J

- S10045

- 15

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SU PERIOR 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

A ppeal 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 FEBRUAR Y 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 m inor 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 i ssues for our review:

WHETHER THERE WAS SU FFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THIS HONORABLE CO URT THAT [OCY] PROVED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE REQUIRE MENTS OF 23 PA.C.S.A . [§] 2511(A)(1), (2) AND (8) FOR THE INVOLUNT ARY TERMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS?

WHETHER THIS HONORAB LE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDIN G THAT THE CAUSES OF THE ALLEGED INCAPACITY, ABUSE, NEGLECT OR RE FUSAL CANNOT OR WILL NOT B E REMEDIED BY [MOTHE R] PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C. S.A. [§] 2511(A)(2), WHEN [OCY] FAILED TO MAKE REASO NABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR [MOTHER’S] DISABILIT IES, AND FAILED TO P ROVIDE MEANINGFUL ASSISTANC E IN MAINTAINING STA BLE HOUSING AND OTHER SE RVICES?

WHETHER THIS HONORAB LE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN TERMIN ATING THE PARENTAL R IGHTS OF [M OTHER] ON THE BASIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FAC TORS SUCH AS INADEQUATE H OUSING, FURNISHINGS, INCOME, CLOTHING AND MEDICAL CARE, WHEN T HOSE FACTORS WERE BEYOND [MOTHER’S] CONTROL PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C. S.A. [§] 2511(B), AN D WHEN [OCY] FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMM ODATIONS FOR [MOTHER’S] DISAB ILITIES AND FAILED T O PROVIDE MEANINGFUL ASSISTANC E IN MAINTAINING STA BLE HOUSING AND OTHER SE RVICES?

WHETHER THIS HONORAB LE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDIN G THAT THE DEVELOPME NTAL, PHYSICAL AND EMOTION AL NEEDS AND WELFA RE OF [CHILDREN] WILL BE B EST SERVED BY THE TE RMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENT AL RIGHTS PURSUANT T O 23 PA.C.S.A. [§] 2511(B ), WHEN THERE IS A S TRONG AND LOVING BOND BETWEEN [MOTHER] AND THE CHI LDREN,J

- S10045

- 15

- 3

- AND SEVERANCE OF THA T BOND WILL CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE CHILDREN?

WHETHER THIS HONORAB LE COURT ERRED IN GR ANTING [OCY’S] PETITION TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM REUNIFICATION TO ADO PTION WHEN THE GOAL OF REUNIFICATION REMAIN S THE MOST APPROPRIA TE AND FEASIBLE GOAL BASED ON THE STATUTORY FAC TORS SET FORTH IN 42 PA .C.S.A. [§] 6351(F)?

WHETHER THIS HONORAB LE COURT ERRED IN GR ANTING [OCY’S] PETITION TO CHANGE THE GOAL FROM REUNIFICATION TO ADO PTION WHEN [OCY] FAI LED TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFO RTS TO FINALIZE THE PERMANENCY PLAN GOAL OF REUNIFICATION?

WHETHER THIS HONORA BLE COURT HAD SUFFIC IENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMIN E THE APPROPRIATENES S OF CHANGING THE GOAL FR OM REUNIFICATION TO ADOPTION WHEN THE CO URT DID NOT CONSULT WITH THE CHILDREN REGARDI NG THE PERMANENCY PL AN PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C. S.A. [§] 6351(E)(1)?
( Mother’s Brie f 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 supp orted 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 determine r 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 r e 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 co me 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 11 97, 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, theJ

- 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 d rug 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 releas ed 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 allo wed 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 tes ted 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 car e, control, orJ

- 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 pare nt

- 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 exis t 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), parenta l 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 paren tal 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