J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.J.J. : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: E.L.H., BIOLOGICAL 

MOTHER, 

: 

: 

: No. 536 EDA 2014 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the Decree, November 6, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2013-A0190 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.L.J. : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: E.L.H., BIOLOGICAL 

MOTHER, 

: 

: 

: No. 537 EDA 2014 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the Decree, November 6, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2013-A0191 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF G.M.J. : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: E.L.H., BIOLOGICAL 

MOTHER, 

: 

: 

: No. 538 EDA 2014 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the Decree, November 6, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2013-A0192
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 2 - 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.J.J. : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: M.J., BIOLOGICAL 

FATHER, 

: 

: 

: No. 539 EDA 2014 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the Decree, November 6, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2013-A0190 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF M.L.J. : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: M.J., BIOLOGICAL 

FATHER, 

: 

: 

: No. 540 EDA 2014 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the Decree, November 6, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2013-A0191 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF G.M.J. : 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

APPEAL OF: M.J., BIOLOGICAL 

FATHER, 

: 

: 

: No. 541 EDA 2014 

 Appellant : 

Appeal from the Decree, November 6, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County 

Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2013-A0192 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES AND SHOGAN, JJ. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 3 - 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 

E.L.H. (“Mother”) and M.J. (“Father”) appeal from the decrees dated 

and entered November 6, 2013, that granted the petitions filed by the 

Montgomery County Office of Children and Youth (“OCY” or the “Agency”), to 

involuntarily terminate their parental rights to their dependent, male child, 

J.J.J., born in November of 2009, and dependent, twin female children, 

M.L.J. and G.M.J., born in June of 2007 (the “Children”), pursuant to 

Section 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b).1

 We affirm. 

 On October 3, 2013, OCY filed petitions seeking to involuntarily 

terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. The trial 

court held a hearing on the petition on November 6, 2013. The preliminary 

decrees entered on October 8, 2013, provided that the hearing for the 

petition for termination was scheduled for November 6, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. 

in Courtroom 15 at One Montgomery Plaza, 4th Floor, Norristown, 

Pennsylvania. The preliminary decrees reflect that the trial court served the 

notice of the hearing on Mother and Father, and on their respective counsel. 

At the commencement of the hearing, Mother’s counsel, 

Attorney Edward Danelski, indicated that he had communicated with Mother 

regarding the case, and was requesting a continuance because Mother was 

 

1

 On November 6, 2013, the trial court also changed the permanency goal 

for the Children to adoption. Mother and Father have not filed notices of 

appeal challenging the goal change, however. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 4 - 

not present. (Notes of testimony, 11/6/13 at 3.) Counsel for OCY, 

Attorney Christina Terebelo, stated that OCY had mailed the notice to Mother 

and Father at their last known address, _ _ _ Astor Street,2

 Norristown, 

Pennsylvania, via first class and certified mail. (Id.) Attorney Terebelo 

further stated that OCY did not receive a green card indicating that Mother 

or Father received the certified mail, but neither the certified mail nor the 

first class mail had been returned to OCY. (Id. at 3-4.) Attorney Terebelo 

further stated that Mother had contacted OCY on Monday, November 4, 

2013, and spoken with the OCY director, Lori O’Connell, regarding the dates, 

and was reciting information from the petition. (Id. at 4.) Additionally, 

Attorney Terebelo testified that OCY had no reason to believe that Mother 

was no longer residing at the address where OCY sent the notice or had not 

received the notice. (Id.) 

Father’s counsel, Attorney Thomas Carroll, joined in the request for a

continuance, stating that his last contact with Father had been in September 

of 2013, via telephone. (Id.) Attorney Carroll explained that he had left 

messages for Father, at the only telephone number Father had provided, 

and requested Father call him to discuss the termination hearing, but Father 

had not responded. (Id. at 4-5.) Attorney Carroll stated that he had not 

 

2

 We note that the address on Astor Street was the same as that reflected 

on the certified mail receipts, but we have deleted the street number for 

privacy purposes. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 5 - 

communicated with Father regarding the termination matter since early 

September. (Id. at 5.) 

