J-S52043- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

_____________________________

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court

. IN RE: N.N.R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: H.R., MOTHER : No. 1210 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree April 7, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2013 -9081- 37

IN RE: N.W.R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: H.R., MOTHER : No. 1211 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree April 7, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2013 -9082- 37

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., AND FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014

Appellant, H.R. (“Mother”), appeals from the decree en tered in the

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntari ly terminated her

parental rights to her minor children, N.N.R. and N.W .R. (“Children”). We

affirm and grant counsel’s petition to with draw.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to

restate them.J-S52043- 14

- 2

-

As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel seeks to wi thdraw her

representation pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago , 602 Pa.

159, 978 A.2d 349 (2009). Anders and Santiago require counsel to: 1)

petition the Court for leave to withdraw, certifying that after a thorough

review of the record, counsel has concluded the issues to b e raised are

wholly frivolous; 2) file a brief referring to anyth ing in the record that might

arguably support the appeal; and 3) furnish a copy of the brief to the

appellant and advise him of his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se

brief to raise any additional points the appellant d eems worthy of review.

Santiago, supra at 173-79, 978 A.2d at 358-61. Substantial complian ce

with these requirements is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks , 934

A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa.Super. 2007). “After establishing that the antecedent

requirements have been met, this Court must then mak e an independent

evaluation of the record to determine whether the ap peal is, in fact, wholly

frivolous.” Commonwealth v. Palm , 903 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super.

2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Townsend , 693 A.2d 980, 982

(Pa.Super. 1997)).

In Santiago, supra , our Supreme Court addressed the briefing

requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel see ks to withdraw

representation:J-S52043- 14

- 3

- Neither Anders nor McClendon [ 1] requires that counsel’s

brief provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of

argument that counsel develops in a merits brief. To

repeat, what the brief must provide under Anders are

references to anything in the record that might arguab ly

support the appeal.

* * *

Under Anders

, the right to counsel is vindicated by

counsel’s examination and assessment of the record and

counsel’s references to anything in the record that

arguably supports the appeal.

Santiago, supra at 176, 177, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Thus, the Court 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 citati ons

to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record th at

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 t hat

have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolo us.

Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.

Instantly, counsel filed a petition to withdraw. The petition states

counsel thoroughly reviewed the record and determined the appeal is wholly

frivolous. Counsel notified Mother of counsel’s request to withdraw. Counsel

also supplied Mother with a copy of the brief and a letter explaining Mother’s

right to retain new counsel or to proceed pro se to raise any additional

points that Mother deems worthy of this Court’s attent ion. ( See Letter to

1 Commonwealth v. McClendon , 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981).J-S52043- 14

- 4

-

Mother, dated June 13, 2014, attached to Petition fo r Leave to Withdraw as

Counsel.) In the Anders brief, counsel provides a summary of the facts and

procedural history of the case. Counsel’s argument refe rs to relevant law

that might arguably support Mother’s hearsay issue raise d on appeal.

Counsel further states the reasons for his conclusion that the appeal is

wholly frivolous. Therefore, counsel has substantially complied with the

requirements of Anders and Santiago

.

As Mother has filed neither a pro se brief nor a brief with privately

retained counsel, we review this appeal based on the iss ues raised in the

Anders brief:

SHOULD [MOTHER’S] COUNSEL BE PERMITTED TO

WITHDRAW HIS APPEARANCE BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS

WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS?

WAS [MOTHER] UNFAIRLY PREJUDICED BY THE

ADMISSION, OVER OBJECTION, OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY

ABOUT HER EFFORTS TO OBTAIN TREATMENT AND

HOUSING?

( Anders Brief at 3).

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James M.

McMaster, we conclude Mother’s hearsay issue merits no relief. The trial

court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the

hearsay question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 2, 2014, at

10 -13) (finding: (2) Mother has history of substance abuse, mental health

problems, and criminal behavior that caused repeated i ncarcerations; MotherJ-S52043- 14

- 5

-

has not demonstrated ability to live life independen t of illegal substances;

Mother failed to meet permanency goals for reunificati on with Children such

as getting sober, st aying out of jail, and obtaining housing; Mother’s p ast

and recent history demonstrates inability to provide f or Children’s basic

needs, including physical safety; at time of evidentiar y hearing, Children had

been in care of Children and Youth Social Servi ce Agency (“Agency”) for

approximately thirty-nine months; during this time, M other entered four (4)

treatment programs but completed only one program and continued to

abuse substances; Mother has not demonstrated ability to refrain from drug

use to permit trial court to find credible her testimo ny that she is now sober

and will remain that way; Children have bonded to f oster parents, who are

their paternal aunt and her boyfriend; representativ e of Agency testified

Children look to foster parents as their own parents, a nd go to foster parents

for their needs; Children also turn to foster parents f or love and comfort;

N.N.R. expressed wish to stay with foster parents; once placed with foster

parents, N.W.R. became more active and all development al problems

di sappeared; foster parents provide Children with stable home life that

Children need to thrive; Children are not exposed to drug use with foster

parents; decision to terminate Mother’s parental right s best serves Children’s

needs and welfare, and does not sever existing benefic ial relationship or

result in irreparable harm to Children; Agency met it s burden under 23

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b)). The r ecord supports the trialJ-S52043- 14

- 6

-

court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb i t. Accord ingly, we

affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion and gr ant counsel’s petition to

withdraw.

Decree affirmed; counsel’s petition to withdraw is gran ted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/20/2014Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AMCirculated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM