deems worthy of the court's attention. In re: S.M.B. , 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[w]hen considering an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues until we address counsel’s request to withdraw.” Id. at 1237. In Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), our Supreme Court addressed the second requirement of Anders , i.e., the contents of an Anders brief, and instructed that the brief must: (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and fa cts, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is fr ivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Santiago , 978 A.2d at 361. After our Court receives an Anders brief and is satisfied that counsel has complied with the aforementioned requirements, our Court then undertakes an independent examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. In re: S.M.B. , supra .J - S35013 - 17

- 5 -

With respect to the thir d requirement of Anders , that counsel inform the defendant of his rights in light of counsel’s withdrawal, this Court has held that counsel must “attach to [his] petition to withdraw a copy of the letter sent to [his] client advising him . . . of [his] rig hts.” Commonwealth v. Millisock , 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005). Here, Attorney Sacco filed a petition indicating that he reviewed the record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous. Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, 3/10/17, at ¶ 5. In his petition, counsel refers to any issues he believes could arguably support an appeal, including anything in the record that could support an appeal. Attached to his petition to withdraw, counsel included a copy of the letter he sent to Father. In this letter, counsel informed Father of his intention to seek leave to seek permission to withdraw because there are no meritorious issues. Letter, 3/8/17. In that letter counsel also advised Father that he has the right to retain new counsel, procee d pro se , and to raise any points he believes are worthy of this Court’s attention. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that counsel has complied with the aforementioned requirements, and will proceed to address the merits of the issued raised on appeal as wel l as conduct our own independent review of the entire record. On appeal, Father presents the following issues for our review: (1) Whether the orphan’s court commit[t]ed an abuse of discretion or error of law when it concluded that the [Erie County Office of Children & Youth (ECOCY)] established grounds for termination of parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§§ ]2511(a)(1)(2)(5) and (8)[?]J - S35013 - 17

- 6 -

2. Whether the orphan’s court commit[t]ed an abuse of discretion or error of law when it concluded that the termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§§] 2511(b)[(1)] including the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child[?] We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R. , 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence. Id. Moreover, In a proceedi ng to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimon y 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.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination. In re adoption of S.M. , 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omi tted). See also In re C.P. , 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination underJ - S35013 - 17

- 7 -

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)). 4 After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant case law, we affirm the trial court’s order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child on the basis of the well
- written decision authored by the Honorable Robert A. Sambroak, Jr. Father was incarcerated in Florida at the time that Child was adjudicated dependent. Even after his release from prison in early 2015, he only sa w Child on one occasion and talked to her on the phone twice. During the entire time of her placement, Father never sent Child birthday cards, gifts or letters. Father was arrested again in Florida in September of 2015 for unarmed burglary and is current ly serving a sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment. 5 Child is thriving with her pre
- adoptive, foster family. The record bears out the fact that Father has failed to assert a place of importance in Child’s life while he has been incarcerated, even acknow ledging that he was not in a position to parent Child. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 10/28/16, at 24, 29 (“I don’t have any resources to be able to write . . . letters or call . . . any

____________________________________________ 4 We note that this Court may affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsect ion of section 2511(a). In re M.T. , 101 A.3d 1163, 1179 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc).
5 Father testified that his conviction is on appeal and that if he is afforded relief he could receive a reduced sentence of five years’ imprisonment. See N.T. Terminat ion Hearing, 10/28/16, at 24.J - S35013 - 17

- 8 -

time I want to.”); see also In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 828 (Pa. 2012) (while incarceration neither compels nor precludes termination, it is potentially determinative factor in court’s conclusion that grounds for termination exist under section 2511(a)(2) where repeated and continued incapacity to parent due to inc arceration has caused child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence and causes of incapacity cannot or will not be remedied). Moreover, Father simply cannot meet the “developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of [Chil d].” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Father has not seen Child for most of her young life; there is no apparent parent
child bond. The positive impact that Child’s pre
- adoptive foster parents have had on Child’s emotional and developmental needs is significant an d supports the trial court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights under section 2511(b). See In the Interest of T.A.C. , 110 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2015). We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Sambroak’s decision in the event of furth er proceedings in the matter. Order affirmed. Petition to Withdraw granted.J - S35013 - 17

