J-S01044-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: J.A.M., SR., NATURAL :

FATHER : No. 1463 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order August 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 20014 of 2014 O.C. Adoption

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J. and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 29, 2015

Appellant, J.A.M., Sr. (“Father”), appeals from the order entered in the 

Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated his 

parental rights to his minor child, J.M. (“Child”). We affirm. 

In its opinion, the trial court fully set forth the relevant facts of this 

case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, on 

March 14, 2014, Lawrence County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) filed 

a petition for involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights to Child.1 

The court held a hearing on the petition on July 31, 2014. On August 14, 

2014, the court entered an order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental 

rights to Child. Father filed a timely notice of appeal on September 9, 2014, 

 

1 The petition also sought to terminate the parental rights of B.M.L. 

(“Mother”), who is not a party to this appeal. Following a hearing, the court 

terminated Mother’s parental rights by a separate order filed on April 16, 

2014. 
J-S01044-15

- 2 -

along with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant 

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). 

Father raises the following issues for our review:

WHETHER [CYS] PROVIDED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE THAT [FATHER] BY CONDUCT CONTINUING FOR 

A PERIOD OF AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY 

PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE PETITION EITHER HAS 

EVIDENCED A SETTLED PURPOSE OF RELINQUISHING 

PARENTAL CLAIM TO [CHILD] OR HAS REFUSED OR 

FAILED TO PERFORM HIS PARENTAL DUTIES.

WHETHER [CYS] PROVIDED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDITIONS AND CAUSES OF THE 

INCAPACITY, ABUSE, NEGLECT OR REFUSAL CANNOT OR 

WILL NOT BE REMEDIED BY [FATHER].

WHETHER [CYS] PROVIDED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING 

EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF [CHILD] 

THAT [FATHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS BE TERMINATED.

(Father’s Brief at 5). 

The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental 

rights cases are as follows:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating 

parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the 

decision of the trial court is supported by competent 

evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, 

or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s 

decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has 

granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental 

rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision 

the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. 

We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the 

record in order to determine whether the trial court’s 

decision is supported by competent evidence.

Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of 

fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses 
J-S01044-15

- 3 -

and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the] 

finder of fact. 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 means 

testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing 

as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, 

without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. 

We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis 

exists for the result reached. If the trial court’s findings 

are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the 

court’s decision, even though the record could support an 

opposite result. 

In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal 

denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal citations omitted). 

CYS sought the involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights on 

the following grounds:

§ 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:

* * *

(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, 

abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has 

caused the child to be without essential 

parental care, control or subsistence necessary 

for his physical or mental well-being and the 

conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, 

neglect or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied by the parent.

* * *

(b) Other considerations.—The court in 

terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary 
J-S01044-15

- 4 -

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)(2), (b). “Parental rights may be involuntarily 

terminated where any one subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along 

with consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions.” In re Z.P., 994 

A.2d 1108, 1117 (Pa.Super. 2010). 

Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination 

will best serve the child’s needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 

(Pa.Super. 2006). “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability 

are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child.” Id.

at 520. “In this context, the court must take into account whether a bond 

exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an 

existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.” In re Z.P., supra at 1121.

When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not 

required to use expert testimony. Social workers and 

caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally, 

Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding 

evaluation.

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

“The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines 
J-S01044-15

- 5 -

certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide 

for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements 

within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be 

considered unfit and may properly have his...rights terminated.” In re 

B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001). 

There is no simple or easy definition of parental 

duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation 

to the needs of a child. A child needs love, 

protection, guidance, and support. These needs, 

physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely 

passive interest in the development of the child. 

Thus, this court has held that the parental obligation 

is a positive duty which requires affirmative 

performance.

This affirmative duty encompasses more than a 

financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in 

the child and a genuine effort to maintain 

communication and association with the child.

Because a child needs more than a benefactor, 

parental duty requires that a parent exert himself to 

take and maintain a place of importance in the 

child’s life.

Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively 

with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every 

problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship 

to the best of his...ability, even in difficult circumstances. 

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 parent-child 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 [the child’s] physical 

and emotional needs.

Where a parent is incarcerated, the fact of incarceration 
J-S01044-15

- 6 -

does not, in itself, provide grounds for the termination of 

parental rights. However, a parent’s responsibilities are 

not tolled during incarceration. The focus is on whether 

the parent utilized resources available while in prison to 

maintain a relationship with his...child. An incarcerated 

parent is expected to utilize all available resources to 

foster a continuing close relationship with his...children.

In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 

718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

“[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of 

his...child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill his...parental duties, to the 

child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his...potential in a 

permanent, healthy, safe environment.” Id. at 856. 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the order and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable 

Eugene E. Fike, II, we conclude Father’s issues merit no relief. The trial 

court’s order and Rule 1925(a) opinion comprehensively discuss and 

properly dispose of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed 

September 23, 2014, at 2-7; Trial Court Order, filed August 14, 2014, at 2-

3) (finding: Father was incarcerated for various periods of time beginning in 

2008, including at time of hearing on July 31, 2014; after Father’s release 

from prison in July 2013, CYS prepared permanency plan and family service 

plan with primary goal of reunification; Father incurred new criminal charges

in December 2013; Father did not exert significant effort to achieve 

objectives of plans, which included treatment of his drug and alcohol 
J-S01044-15

- 7 -

addictions and achievement of financial and personal stability; Father failed 

drug tests on multiple occasions; although Father made contact for drug and 

alcohol assessment, he failed to follow up with intake or treatment 

recommended by Drug and Alcohol Commission; Father did not participate in 

required psychological evaluations; Father has not demonstrated financial 

and personal stability; in December 2013 meeting with CYS caseworker, 

Father reported his housing circumstances were uncertain because of his 

failure to pay rent; Father’s testimony was unclear as to planned living 

arrangements after his expected release from prison in August 2014; Father 

has cancelled multiple scheduled visits with Child; classes and programs 

Father completed while in prison were not relevant to family service plan 

requirements and Father’s specific needs for rehabilitation; CYS caseworker 

testified that Child has progressed in residential treatment facility; Child has 

far fewer outbursts and exhibits much less disruptive behavior; Child 

appears happy and well-adjusted, talking and interacting positively with 

foster family; caseworker testified that Child did not display significant 

positive bond with Father; Father failed to take responsibility for his previous 

failings and addictions, and failed to take advantage of opportunity to 

demonstrate improvement in parenting skills and ability to care for Child 

responsibly and safely; CYS proved by clear and convincing evidence that 

continued incapacity, neglect, and refusal of Father has caused Child to be 

without essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary for 
J-S01044-15

- 8 -

Child’s physical or mental well-being; evidence is clear and convincing that 

Father cannot or will not remedy conditions that led to termination of his 

parental rights, and termination will best serve Child’s needs and welfare). 

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/29/2015