J-S02001-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.L., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.K., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2233 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered August 21, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-DP-0000909-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.P.L., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.K., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2234 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 3, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-AP-0000143-2023

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 21, 2024

J.K. (Father) appeals from the order and decree, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, changing the permanency goal to 

adoption and involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his child, B.L. 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S02001-24

- 2 -

(born August 2018) (Child). Counsel, Deborah A. Fegan, Esquire,1 has also 

filed an Anders2 brief seeking to withdraw on appeal. After careful review, 

we affirm and grant counsel’s petition.

3

During her prenatal visits, Child’s mother, D.R.,4tested positive for 

benzodiazepines, cocaine, and methadone. Child and D.R. tested positive for 

prescribed methadone at Child’s birth in August 2018; as result, Child was 

closely monitored in the Intensive Care Nursery for withdrawal. D.R. was 

receiving treatment for her drug problem and attending Family Center for 

methadone maintenance at the time of Child’s birth. Although reports alleged 

that D.R. was bonding with Child and resided with her at “My Sister’s Place,”

a drug and alcohol center for pregnant women and new parents, on June 11, 

2021, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) received a 

general protective service (GPS) report alleging that D.R. and the father of 

Child’s half-sister were engaging in a physical and verbal altercation and that 

they appeared to be under the influence of substances. 

____________________________________________

1 On April 27, 2023, Attorney Fegan was appointed to represent Father.

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

3 Father has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 

A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), by filing separate notices of appeal for each trial court 

docket number. See id. (holding “where a single order resolves issues arising 

on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each of 

those cases”). On September 28, 2023, our Court sua sponte consolidated 

the appeals at Nos. 2233 and 2234 EDA 2023 due to their related parties and 

issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.

4 D.R. is not a party to this appeal.
J-S02001-24

- 3 -

On June 14, 2021, DHS received a supplemental report alleging that 

D.R. and the father of Child’s half-sibling were arguing again, this time in an 

office, that Child and her half-sister appeared to be scared and were left alone 

in the building, and that a third party de-escalated the situation. On June 22, 

2021, DHS received a report alleging that D.R. indicated she was going to 

purchase heroin that day and that she could not take care of her children any 

longer. On that same day, DHS received a supplemental report alleging that 

D.R. was attending a daily methadone clinic to taper off her non-prescribed 

benzodiazepine use, but that D.R. said that it was too hard to do, that she 

was going to use drugs, that she had someone to care for her children, that 

she planned to use substances that day, and that she was using fentanyl. 

Following a shelter care hearing,5 held on September 10, 2021, DHS 

obtained an order of protective custody (OPC) and Child was placed in foster 

care with her minor half-sister; foster family is a pre-adoptive resource. On 

September 28, 2021, during a phone call with DHS, D.R. identified J.K. as 

Child’s Father.6 On October 15, 2021, the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) 

held a single case plan (SCP) meeting for Child and her half-sister where a 

“return to parent” goal was identified. On December 9, 2021, the court 

ordered a paternity test for Father, referred him to genetic testing, and issued 

a bench warrant for his arrest. Father appeared in court on January 27, 2022, 

____________________________________________

5 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6332.

6 An October 7, 2021 continuance order in the matter lists J.K. as Child’s 

putative father, appoints counsel for Father, and orders a paternity test for 

him. See Continuance Order, 10/7/21.
J-S02001-24

- 4 -

at which time the court deferred adjudication and ordered Father submit to a 

paternity test within 10 days. 

On February 22, 2022, Child was adjudicated dependent and legal 

custody was transferred to DHS. At that proceeding, which Father did not 

attend, the court again ordered Father undergo a paternity test and reissued 

the bench warrant for his non-compliance. Following a May 11, 2022

permanency hearing, which Father did not attend, the court awarded Father 

weekly supervised visits at DHS and ordered a “[SCP] meeting to outline 

objectives for Father.” Order, 5/11/22, at 2. Later, at an August 11, 2022

permanency review hearing, the court ordered Father have bi-weekly 

supervised visits, referred Father to ARC for parenting and housing classes, 

ordered him to submit to paternity testing prior to the next court date, and 

ordered him to appear at the next listing. At the next permanency review 

hearing, held on November 10, 2022, which Father again did not attend, the 

court found Father had minimally complied with the permanency plan, no 

longer required Father to participate in genetic testing, and referred Father to 

behavioral health service (BHS) for a consultation/mental health evaluation.

7

 

At a February 2023 permanency review hearing, the court found that 

Father had not yet engaged in ARC services, changed Father’s visits from in-

____________________________________________

7 At the termination hearing, on re-direct examination, CUA case manager,

Tae’Jon Petway, testified that he had concerns that Father may have mental 

health issues because he “continuously brings up the fact that he helped with 

finding JonBenét Ramsey [and that Father] identifies the lady in the back [of 

the courtroom] as JonBenét Ramsey.” N.T. Termination Hearing, 8/3/23, at 

73. 
J-S02001-24

- 5 -

person to virtual, and noted that “CUA [should] explore therapeutic visits.” 

Order, 2/2/23, at 2. The court also re-referred Father to BHS for an evaluation 

and ordered him to comply with his SCP objectives. See id.8 Father attended 

10 out of 16 scheduled, in-person supervised visits from May 2022 to February 

2023. 

Although the court had previously ordered Father to undergo a mental 

health evaluation, after Father advised the court that he was investigating 

JonBenét Ramsey, Father never followed through with the order. On February 

21, 2023, Father attended an in-person meeting where his objectives were 

revised to include that Father establish and maintain a healthy relationship 

with Child.9 

On April 12, 2023, DHS filed petitions to change Child’s goal to adoption 

and involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§§ 2511(a)(1), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.

10

 DHS alleged that 

____________________________________________

8 Therapeutic visits did commence, however, when the staff assessed the 

situation and determined that the therapy was not working with Father and 

Child, the visits ceased. One therapeutic visit was cancelled due to Child’s 

behavior and another visit was cut short due to Father’s behavior. See N.T. 

Termination Hearing, 8/3/23, at 44.

9 On April 2, 2023, DHS filed a motion to have the case relisted before an 

assigned judge due to Father’s refusal to consent to the placement of crowns 

and nerve treatment recommended by Child’s dentist. See Motion to Relist 

Case, 4/2/23 (Father told CUA case manager he will not sign consent because 

“[Child] doesn’t need her teeth done, her teeth looked fine the last time I saw 

her.”).

10 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938. Although DHS’ petition initially listed 

subsection 2511(a)(2) as a reason to support termination, the agency 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S02001-24

- 6 -

Child’s reunification with Father was not an “appropriate option for [Child] as 

[Father] has failed to achieve full and continuous compliance with the 

established SCP objectives to facilitate reunification with [Child and] has also 

failed to consistently visit, plan for, and provide for [Child] throughout her 

time in placement.” Petition to Terminate Parental Rights’ Statement of Facts 

Re: [Child] (Exhibit A), 4/1/23, at ¶ nn. On August 3, 2023, the court held a 

termination hearing before the Honorable Brian McLaughlin. CUA case 

manager Petway and Father testified at the hearing.

11

 

Following the hearing, the trial court entered a decree involuntarily 

terminating Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), and an order changing the goal to 

adoption.12 Father filed contemporaneous timely notices of appeal and 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statements of errors complained of on appeal.

____________________________________________

specifically did not move for consideration under that subsection at the 

termination hearing; rather, the agency moved to terminate under §§ 

2511(a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(8). See N.T. Termination Hearing, 8/3/23, at 

102-03, 105.

11 Child was represented by Jason Ross Kleinman, Esquire, and child advocate, 

Frances M. Odza, Esquire, at the termination hearing. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

2313(a) (children have statutory right to counsel in contested involuntary 

termination proceedings) and In re K.R., 200 A.3d 969 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en 

banc); but see In Re: T.S., E.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa. 2018) (“[D]uring 

contested termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, where there is no 

conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an attorney-guardian ad 

litem representing the child’s best interests can also represent the child’s legal 

interests.”). 

12 We note that the petitioner needs to establish only one subsection of 

2511(a) to proceed to subsection 2511(b), and we may affirm a decree based 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S02001-24

- 7 -

In his Anders brief, counsel raises the following issues on behalf of 

Father:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

involuntarily terminated [Father’s] parental rights under the 

Adoption Act[,] 23 Pa.[]C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), 

(a)(5), and ( a)(8)?

(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it 

involuntarily terminated [Father’s parental] rights pursuant 

to [section] 2511(b)?

(3) Was there clear and convincing evidence that all 

necessary services were provided to father prior to the 

court changing the goal to adoption pursuant to 42 Pa. 

C.S.A. § 6351(f)(9)?

Anders Brief, at vii.13

When counsel files an Anders brief, this Court may not review the 

merits without first addressing counsel’s request to withdraw. 

Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797, 800 (Pa. Super. 2013). In

In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992), this Court extended the Anders

____________________________________________

upon any valid reason appearing from the record. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 

1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc).

13 While counsel’s Anders brief includes a potential issue regarding whether 

changing Child’s goal to adoption was in her best interest, that issue was not 

included in Father’s Rule 1925(b) statement. Moreover, after conducting our

own review of the trial court’s proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is, in 

fact, wholly frivolous, and that this issue does not warrant Father relief. See 

In re Adoption of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017, 1018 (Pa. 2006) (court-ordered 

goal change not condition precedent to filing of petition to terminate parental 

rights).
J-S02001-24

- 8 -

principles to appeals involving the termination of parental rights. Id. at 1275. 

This Court has explained:

When considering an Anders brief, this Court may not review the 

merits of the underlying issues until we address counsel’s request 

to withdraw. In order to comply with Anders and its Pennsylvania 

progeny, counsel must:

(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after 

making a conscientious examination of the record and 

interviewing the defendant, 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 that he deems worthy of the court’s 

attention.

