J-S20041-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: D.S.H. AND B.R.H., MINORS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.N.H., MOTHER : No. 1847 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Decrees November 2, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2017-01751
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MAY 03, 2018
Appellant, J.N.H. ("Mother"), appeals from the decrees entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court Division, which
granted the petition of the Lancaster County Children and Youth Social
Services Agency ("Agency") for involuntary termination of her parental rights
to her minor children, D.S.H. and B.R.H., ("Children"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the Orphans' Court fully and correctly set forth the
relevant facts and procedural history of the case.1 Therefore, we have no
reason to restate them.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS? ____________________________________________
1This appeal is related to the appeal listed at No. 1795 MDA 2017 (J-S20040- 18). J-S20041-18
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISHED THAT FATHER AND MOTHER HAD, BY CONDUCT CONTINUING FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, EVIDENCED A SETTLED PURPOSE OF RELINQUISHING PARENTAL CLAIM TO CHILDREN AND HAD REFUSED [OR] FAILED TO PERFORM PARENTAL DUTIES?
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE REPEATED AND CONTINUED INCAPCITY, NEGLECT OR REFUSAL OF FATHER AND MOTHER HAD CAUSED CHILDREN TO BE WITHOUT ESSENTIAL PARENTAL CARE, CONTROL AND SUBSISTENCE NECESSARY FOR THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELL-BEING AND THAT THE CONDITIONS AND CAUSES OF THE INCAPACITY, NEGLECT OR REFUSAL CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE REMEDIED BY THE PARENTS?
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE LANCASTER COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH AGENCY HAD MET ITS BURDEN IN PROVING THAT FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE TERMINATED WHEN THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT MOTHER HAD BEEN ACTIVELY WORKING ON AND COMPLETING THE GOALS OF HER CHILD PERMANENCY PLAN?
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TERMINATING FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD BEST SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN?
(Mother's Brief at 4).2 ____________________________________________
2 Pennsylvania law on common law standing provides that a person can invoke the jurisdiction of a court to enforce private rights or maintain an action for the enforcement of such rights, only if that person has in an individual or representative capacity some real interest in the legal right that is the subject matter of the controversy. In Interest of G.C., 673 A.2d 932, 935 (Pa.Super. 1996). See generally In re T.J., 559 Pa. 118, 124, 739 A.2d 478, 481 (1999) (stating: "In determining whether a party has standing, a court is
J-S20041-18
Appellate review of 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