- 9 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/6/2017

# F l 

# LED DEC 1 6 

## 2016

I 

### Register of Wills in c arc e rat ed, an d u n s ur e o f hi s r ele a se date. Hi s rol e a cti v el y p ar e nti ng I. A. wa s n e gligi b l e . See h o us i n g . The Ag e n cy al s o n o t e d A p pe ll an t ha d a l e ngth y c rimi n al h i s tory , w as curr e ntl y c o n ce rn e d abo u t th e mo ther ' s hi s t o ry o f drug ab u se , un s t abl e m ental h eal th , an d u n s tab le Eri e Co un ty P ri s on and A p pe llant w a s in car ce rated in F l o ri da. T h e Age n cy w a s p arti c u l arl y On No ve mb er 1 8 , 2014, I. A. wa s a d ju di c at ed d e p e n de n t. Mo th e r was incar c e rat e d in th e o / 1 8 Ye ar s, 5 1 1 / 1 6,p
. 2
. (Age n cy). Petiti onfo r th e Invo l un ta ry T er mi na tio n of Paren t

a l R ig ht s to a Ch ild u n d

e r th e Ag e t e mp orary prot e ctiv e ph ys i c al an d le gal c us tod y of the E rie C oun ty O ffi c e o f Childr e n an d Yo u th On Octo ber 31, 2 01 4 , I.A
. w as re m o v ed from th e care o f the moth e r and pl ace d i n the

P R O C EDURA L H IST O R Y AND F A CT S a ffirm th e de c re e. ( b) by cl ear and convin c ing e vid e n ce. It is th ere fo re r espe c t full y re q ues t ed th e S up e rio r Co u rt e s t ab li s hin g gr o und s for te rmi nati o n un d e r 23 Pa. C. S .A
. §25 1 l (a) (J) , (a)(2), (a) ( 5), ( a )(8) , an d rev i e w o f th e r ec o rd shows th e r e ar e no i s s u es o f m e rit a nd that the Ag en cy m e t it s b ur den in ( LA
. )
. H e filed a timely N oti ce of Appe al an d a St atem e nt o f I n t e nt t o F il e an An d e r s Bri ef
. A 

### I, ~- S ·•(App e ll a nt) , to hi s mi n o r c hild, l 

### 1 11 J
.... A_. On O ct o be r 2 8 , 2 01 6, a dec r e e w a s ent e re d t erm in ating the p arental rig h ts of th e n atural 1925 ( a ) OPINION

NO. 39 IN ADO P TION 2016 

# I---J--

, P,.i\ -· OF ERJE COUNT Y , P E NN SYL VANIA ORPHAN S' C OU RT THE A DOPTION OF IN TH E COUR T O F C OM MON PL E A S IN THE MA T TER O F Circulated 06/06/2017 11:26 AMThe third permanen cy r ev ie w he arin g to ok p l ac e o n Oc tob e r 26, 20 1 5. A ppe ll ant w a s n o t

pr ese nt du e t o in car ceration in Flori da , was no t re pr ese nt e d b y co un se l , a nd o n c e m o r e fail e d t o
co mp ly w ith th e treatme nt p l an o r th e trial court 's dir ective t o co nt ac t th e A g e n cy . Des pit e Ap pe ll ant 's Jac k of prog r ess , th e c hil d's m o th e r de m o n s trat e d s ignifi c ant co mp li an c e with h e r tr eatme nt pl an , an d th e c hil d w a s r e tu rn e d t o h e r care . A r e vi e w w a s s c h e dul ed fo r thre e m o nth s . P e rmanency Revi e w H

ea ring S ummary, 10

/ 3 / 1 6 , p. 1
. S ee also P et ition for th e In vo lunt ary Te rmination o

f P a re ntal Right

s to a C hild und e r the Ag e o

f 18 Y ear s, 5 / 1 / 1 6
. A di s p o siti o nal he arin g took p la ce o n D ec emb er 5, 2014 , App e ll a nt w as p r es e nt at th e d i s pos ition al hearin g by t e lephone. Involuntar y T e rminati o n of