 The guardian ad litem, Attorney Craig Bluestein, agreed with 

Attorney Terebelo, and added that, on August 26, 2013, Mother appeared 

for a permanency hearing for which notice had been sent to the same 

Astor Street address used for the termination hearing notice. (Id.) Counsel 

for Mother and Father agreed that they had no other address for their 

clients. (Id. at 5-6.) The trial court found the notice sufficient, and denied 

the continuance requests. (Id.) 

 After a brief recess, OCY presented the testimony of Lisa Mongan, the 

ongoing caseworker assigned to the family. (Id. at 8-9.) Counsel for 

Mother and Father cross-examined Ms. Mongan, as did the guardian 

ad litem. Counsel for OCY conducted re-direct examination, and counsel for 

Mother, Father, and the guardian ad litem conducted re-cross examination 

of the witness. 

 With regard to the notice issue, Ms. Mongan testified on direct 

examination that, in December of 2012, she received a copy of the lease of 

Mother and Father for their home, and that she had not received anything 

regarding an eviction since that time. (Notes of testimony, 11/6/13 at 20.) 

Ms. Mongan further stated that she had mailed numerous letters to Mother 

and Father to their residence, and that they had referenced her letters in 

text messages to her, so she believed they still resided at the same home. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 6 - 

(Id.) On cross-examination by Mother’s counsel, Ms. Mongan testified that, 

when Mother contacted OCY earlier in the week of the termination hearing, 

she asked to speak to the OCY director because the director had signed the 

petition that Mother “was holding.” (Id. at 47-48.) Moreover, on 

cross-examination by the guardian ad litem, Ms. Mongan testified that she 

sent a letter dated October 16, 2013, to Mother and Father, and that she 

believed that they received the letter because she received text messages 

and e-mail from Mother, and a telephone call from Father, with regard to it. 

(Id. at 63-65; GAL-Exhibit 1.) 

 At the close of the hearing, the trial court, on the record, terminated 

the parental rights of both Mother and Father to the Children, and changed 

the permanency goal for the Children to adoption. Thus, on November 6, 

2013, the trial court entered the decrees involuntarily terminating the 

parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children pursuant to 

Section 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act. 

 Thereafter, the trial court appointed Attorney Henry S. Hiles, II, as 

counsel for both Mother and Father. On December 6, 2013, Mother and 

Father, through Attorney Hiles, filed three appeals, one notice of appeal, and 

one statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b) on behalf of both parties for each of the 

Children. On January 6, 2014, Mother and Father filed three amended 

notices of appeal, along with three concise statements of errors complained 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 7 - 

of on appeal on behalf of both parties. On January 24, 2014, this court, 

acting sua sponte, quashed the appeal as being improperly filed from 

multiple decrees, without prejudice to the rights of Mother and Father to 

seek permission in the trial court to file separate appeals nunc pro tunc. 

 On January 31, 2014, Mother and Father filed separate petitions for 

allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc. On that same date, the trial court 

entered orders granting the relief, directing the parties to file their notices of 

appeal and concise statements within 14 days of that order. Mother and 

Father complied on February 12, 2014, with each parent filing a separate 

notice of appeal and concise statement with regard to the decree for each 

child. On March 13, 2014, this court, acting sua sponte, consolidated the 

six appeals.3

 Mother and Father, through Attorney Hiles, have filed separate briefs 

on appeal, in which they both raise the following: 

DID THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT COMMIT ERROR 

BY (i) RULING THAT THE APPELLANTS, WHO DID 

NOT APPEAR FOR TRIAL, HAD RECEIVED 

SUFFICIENT NOTICE AND (ii) DENYING THE 

REQUEST OF THE APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL TO 

CONTINUE THE TRIAL SO THAT THE APPELLANTS 

COULD APPEAR AND APPROPRIATELY CONTEST THE 

PROCEEDINGS[?] 

 

3 This court’s review of this matter was protracted because of our delayed 

receipt of the complete certified record from the trial court, after the quashal 

of the initial appeals and return of the certified record, despite our best 

efforts to obtain it in a timely fashion. See In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 

261 n.21 (Pa. 2013). 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 8 - 

Mother’s and Father’s briefs, at 9.4

 

 Mother and Father argue that the trial court erred in finding that OCY 

afforded them notice of the termination hearing, and in denying the 

continuance and holding the hearing in their absence.5 Mother and Father 

claim they failed to appear at the hearing because they did not receive 

legally sufficient notice, citing Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rule 15. 