In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

In Santiago, our Supreme Court further held:

[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel’s 

petition to withdraw, counsel must: (1) provide a summary of the 

procedural history and facts, 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 frivolous. 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. Finally, counsel must also “attach to [his] petition 

to withdraw a copy of the letter sent to [his] client advising her [] of [her] 

rights.” Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

After an appellate court receives an Anders brief and is satisfied that counsel 

has complied with the aforementioned requirements, the Court must then 
J-S02001-24

- 9 -

undertake an independent examination of the record to determine whether 

the appeal is wholly frivolous. In re S.M.B., 856 A.2d at 1237.

Instantly, counsel has complied with the dictates of Anders, Santiago, 

and Millisock. Attorney Fegan has filed a petition to withdraw, stating that 

she has made a conscientious review of the record and has concluded that the 

appeal was wholly frivolous. In addition, Attorney Fegan has attested that 

she mailed Father: a copy of the petition to withdraw; a copy of the Anders

brief stating the reasons for her conclusion; and a letter advising Father of his 

rights to proceed pro se or retain private counsel, and to raise any additional 

issues that he deems worthy of consideration. Finally, Attorney Fegan has 

attached to her petition a copy of the letter she mailed to Father advising him 

of his rights. Millisock, supra. 

Additionally, we conclude that Attorney Fegan’s Anders brief complies 

with the dictates of Santiago where it: summarizes the procedural history of 

and facts of the case, with citations to the certified record; identifies the 

testimony adduced during the termination hearing that arguably supports the 

appeal and outlines any potential claims; and references controlling case law

in setting forth her conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. Thus, counsel has 

complied with the procedural requirements of Anders and we now must 

determine if Father’s appeal is, in fact, frivolous.

Father claims that the trial court erred in concluding that DHS satisfied 

its burden of proving that termination was proper under subsections 2511(a)

and (b). We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental 
J-S02001-24

- 10 -

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.

After a comprehensive review of the record, we determine that Father’s 

appeal is, in fact, frivolous. Father has either failed to comply or minimally 

complied with his SCP objectives, which have been in place since early 2022. 

We rely upon Judge McLaughlin’s opinion in affirming the order and decree 

granting the goal change to adoption and terminating Father’s parental rights,

under subsections 2511(a)(1)

14 and (b), where the court found clear and 

____________________________________________

14 Subsection 2511(a)(1) provides that a parent’s rights may be involuntarily 

terminated under the following grounds:

The parent 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 a 

child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1). Moreover, under subsection 2511(b):

(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 [sub]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.

Id. at § 2511(b). See 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 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S02001-24

- 11 -

convincing evidence that Father demonstrated a settled purpose of 

relinquishing his parental claim to Child and failed to perform his parental 

duties for at least six months prior to the filing of the termination petition and 

termination is in Child’s best interests. 

In particular, the evidence shows that: Father has failed to secure 

appropriate housing for Child; Father has not fulfilled any of his SCP 

objectives, including obtaining a court-ordered BHS evaluation and 

employment; Father had not seen Child for almost four months at time of 

termination hearing; there is no parent-child bond; Father did not have any 

food in home for Child during caseworker’s visit; and pre-adoptive foster 

parent, whom Child calls “Mommy,” meets Child’s daily needs, provides 

stability, and has a strong bond with Child. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 

8/3/23, at 44 (CUA caseworker testifying “Father hasn’t had any successful 

completion of any of his [SCP] objectives”); id. at 67-68 (caseworker called 

Father on July 19, 2022, and, over the phone “went over all of his [SCP]

objectives at that point” with him; Father attended SCP meeting on 2/21/23, 

and Father’s SCP objectives were communicated during 7/28/23 visit); id. at 

38-39 (CUA caseworker testifying Father did not verify residence or 

employment, “was very combative” with caseworker, and “fridge was 

completely empty” in place where they met); id. at 47 (CUA caseworker 

____________________________________________

under subsection 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional 

needs and welfare of child set forth in subsection 2511(b)). 
J-S02001-24

- 12 -

testifying no bond between Father and Child); id. at 42-44 (testimony that 

Child would “normally cr[y] during all the visits” with Father and therapeutic 

visits were “traumatizing for [C]hild”); id. at 47-48 (CUA caseworker testifying 

Child would not suffer irreparable harm if Father’s parental rights terminated) 

id. at 43, 52 (Father had not visited with Child since April 2023); id. at 61, 

70 (Father missed 6 out of 16 in-person supervised visits with Child and did 

not participate in any virtual visits); id. at 97-100 (Father testified his only 

source of income is food stamps, he is not employed, and, despite prior judge 

ordering him to do so, he has not yet obtained psychological evaluation); id.

at 46-47, 53 (CUA caseworker testifying Child is “very close with her foster 

parent;” looks to her foster parent for love, protection, and support, and has 

“close bond with her foster parent and she’s doing well in the home”).

Accordingly, we conclude that Father is not entitled to relief. We instruct 

the parties to attach a copy of Judge McLaughlin’s decision in the event of 

further proceedings in the matter.

Order and decree affirmed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw granted. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S02001-24

- 13 -

Date: 2/21/2024