P a re nt a l 

### R ig hts T

r a n sc rip t, 1 0 /28 / 16, p. 4 6. T he first p erman e ncy r e view hearin g to o k pl a c e on April 2 9, 20 15. App e ll ant w a s n o t pr e sent , but w a s r ep r e s e nt e d by c oun s el. At the tim e of th is h earin g , App e ll ant w as in co mpl e t e
n o n-c o mplian c e with th e treatment pl an. Despit e c ont ac tin g the Ag e ncy wh e n h e was r e l ease d fro m pri s on i n Flori d a, the numerou s cont ac t numb ers h e left with the A g en c y w er e o ut o f
se rvic e. At th e con c lusi o n of the he aring, the tri al court o rd e red Appell ant c o nt ac t th e A ge n cy to
s e t up a tr eatment p lan a nd vi s it ati o n, and o rder e d th e g oal r e mai n r eunifi c ati o n. Pe t i ti o n for th e Inv o luntary Te rmina t ion o

f Parental Ri g ht

s to a C hild und e r th e Ag e o

f 1 8 Years, 5 1 1

/ 1 6 , pg . 6- 7
. T h e sec ond pe rm an e n cy revi e w he ari ng too k pl ac e o n J ul y 6 1 2 01 5
. Ap p e ll ant w a s n ot pr e s e nt , b ut w as r e p re sen te d by co un s el. Once ag ain , Appe ll ant fail e d t o co mpl y with th e pe rman e n c y pl an. N e v e rthele ss, th e goal o f th e p ro cee din gs rem ain ed r e un i fi catio n, s in ce th e
m o ther ma d e s i g ni fica nt progre ss. T he m atte r w as s c h e dul e d for a th ree mo n th r ev i e w . P e t iti o n for th e Involuntar

y Te rm ina tio n of

P aren t a l Ri gh t s l o a C hild un d e r th e Age of 1 8 Y

e ars , 5 / 1 / 1 6 , p. 9
.

# \ + .

P e titi o n/or the Inv o luntary Te rmin a tion of P a re ntal Ri g ht

s to a C hild unde r the A ge of 1 8 Y

ears, 5 / 1 / 1 6, p. 10-1 ]. Unfortunate ly, I.A. w as r emo ved fr o m th e m o th e r 's car e o n De ce mbe r 14 , 2 01 5 and
re turn e d to th e fo s t er family afte r th e m o the r r e l aps ed o n drug s. A seco nd s h e lter car e an d ad diti o n al p e rman e n c y re vi e w h eari n g too k pl ace o n J anu ary 6, 2 0 I 6
. A pp e ll ant w as re p rese nt e d by c ou ns el, re main e d in car ce rat e d , and th er efo re was n o t p r es ent at th e h earin g . O n ce again, A pp e ll an t faile d t o c ont ac t th e Ag e n c y t o se t u p an in d i v i du a li z e d tr eatm e nt pl an , vi s i tatio n
sc hed ule, o r o the rwis e co nta c t the c hild. T he goal o f th e pr oc e e din gs was ch a ng ed t o ado pti o n . Se rv i ces to th e App e ll ant w e r e termi nated and th e A ge nc y wa s o rde r e d to fil e a t e rmin atio n p e titi on a s soo n a s p rac ti cabl e. P e tit i on /o r th e I nvo l u ntary Te rm in atto n of Paren t a l R igh t s to a C hild u nde r th e A ge o

f 1 8 Yea r s, 5 1 1 / 16 , p. 1 2 -1 3
. In vo luntary T

ermina ti o n of

Pare nt a l R i g ht s T r a n scr i p t, 10 /2 8 / 16, p . 49- 50. T h e h eari n g to t e rmin at e Ap pe ll an t 'spare ntal ri g ht s w as h e ld o n Oc t ober 28, 201 6. Appell ant, th o ugh r e p rese nt ed , was o nc e agai n n o t p r ese nt an d parti c i pat ed i n th e h earin g vi a t ele ph o n e fr om U SP C o l e m an I , a fede ral , hi g h sec urity p e n i t e ntiary in F l o ri da. Inv olu nt ary Te rmi na ti o n of

P a re nt a l R ig ht s Tr ans c ri pt, 10 /28/ 16 , p . 4-5, 22
. T h e t es ti mo n y at the t ermin ati o n h eari ng r eviewe d m an y of the co n ce rn s th e Age n cy disc u ssed at th e pe rm an e n cy re vi ew h eari n gs and th oro u g hl y d i sc u sse d Ap p e ll a nt' s cri mi nal h i s t o ry an d l ack of co nt ac t with the ch ild. T h e ev i de n ce indi cat ed Appe ll ant was in carcerat e d at th e M ario n Co unty J ail i n F l o rida w h en th e ch il d was a djud icat e d de p e nd e nt in Erie , Pe n ns ylv ani a . In vo lunt

a r y Ter mi na ti on of

P are nt a l R i g ht s T r ansc r ip t , 1 0 /28 1 1 6 , p. 9

- 11. After hi s r e l ea s e fro m th e M ario n Co unty Jail, A ppe ll ant tra v e ll e d to Eri c w ith hi s mo th e r t o fi nd work an d v isit th e c hil d. A ppe ll ant co n tac t e d th e A ge n cy an d h ad o n e vi s it wi th I.A. i n

### \S

.

Feb ruary, 2 015 , be fore returnin g to Florida to co llect h is thing s and move b a c k t o th e E rie ar ea. Appell a nt l e ft a Fl o rid a contact nu mber w ith th e A g ency. Inv o lunt a r y Ter minati o n o f Pa re nt a l R i g h t s T r a n sc r i pt, 10 / 2 8/ 1 6 , p . 14 , J 6
. Ap pe ll a nt r e turned to the Erie ar ea in lat e M ar ch o r earl y A pril, 2 015
. At that tim e h is F lorid a contact numbe r w a s suppo s edly still in s erv i ce. Sh o rtly th e reaft e r, A pp e llant eith e r
o bt ai n ed a diff

ere nt ph o ne n umb e r or l os t hi s phon e c o nnec tivity, l e a vin g th e A ge n cy n o w ay to contact him
. E v entuall y , Appellant m o ved to O hio , wh e re he w ork e d for ab o ut a week , befo re
r e tu rn in g t o F l o rid a ag a in
. A p pell a nt provi de d an O hi o ph o n e n u mb er t o th e A ge n c y. H o w e ver , w he n ca seworkers l ate r att e mpt e d t o cont ac t h im at thi s numb e r, th ey fo und it was n o l o n ger in
s e rv ic e. Invol u n ta r

y T e rmin a tion o

f Pa re nt a l Ri g ht s Tr a nsc r ipt , l 0 /2 8 / 16 , p . I 9

- 2 1
. Aft e r App e ll a nt r e turn e d to Flo rid a a s ec o nd tim e , h e Ji v e d with hi s mo th e r until h e w as
arr es t e d fo r ba n k ro bb ery w ith o ut a fir earm . A p pell ant wa s s ent e n ce d t o 18 8 m o nth s in carcerati o n and tra nsfe rr e d t o US P Co l e m an I t o s e rv e hi s s en t e n c e. Ap p e ll a nt stat e d h i s
s ent e n ce w a s currently o n app ea l, an d if he won , hi s sent e n ce w o u ld be r e duc e d from 15 y ear s to fiv e (5 ) y ear s '
. Inv o lu n t

ary T er min a tion o f Pare nt a l Ri g ht s Tr a ns cr ip t , 10/ 281 16 , p. 2 1

- 2 4
. A pp e ll an t's s tat e m e nts he tri e d co nt a cting th e c hild, Ag e n c y , or fo s t e r p are nt s thr o u g ho ut th e co ur s e o f th e d e pend e n cy p ro ce e dings a s m a ny as " fi ve, t e n, 15,
.. . , o r 30 tim es " w er e dir ec tly co ntradi c t e d by the Ag e n c y ca sewo rker , s o c i al s e r vic e ai de, a nd th e c hil d's fos t er
mo ther. Th e so c ial se rv i ce ai de t e stified the cas e worker g ave her a phon e numb e r as s oc i ated w ith the Ap pe llant, atte mpt e d t o co nt ac t h im at l eas t t w o tim e s at th at n umb e r , an d l eft m es sag e s for him, but re c e iv e d n o return p hon e c a ll. T he s e att e mpts were s p eci fi ca ll y m a d e fo r th e p u rpo se o f setti ng u p vi s i tation
. I

n vol u nta ry Te rm i n a l

/o n o f P are nt a l Ri g ht s Tr a n sc r ipt, 1 0/

2 8/ 16 ,p . 15, 3 2.The fo s ter moth e r te s tified that over the course o f the proceeding s , sh e s pok e with