Moreover, Mother and Father contend that the trial court violated their 

Constitutional guarantee to due process of law in refusing to continue the 

matter, because they were not present to confront the OCY witness and 

evidence against them, and to testify and present any counter evidence. 

Mother and Father request this court to vacate the orders and remand the 

 

4

 We could consider the issue waived for failure of Mother and Father to 

include a statement of questions involved in their briefs. See Krebs v. 

United Refining Company of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 

(Pa.Super. 2006) (stating that we will not ordinarily consider any issue not 

preserved in the statement of questions involved in an appellant’s brief, and 

any issue not raised in a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal is waived). We will consider the issue preserved for our review, 

however, as Mother and Father clearly raised the issue in the argument 

section of their brief before proceeding to discuss the issue. 

5

 In their concise statements of errors complained of on appeal, and in their 

statements of questions involved in their briefs on appeal, Mother and Father 

do not challenge the merits of the underlying termination decrees, nor do 

they challenge the goal change orders, as they focus on the threshold notice 

issue. They, therefore, waived any challenge to the merits of the 

terminations and goal change as part of this appeal, and we will not review 

those matters. See Krebs, supra, 893 A.2d at 797. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 9 - 

matter for a new termination hearing.6

 In support of their argument, Mother 

and Father rely on In re Maynard, 473 A.2d 1084 (Pa.Super. 1984), and 

Adoption of Walker, 360 A.2d 603 (Pa. 1976). 

 We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in 

accordance with the following standard. 

[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion 

standard when considering a trial court’s 

determination of a petition for termination of 

parental rights. As in dependency cases, our 

standard of review requires an appellate court to 

accept the findings of fact and credibility 

determinations of the trial court if they are supported 

by the record. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 

1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are 

supported, appellate courts review to determine if 

the trial court made an error of law or abused its 

discretion. Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) 

(plurality opinion)]. As has been often stated, an 

abuse of discretion does not result merely because 

the reviewing court might have reached a different 

conclusion. Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia 

Motors America, Inc., 613 Pa. 371[, 455], 34 A.3d 

1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 

630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be 

reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon 

demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, 

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.

. . . . 

 

6

 This court has stated that, where a parent or his/her attorney enters an 

appearance and participates in the termination hearing without objection to 

the sufficiency of notice, the parent waives any subsequent claim of 

insufficient notice. In re Adoption of W.C.K., 748 A.2d 223, 228 

(Pa.Super. 2000), overruled on other grounds, In re Adoption of Z.S.H.G., 

34 A.3d 1283, 1289-1290 (Pa.Super. 2011). Thus, we find that counsel for 

Mother and Father did adequately preserve an objection to the sufficiency of 

the notice by requesting the continuance. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 10 - 

[E]ven where the facts could support an opposite 

result, as is often the case in dependency and 

termination cases, an appellate court must resist the 

urge to second guess the trial court and impose its 

own credibility determinations and judgment; 

instead we must defer to the trial judges so long as 

the factual findings are supported by the record and 

the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an 

error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re 

Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 

1994). 

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-827 (Pa. 2012). 

 Further, in Krull v. Krull, 344 A.2d 619, 620 (Pa.Super. 1975), this 

court held that a trial court’s grant or denial of a request for a continuance 

will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Thus, we will apply an 

abuse of discretion standard to this matter. 

 It is well settled that termination of parental rights implicates a natural 

parent’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. See In the Interest 

of A.P., 692 A.2d 240, 242 (Pa.Super. 1997) (stating that natural parents 

have a “fundamental liberty interest . . . in the care, custody, and 

management of their children”), citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 

753 (1982). An individual whose parental rights are to be terminated must 

be given due process of law, as the termination of parental rights is a 

constitutionally protected action. See In re Interest of K.B., 763 A.2d 

436, 439 (Pa.Super. 2000), citing Santosky, supra. OCY bears the burden 

to prove proper service by its affirmative act. In re Interest of K.B., 763 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 11 - 

A.2d at 439, citing Leight v. Lefkowitz, 615 A.2d 751, 753 (Pa.Super. 

1992). 

