J-S01006-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.L.C.K. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : APPEAL OF: L.K. : No. 1463 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree Entered August 5, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Orphans' Court at No(s): 251 of 2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JANUARY 27, 2017
Appellant, L.K. ("Mother"), appeals from the decree entered in the
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans' Court, which granted
the petition filed by B.P.K. ("Father") and L.S.K. ("Stepmother") for
involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor child,
A.L.C.K. ("Child"). We affirm.
In its opinions, the Orphans' Court fully and correctly set forth the
relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no
reason to restate them.
Mother raises five issues for our review:
DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING THAT MOTHER FAILED TO USE REASONABLE EFFORTS AND FIRMNESS TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD, AS MOTHER ATTEMPTED TO MAINTAIN CONTACT BY CONTACTING THE THERAPIST TO ENGAGE IN REUNIFICATION THERAPY AS WELL AS BY TEXTS SENT TO CHILD THROUGH MOTHER'S OLDER DAUGHTER? J-S01006-17
DID THE PETITIONERS IMPOSE SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO MOTHER'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN A PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD, SUCH AS PROVIDING TO MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS AN OUTDATED CUSTODY ORDER THAT INDIC[A]TED FATHER HAD SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY, AND CHANGING CHILD'S THERAPIST AND ENROLLING HER IN CYBER SCHOOL IN 2015?
DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING ON PAGE 9 OF ITS OPINION THAT THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER SERVED AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WITH CHILD, AS THE RECORD IN THIS CASE ESTABLISHES THAT PETITIONERS WERE ADAMANT THAT CONTACT OCCUR THROUGH THE COUNSELOR?
DID THE COURT ERR IN FINDING CREDIBILITY IN THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD, AS CHILD USED IN HER TESTIMONY TECHNICAL LANGUAGE REGARDING THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT INDICATED CHILD HAD BEEN METICULOUSLY COACHED AND PREPARED?
SHOULD THE COURT PROPERLY HAVE ORDERED THAT A BONDING ASSESSMENT BE CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE GIVEN THE AGE OF CHILD AND THE HISTORY OF CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD?
(Mother's Brief at 20-21).
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 the [decree] of the [Orphans' C]ourt is supported by competent evidence, and whether the [Orphans' C]ourt 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
A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
J-S01006-17
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the [Orphans' C]ourt's decision, the decree must stand. ... We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the [Orphans' C]ourt'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.