J-S10045-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.D.M., JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER : No. 3090 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered September 29, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2013-A0196

IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.D.M. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER : No. 3091 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered September 29, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2013-A0195

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, J., AND PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2015

Appellant, C.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered in the 

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court, which granted 

the petition of Appellee, the Montgomery Office of Children and Youth 

Services (“OCY”), for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights as 

to her minor children, J.D.M. and C.D.M. (“Children”).1 We affirm. 

 

1 Children’s birth father is not a party to this appeal. He voluntarily 

relinquished his parental rights to Children at the termination hearing on 

March 19, 2014. 
J-S10045-15

- 2 -

In its opinion, the Orphans’ court fully and correctly sets for the 

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

reason to restate them. 

Mother raises several issues for our review: 

WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO

SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT 

THAT [OCY] PROVED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING

EVIDENCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF 23 PA.C.S.A. [§] 

2511(A)(1), (2) AND (8) FOR THE INVOLUNTARY 

TERMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS?

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ABUSED ITS 

DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE CAUSES OF THE 

ALLEGED INCAPACITY, ABUSE, NEGLECT OR REFUSAL 

CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE REMEDIED BY [MOTHER] 

PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(A)(2), WHEN [OCY] 

FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR 

[MOTHER’S] DISABILITIES, AND FAILED TO PROVIDE 

MEANINGFUL ASSISTANCE IN MAINTAINING STABLE 

HOUSING AND OTHER SERVICES?

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ABUSED ITS 

DISCRETION IN TERMINATING THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF 

[MOTHER] ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 

SUCH AS INADEQUATE HOUSING, FURNISHINGS,

INCOME, CLOTHING AND MEDICAL CARE, WHEN THOSE 

FACTORS WERE BEYOND [MOTHER’S] CONTROL 

PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(B), AND WHEN 

[OCY] FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 

FOR [MOTHER’S] DISABILITIES AND FAILED TO PROVIDE 

MEANINGFUL ASSISTANCE IN MAINTAINING STABLE 

HOUSING AND OTHER SERVICES?

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ABUSED ITS 

DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENTAL, 

PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS AND WELFARE OF 

[CHILDREN] WILL BE BEST SERVED BY THE TERMINATION 

OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 23 

PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(B), WHEN THERE IS A STRONG AND 

LOVING BOND BETWEEN [MOTHER] AND THE CHILDREN, 
J-S10045-15

- 3 -

AND SEVERANCE OF THAT BOND WILL CAUSE 

IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE CHILDREN?

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING 

[OCY’S] PETITION TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM

REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION WHEN THE GOAL OF 

REUNIFICATION REMAINS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND 

FEASIBLE GOAL BASED ON THE STATUTORY FACTORS SET 

FORTH IN 42 PA.C.S.A. [§] 6351(F)?

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING 

[OCY’S] PETITION TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM

REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION WHEN [OCY] FAILED TO 

MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO FINALIZE THE 

PERMANENCY PLAN GOAL OF REUNIFICATION?

WHETHER THIS HONORABLE COURT HAD SUFFICIENT 

EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF 

CHANGING THE GOAL FROM REUNIFICATION TO 

ADOPTION WHEN THE COURT DID NOT CONSULT WITH 

THE CHILDREN REGARDING THE PERMANENCY PLAN 

PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A. [§] 6351(E)(1)? 

(Mother’s Brief at 4-5).2

Appellate review in termination of parental rights cases implicates the 

following principles:

In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our 

standard of review is limited to determining whether the 

order of the trial court is supported by competent 

evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate 

consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare 

of the child.”

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 

 

2 Mother’s brief on appeal presents no legal argument based on Section 

6351, as recited in Mother’s issues 5 through 7. Mother merely quotes the 

statute and draws conclusions based on her interpretation of the facts and 

circumstances of the case. Therefore, we give these issues no further 

attention. 
J-S10045-15

- 4 -

A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)). 

Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or 

insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s 

decision, the decree must stand. ... 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.

In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en 

banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) 

(internal citations omitted).

Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the 

finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility 

of witnesses 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.

In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 

2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

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. 

In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We 

may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis 

exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 

1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings 

are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the 

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

opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191[-92] 

(Pa.Super. 2004).

In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting 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)).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 
J-S10045-15

- 5 -

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Lois E. 

Murphy, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The Orphans’ court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. (See Orphans’ Court Opinion, filed September 29, 2014, at 5-

17) (finding: Children were removed from Mother on September 21, 2011, 

at Mother’s own initiative by calling OCY; Mother suffers from multiple 

medical and mental health issues, including multiple sclerosis and bipolar 

disorder; Mother acknowledges history of drug abuse, including abuse of 

prescription drugs, methamphetamines, amphetamines, and cocaine; 

Mother, for some time, actively worked toward reunification with Children 

per OCY’s goals; however, among other circumstances, Children’s birth 

father was released from jail and took from Mother money meant for 

housing, and Mother subsequently lost housing; Mother appeared intoxicated 

on some visits with Children; Mother missed approximately 50 percent of 

visits and 60 percent of scheduled phone calls; Mother allowed birth father 

to be present on unsupervised visits with Children, though birth father was 

not to attend because he was found intoxicated previously while around 

Children; Mother failed to obtain recommended long-term outpatient 

psychotherapy; Mother tested positive in drug tests on at least eight 

occasions; Mother acknowledged history of health, financial, and housing 

instability; Mother refused to provide current address to OCY caseworker; 

Mother is unable to provide Children with essential parental care, control, or 
J-S10045-15

- 6 -

sustenance necessary for their physical and mental well-being; the causes of 

Mother’s incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied; Mother has not provided housing, met Children’s needs, or 

maintained consistent parent-child relationship; OCY proved by clear and 

convincing evidence that Mother failed and refused to perform her parental 

duties for 36 months, beyond 6-month period prior to filing of petitions; 

conditions leading to placement of Children continue to exist and cannot or 

will not be remedied by Mother; Mother lacks capacity to meet all obligations 

of providing safe, secure, and nurturing home for Children; OCY met its 

burden of proof under Section 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(8); per Section 

2511(b), parental bond between Mother and Children is attenuated; Children 

have developed significant bond with foster parents; Children are very well 

loved and entrenched in foster home; Children’s emotional needs and 

welfare are best met by termination of Mother’s parental rights, and Children 

will not suffer irreparable harm as result of termination; OCY made 

reasonable efforts to attempt to reunify Children with Mother, but court 

found adoption appropriate; OCY established basis for terminating Mother’s 

parental rights to Children). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of 

Mother’s parental rights to Children on the basis of the Orphans’ court 

opinion. 

Orders affirmed. 
J-S10045-15

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/12/2015