Section 2513(b) of the Adoption Act provides that at least ten days’ 

notice shall be given to the parents, by personal service or registered mail, 

to their last known address, or by such other means as the court may 

require. Further, the section provides that the notice shall state certain 

language, including the right to representation and how to obtain counsel if 

the parents cannot afford counsel. Additionally, the statutory language 

requires a warning that, upon failure to appear, the hearing will go on 

without the parent, and the parent’s rights to the child in question may be 

terminated by the court without the parent’s presence at the hearing. See

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2513(b). 

 Section 2513(b) of the Adoption Act provides, in pertinent part: 

(b) NOTICE.--At least ten days’ notice shall be 

given to the parent or parents, putative father, 

or parent of a minor parent whose rights are to 

be terminated, by personal service or by 

registered mail to his or their last known 

address or by such other means as the court 

may require. A copy of the notice shall be 

given in the same manner to the other parent, 

putative father or parent or guardian of a 

minor parent whose rights are to be 

terminated. . . . The notice shall state the 

following: 

“A petition has been filed asking 

the court to put an end to all rights 

you have to your child (insert 

name of child). The court has set 

a hearing to consider ending your 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 12 - 

rights to your child. That hearing 

will be held in (insert place, giving 

reference to exact room and 

building number or designation) on 

(insert date) at (insert time). You 

are warned that even if you fail to 

appear at the scheduled hearing, 

the hearing will go on without you 

and your rights to your child may 

be ended by the court without your 

being present. You have a right to 

be represented at the hearing by a 

lawyer. You should take this paper 

to your lawyer at once. If you do 

not have a lawyer or cannot afford 

one, go to or telephone the office 

set forth below to find out where 

you can get legal help. 

 (Name)________________ 

 (Address) ______________ 

 (Telephone number)______ 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2513(b). 

Rule 5.3 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules provides:

Whenever notice of the intention to do any act is 

required, such notice shall be given at least ten days 

prior to the doing of the act, unless a different period 

is specified by a rule adopted by the Supreme Court 

or by an Act of Assembly. 

Pa. Orphans’ Court Rule 5.3. 

In addition, Rule 15.4 of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Rules 

provides that notice of the involuntary termination petition must be given to 

each parent. See Pa. Orphans’ Court Rules, Rule 15.4.
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 13 - 

 Rule 15.4(d) provides: 

(d) Notice and Hearing. Notice of the hearing on 

the petition shall be given, in accordance with 

Rule 15.6 hereof, to the parent or parents 

whose rights are sought to be terminated, 

including the parent of a child born out of 

wedlock, to any intermediary named in a 

Report of Intention to Adopt, if one has been 

filed, and to the guardian of the person or 

guardian ad litem of any parent or parents who 

is or are under the age of 18 years. Each 

petitioner, each person whose joinder or 

consent is attached to the petition and any 

intermediary named in a Report of Intention to 

Adopt shall be examined under oath at the 

hearing unless they are excused by the court. 

Pa. Orphans’ Court Rule 15.4(d).

 Further, Rule 15.6 sets forth the manner of service, as follows: 

(a) Notice to every person to be notified shall be 

by personal service, service at his or her 

residence on an adult or member of the 

household, or by registered or certified mail to 

his or her last known address. If such service 

is unobtainable and the registered mail is 

returned undelivered, then: 

(1) no further notice shall be required 

in proceedings under Rules 15.2 or 

15.3, and 

(2) in proceedings under Rules 15.4 

and 15.5, further notice by 

publication or otherwise shall be 

given if required by general rule or 

special order of the local Orphans’ 

Court. If, after reasonable 

investigation, the identity of a 

person to be notified is unknown, 

notice to him or her shall not be 

required. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 14 - 

Pa. Orphans’ Court Rule 15.6(a).

This court has required a “good faith” effort to provide notice to a 

parent, at his or her correct address, of a hearing that may result in the 

termination of the individual’s parental rights. In re Adoption of K.G.M., 

Appeal of J.T.M., 845 A.2d 861 (Pa.Super. 2004), citing Adoption of 

Walker, 360 A.2d 603, 607 (Pa. 1976); In re Maynard, 473 A.2d 1084, 

1086 (Pa.Super. 1984). 

 In K.B., the issue before this court was whether the parents had been 

properly served with notice of the hearing to terminate their parental rights. 

The panel in K.B. held that the personal service by the process-servers, as

evidenced by their affidavits, complied with the requirements of the 

Adoption Act and the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure by affording the 

parents with 18 days’ notice of the hearing on the termination petition. 