A ppellant twic e on the phon e . These phone c a lls occurred "tow ards the end of February in 2015" and were right after A ppellant' s first vi s it with the child , mor e than one year before the termination pr o ceeding s . T he fo s ter mother explained s he called App e llant thr e e or four week s in a row, with no r e sponse, and asked the Agency i f sh e needed to continue calling him. At that point, the Ag e n c y provided the fost e r parents' phone numb e r to the App e llant. H o wever, Appellant nev e r called the foster parents, His only phone c o nta c t with th e family o ccurr ed o n the two occasions he answered his phone when the foster family c alled him. Involuntary T e rmination of

Parental Ri g hts T

ranscript, 10/28/ 16, p . 35-41. Both A g ency ca se w o rk e r s c o nfirmed Appellant had on e visit with th e child in Febru ary of 20 J 5. Appellant did not contact the ca s eworker to schedule an additional visit. Wh e n th e
c as eworke r tri e d to rea c h out to App e llant through the Ohio ph o ne number , s h e found it wa s no longe r in se rvice
. Appellant did not pro v ide the c as ework e r with an a lternate number or physi c al addre s s. Involuntary T e rmination of

Pare ntal Rights Tran sc ript , 10 / 28 / 16 , p. 4 6- 4 8. While the child was in placement, Appellant only spoke with the child on the phone twic e , and never s e nt bir thd ay cards , g ift s , or letter s. Involuntar y Termin a tion ofParental Right s Tran s cr i pt, 101 2 8 11 6, p . 42~43
. Wh e n a s ked to exp l ain thi s la ck o f e ffort, Ap pe ll an t point ed to hi s "l a ck o f re so urce s ," o r blamed hi s mother, stating s h e wa s tryi ng t o ca ll the A g ency, a nd h a d b e en calling th e Ag e ncy , aft e r he was arre s ted
. Appellant gave n o credibl e e x planation for h i s i n ability to s end gift s or lett e r s t o the Agency fo r the child, and admitt e d th at hi s lengthy incarc e ration did n o t put him in a po s ition to parent the c hild
. At s ome p o int s, Appell an t cl a imed ignorance of the permanency hearings, and at other time s c laimed he attempted t o conta c t Ag e ncy worker s or l e ft m e ssages num e rou s times to maint ai n cont a ct with the child,

### t ' 7

.

At th e con c lu s ion o f the t ermin ation h earin g, th e tri al co u rt de t e rmin e d the Ag e n c y establish e d ground s for t e rminati o n u nder 23 Pa.C
. S
. A. §2 5 1 I (a)( I) , (a){2), ( a )(S), and (a)( 8) by cl ear and c onvincing e vid e nc e and th at termi nation of App e llant's p ar e ntal rights w as in the ch il d ' s b est in t er e st s p urs u ant to 23 Pa
. C. S
. A. § 251 1 (b)
. s u gges tin g he ind eed ha d notic e o f the h earin g s . I nv olunt ar y Termination of

P a ren tal R ig hts Tra n sc ri p t , 10/ 281 1 6, p . 2 4 -2 6, 7

2

- 73 , 8 8. All Agency work e r s a gre e d the chil d wa s s trongly bonded t o her fos ter par en ts, wh o wer e willing to a d o pt he r . At th e tim e o f the t e rm inatio n heari ng, th e c h i ld w as thr e e y ear s old , and l i ve d w ith h er fo s t e r famil y fo r at l e a s t tw o ye ars . Ess en ti a ll y, th e c hil d's fos t e r family wa s th e 0 11.ly fami ly she kn e w . Th e child l o oked t o h e r fo s t e r paren ts fo r com fort and love
. A dditi o nally , th e child w as bond e d to an o ther c hild ne ar h e r ag e i n the h o me. TI1 e child h a d no spe cial n ee ds
a nd wa s o therwi se he a lthy and d e v e lopm e nt a lly on trac k. invol u nta r y T e rmination of

P are ntal R ig hts Tr an script, 10

/281 16, p. 51

- 54, 60

- 6

2
. B o th the p e rman e n c y cas e w o rker an d the o ng o ing ca s e work e r expr esse d doubt th e child
w o uld r ecogn ize th e App e ll ant as h e r fath e r. In th e ir o pini o n , s h e was in no way bonded t o him. Additi o na lly , th e o ngo in g cas ewo rker n o t e d App e ll an t ' s l e ng thy p e riod o f i ncar cerati o n , sp anning at l e ast fl ve, if n o t up to 1 5 years , woul d n o t put him in a p os ition to p ar e n t the ch i ld for
a s ignifi can t peri o d o f tim e. Wai tin g o n th e App e ll ant's r e l eas e fr o m jail w o uld le av e the ch ild
w ith o ut s t ab ility, an d ke ep h e r from ma inta inin g a h ea lthy att a c hm e nt to th e fos t e r family. Th e
on go ing and perm an e ncy c asew ork e r s agr ee d it w as in th e c hild ' s b es t inter es ts App e llant' s right s to h e r b e t e rminated , Involunt a ry Term i nat lo n of

