J-S64030-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: R.A.R.

APPEAL OF: S.R., NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1182 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered June 28, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): OC No. 3513-2018

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2019

S.R. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her 

parental rights to her minor daughter, R.A.R. (born 6/2017). After careful 

review, we affirm.

R.A.R. has been in foster care since she was two days old;1 Mother has 

not seen R.A.R. since September 2017. Following R.A.R.’s birth in Clearfield 

County, Clearfield County Children and Youth Services (CYS) was notified with 

regard to concerns about Mother’s parenting abilities, mental health, 

insufficient income, and housing stability. Despite being offered services from 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 On June 21, 2017, the court entered an emergency protective order, placing 

R.A.R. in CYS’ legal and physical custody. R.A.R. was declared dependent on 

July 5, 2017. 
J-S64030-19

- 2 -

CYS,2 Mother still has the same parenting deficiencies two years after R.A.R.’s 

placement in foster care. In addition, Mother has failed to attend 

unsupervised visitations with R.A.R.3 and has been uncooperative with CYS. 

Testimony at the termination hearing from both R.A.R.’s caseworker and 

foster mother indicate that R.A.R. is thriving in foster care with a pre-adoptive 

family and that termination would be in R.A.R.’s best interests. R.A.R.’s 

caseworker also testified that she never witnessed a bond between Mother 

and R.A.R., and that due to Mother’s lack of ongoing participation in visitation, 

there has been no opportunity for the parent-child bond to form.

Here, Mother’s brief is woefully deficient – lacking in substance and nonconforming with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.4

 However, we decline to 

____________________________________________

2 Mother’s goals, outlined in the permanency plan, included attending therapy, 

having a risk assessment completed, drug testing, anger management, and 

completing parenting classes. Mother did not attain any of these goals.

3

In September 2017, Mother left Clearfield County and moved to Allentown 

to collect her personal belongings from Father. Father, who voluntarily 

relinquished his parental rights to R.A.R. on January 23, 2019, is not involved 

in this appeal.

4 We are compelled to point out that Mother’s entire brief is 31⁄2 pages in 

length, includes a citation to one case, and has no citations to the certified 

record. Where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with 

citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other 

meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim may be deemed waived. See 

In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330, 339 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted); see 

also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (“The argument shall be divided into as many parts as 

there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part—in 

distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated 

therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed 

pertinent.”). Mother has also failed to append a copy of the trial court’s 
J-S64030-19

- 3 -

quash the appeal or find her issues waived where we can glean from the scant 

argument in her brief that Mother asserts that the trial court erred in 

terminating her parental rights to R.A.R. Mother argues that she has: 

unsuccessfully attempted to have the case transferred to Lehigh County; 

allegedly sought mental health counseling with no success; is working at a 

restaurant; and will be collecting Social Security benefits soon. How these 

facts amount to what she calls “extraordinary measures to reunite with her 

child,” Appellant’s Brief, at 4, is beyond this Court’s comprehension. Mother 

has been completely non-compliant with her permanency objectives and, in 

fact, told CYS that she did not want to complete any of her plan goals. N.T. 

Termination Hearing, 1/23/19, at 42. Most critically, Mother does not address 

how CYS failed to present clear and convincing evidence to prove that 

terminating her parental rights to R.A.R’s was proper under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

2511(a) and (b) of the Adoption Act.

After a comprehensive review of the record, including the notes of 

testimony from the termination hearing, we conclude that the trial court did 

not err in terminating Mother’s parental rights to R.A.R. under section 

2511(a)(1) (termination proper where parent, for six months immediately 

preceding filing of termination petition, has refused or failed to perform 

____________________________________________

opinion and her Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of 

on appeal to her appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(b), (d); see also Karn 

v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 912 A.2d 329 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appeal may be 

dismissed or quashed where deficiencies in appellant’s brief are such that 

Court unable to conduct meaningful review). 
J-S64030-19

- 4 -

parental duties) and section 2511(b) (court shall give primary consideration 

to “developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the child,” 

which includes “[i]ntangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability.”). 

See In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review 

in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts “to accept the 

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are 

supported by the record.”).

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/26/2019