K.B., 763 A.2d at 440. 

 On November 5, 2013, OCY filed a verification of service in relation to 

each matter. Each verification of service had attached to it, as Exhibit A, a 

copy of the return receipt requested, indicating that the petitions were 

mailed to Mother and Father at _ _ _ Astor Street, Norristown, PA 19401, by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and first class mail. The verifications 

of service also included the notices attached to the petitions for involuntary 

termination of the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. The 

notices provided as follows: 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 15 - 

I am writing to notify you that a petition has been 

filed asking the Court to put an end to all rights you 

have to your children, [G.], [M.], and [J]. In 

addition, a petition has been filed requesting that 

your child’s goal be changed to adoption. The 

combined termination of parental rights and goal 

change hearing child [sic] has been scheduled for 

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., in 

Courtroom “15”, fourth floor, One Montgomery Plaza, 

Swede and Airy Streets, Norristown, Pennsylvania. 

Enclosed are copies of the scheduling order, the 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights, and Petition for a Goal Change. 

 Please be advised that you have the right to be 

represented at the hearing by a lawyer. You should 

take this notice to your court appointed lawyer at 

once. Our records indicate that you are still 

represented by Legal Aid, 625 Swede Street, 

Norristown, PA 19401, phone number 610-275-

5400. 

You are warned that even if you fail to 

appear at the scheduled hearing, the hearing 

will go on without you and your rights to your 

children may be ended by the Court without 

you being present. 

Notice, 10/11/13. 

 At the hearing on the termination petition, the trial court found that 

Mother and Father had received the notices of the hearing, because the first 

class mail was not returned, acknowledging that the certified mail return 

receipts were not returned to OCY. (Notes of testimony, 11/6/13 at 6.) The 

trial court also found, from the record, that Mother and Father had attended 

the permanency review hearing in September of 2013, for which the notice 

was sent to the same address as the termination hearing. (Trial court 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 16 - 

opinion, 1/6/14 at 2.) The trial court noted that the preliminary decrees for 

the termination hearing directed Mother and Father to arrive at the 

courtroom on November 6, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. (Notes of testimony, 

11/6/13 at 6.) Accordingly, the trial court found that notice was properly 

served and denied the continuance requests. The trial court allowed a brief 

recess and commenced the hearing more than a half-hour after the 

scheduled 1:30 p.m. provided in the preliminary decrees, and Mother and 

Father still did not appear. (Id. at 6-7.) 

 We agree with the trial court that the service of the notice on Mother 

and Father, via first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to 

their last known address was proper. The notices in the certified record 

reflect the requisite warning to Mother and Father regarding the termination 

of their parental rights in their absence. 

Mother and Father also assert that a scheduling order that they 

received with regard to another matter possibly created confusion as to the 

date of the termination hearing. They have attached a copy of a summons 

to appear for a November 25, 2013 permanency review hearing, dated 

October 25, 2013, to their briefs on appeal as Exhibit D, but fall short of 

claiming that they were actually confused by this summons, arguing only 

that there possibly was confusion as to the court date. This summons was 

not before the trial court, and the parents’ counsel did not raise any possible 

confusion with the trial court at the hearing on November 6, 2013, nor do 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 17 - 

they assert any actual confusion in their briefs. Thus, we find this argument 

lacks merit. 

 We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s conclusion that 

Mother and Father were provided appropriate notice of the termination 

hearing and their corresponding right to an attorney, and the risk of having 

their parental rights terminated in their absence if they failed to appear. As 

the evidence of record supports the trial court’s findings regarding the 

sufficiency of the notice, we will not disturb them on appeal. In re 

Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-827 (Pa. 2012) (stating an appellate 

court must defer to the trial judges as long as the factual findings are 

supported by the record, and the court’s legal conclusions are not the result 

of an error of law or an abuse of discretion). 

 Additionally, we find no violation of due process in the trial court 

proceeding in the absence of Mother and Father, with their counsel actively 

representing them, conducting cross-examination of Ms. Mongan. 

Accordingly, we find no merit to the argument regarding the denial of the 

due process guarantee of Mother and Father by the trial court proceeding at 

the hearing. This court, therefore, affirms the termination decrees 

challenged on appeal. 

 Decrees affirmed. 
J. S38001/14 & J. S38002/14 

- 18 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 9/17/2014