Pare ntal Ri g hts Tran s cript, l 0/2811 6 , p. 51

- 54, 60- 62.DIS C USS I ON In a t e rmin ation o f parent al right s hearing, th e initi al fo c u s i s o n th e co ndu c t o f the parent. Th e A g ency "must prov e by c lear and c onv i ncing evid e nce that the p ar e nt 's co ndu ct
sati sfie s th e s t atuto ry g r o und s for termination delin e at ed in Se cti o n 2 5 11 (a) ." In re L
. M , 9 2 3 A. 2 d 5 0 5, 511 (P a . Supe r

. 200 7 )
. Once th e s e statutory g rou n ds ex i st, th e co urt m ay an al yze
w hether i t i s in the b e st i nterests o f th e child fo r p arent al right s to b e t e rmin ated. I d O n e ma jor
as pe c t o f th is analy s is in c lu des "the n atur e and s tatus o f the e m o tion a l b o nd b e tw ee n p are nt and ISSUES P RESENTED After r e vi e w of the r e c o rd, th e o nly i s sue o f po ss ibl e argu abl e m e rit th at co uld be rai sed
o n appeal is o ne ch a ll e nging the sufficien c y of th e evid e nc e s upp o rting th e tria l co urt 's fin d ing s und e r s ub se cti o n s ( a )(l ), (a ) (2) , (a ) (S ) , ( a )(&) , and (b). STANDARD OF REVIEW When r e vi e w i n g a tri a l co urt 's decision to grant or d e ny a t ermin ati o n of p ar e nt al ri g h t s p e titio n, 

### an app e ll at e 

### co urt s hou ld apply an abu s e of di sc r e ti o n s t a nd ard , ac cepting th e trial court' s findin gs o f fac t and c r e dibility d e t e rminatio n s i f th ey are s upp o rt e d by the reco rd , and
r e ver s ing o nly if th e tri al court m a de an e rr o r o f law or abus e d it s d i scre ti o n . in re S.P., 47 A. 2d 8 17 , 8 26 (P a. 201 l)
. H [ A) d e cisi o n may be revers e d for an abu se of d isc r e ti o n o nl y u po n d e m o n s tration of mani fes t unre a son ablen es s , parti a lity, pr e judi ce, b ias, or ill-will ." Id. The appell at e co urt m ay a ffirm th e tri a l c ourt' s de ci s ion regard in g th e t e rminati o n o f parental ri g ht s with regard t o any on e sub se ction o f251 l(a). In re M T. , 101A
. 3d11 63, 11 79 (Pa
. S up er. 2014)( e n b a ne)
. C o un se l for the App e llant fil e d a Notic e of App e al and S t at e m e nt of Int e nt t o fil e an An d ers B ri e f o n N o v ember 23, 2016
.

### Q...o_

Jessica Fiscus, Esq. l 00 l State Street, Suite 1400 Erie, PA I 650 I Patricia Ambrose, Esq. 731 French Street Erie, PA 16501 W. Charles Sacco, Esq. 525 West 10 111 Street Erie, PA 16502 cc: Kevin Jennings, Esq. OCY Legal Department BY THE COURT:



# fJl!!l:.~fnROAI(, JR. J, Dated this 

# L day of December, 2016 Decree terminating Appellant's parental rights to the child. and serves the best interests of the child. It is respectfully requested the Superior Court affirm the and convincing evidence exists to show termination of Appellant's parental rights was proper with the child and follow through with Agency directives to preserve his parental rights. Clear Appellant consistently demonstrated he was unwilling to maintain meaningful contact CONCLUSION 

### Involuntary Termination of

Parental Rights Transcript, I 0/28116, p. 51-54, 6 0

- 62. this end, and would disrupt the healthy bond the child currently shares with her foster family.