Court Opinion

ID: 9943127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 18:12:45.849736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:09.546067
License: Public Domain

J-S42017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S.S., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                   :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
 APPEAL OF: P.M.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 1137 EDA 2023

                 Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
               Juvenile Division at No: CP-51-AP-0000045-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                      FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2024

        Appellant, P.M. (“Grandmother”), appeals from an order denying her

petition to adopt her maternal granddaughter, M.S.S. (“Child”), and granting

the petition of Child’s paternal aunt and uncle, N.O. and C.T. (“Aunt and

Uncle”), to adopt Child pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 2010-

2938.
        On September 8, 2016, the Department of Human Services (“DHS”)

received a report alleging that Child’s mother (“Mother”) tested positive for

marijuana at the time of Child’s birth two days prior. Family Ct. Op., 8/2/23,

at 1. Child was born premature at 29 weeks gestation and was admitted to

the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (“NICU”) at Temple Hospital. Id.      Mother

was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was hospitalized for mental health

treatment in July 2016. Id. at 1-2. The report also alleged that Mother was
J-S42017-23

preventing Father, M.O., from visiting Child, which was later determined to be

valid. Id. at 2.

      On September 2016, a DHS caseworker visited Child at Temple Hospital

and learned there was no discharge date for Child and Mother did not provide

a name for the biological father. Id. The same day, DHS learned that Child

was transferred to the natal intensive care unit at St. Christopher’s Hospital

for Children due to concerns with feeding and digestion.      Id.   Throughout

October 2016, hospital staff informed DHS that Child was getting stronger,

but would require long-term medical care. Id. They also informed DHS that

Child’s father (“Father”) went to the hospital and identified himself as Child’s

biological father. Id.

      On December 2, 2016, Father provided the name and contact

information for Aunt and Uncle as potential kinship placement.         Id.   On

December 5, 2016, DHS obtained an order for protective custody of Child,

who was discharged the next day from the hospital and placed in the care of

Aunt and Uncle. Id. On December 14, 2016, Child was adjudicated dependent

and remained in Aunt and Uncle’s home until August 26, 2019, when Child

was removed and placed into Grandmother’s care. Id. The reason for the

change was to keep Child and her maternal half-brother, T.R., in the same

                                     -2-
J-S42017-23

home.1 Id. Aunt and Uncle were granted bi-weekly overnight weekend visits

with Child on November 4, 2019. Id. at 2-3.

        Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights as to Child. Id. at 3.

On May 12, 2021, the trial court terminated the parental rights of Father and

any putative father. Id. Aunt and Uncle filed a petition to adopt Child on June

25, 2021. Id. Grandmother filed a petition to adopt Child on December 7,

2021. Id. The juvenile court held hearings relating to the parties’ petitions

on June 16, 2022, November 3, 2022 and April 18, 2023. At the conclusion

of the April 18, 2023 hearing, the court denied Grandmother’s petition to

adopt Child and granted Aunt and Uncle’s petition. Grandmother filed a timely

notice of appeal, and both Grandmother and the court complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925.

        Grandmother raises a single issue in this appeal:

        Whether the trial court committed error and abused its discretion
        by denying Appellant’s petition to adopt her granddaughter,
        subject child M.S.S., where Appellant was the child’s current
        caregiver and primary custodian for over half of the child’s life,
        where the child thrived, developed and established a loving
        parental bond and relationship with Appellant and her brother
        T.R., where the lower court’s determination was not reasonably
        supported by the over six year case history, court record and the
        weight and credibility of the evidence and testimony presented at
        trial, and where the ruling was clearly not the disposition best
        suited to meet the child’s best interests, needs and welfare as
        required under the Pennsylvania Adoption Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A.
        §§2101 et seq.?

____________________________________________

1 T.R. resided with Grandmother, who was granted permanent legal custody

on January 17, 2020.

                                           -3-
J-S42017-23

Maternal Grandmother’s Brief at 5.

     Regarding adoption, we review the trial court’s determinations for an

abuse of discretion. In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016). This

Court has stated:

           An abuse of discretion does not exist merely because
           a reviewing court would have reached a different
           conclusion. Appellate courts will find a trial court
           abuses its discretion if, in reaching a conclusion, it
           overrides or misapplies the law, or the record shows
           that the trial court’s judgment was either manifestly
           unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice,
           bias or ill will.

     Id. While we are not bound by findings of fact unsupported by
     the record or the court’s inferences drawn from the facts, we defer
     to the findings of the trial judge with regard to credibility and
     weight of the evidence. In re Adoption of A.S.H., 674 A.2d 698,
     700 (Pa. Super. 1996).

     In adoption matters, the paramount concern is the best interests
     of the child. K.D., 144 A.3d at 151. “This ‘best interests’
     determination is made on a case-by-case basis, and requires the
     weighing of all factors which bear upon a child’s physical,
     intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.” A.S.H., 674 A.2d at
     700 (citations omitted); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a). Once
     parental rights have been terminated:

           anyone may become an adoptive parent, and the best
           interest of the child is the controlling factor by which
           a court must be guided. Furthermore, a trial court
           must base its conclusions in an adoption case upon all
           relevant information discerned with the full
           participation of all interested parties.
     In re Adoption of D.M.H., 682 A.2d 315, 319 (Pa. Super. 1996).

In re Interest of S.D.R., 2019 WL 7372806, *3-4 (Pa. Super., Dec. 31,

2019).

                                     -4-
J-S42017-23

     The juvenile court observed:

     [During] the [April 18, 2023] hearing, [Grandmother] testified
     that she would like to be Child’s adoptive mother and that she is
     committed to caring for Child’s emotional, physical, and medical
     wellbeing. She testified that she does not have any reservations
     regarding her ability to care for Child and that she has a good
     understanding of Child’s ongoing needs. [Grandmother] testified
     that Child has lived with her for almost four years and lived with
     [Aunt and Uncle] prior. She testified that Child looks to her for
     comfort, love and support, and she expresses her love to Child
     and Child’s reciprocates that love to her. [Grandmother] stated
     that Child calls her “grandmom”.

     [Grandmother] described Child’s relationship with her 15-year-old
     brother, T.R., to be loving and nurturing. She testified that Child
     looks to him for leadership and that Child is excited about his
     accomplishments. She testified that T.R. is a very good big
     brother. [Grandmother] testified that Child does not exhibit any
     major behavioral problems at home or at school. She testified
     that she is available to pick Child up from school and drop her off
     every day. She stated that she is also able and does take Child
     to her medical appointments. [Grandmother] testified that she is
     a religious person and that her, Child, and T.R. attends church via
     Zoom on Sundays. She testified that Child enjoys being included
     in family get-togethers and is considered part of her family. She
     further testified that when Child has missed family gatherings or
     planned activities when visiting [Aunt and Uncle], Child has
     expressed disappointment.        [Grandmother] stated that she
     believes Child loves [Aunt and Uncle] and enjoys spending time
     with [them]. She testified that Child currently spends every other
     weekend with Aunt and Uncle. She stated that she believes it
     would be helpful for Child to continue having a relationship with
     [Aunt and Uncle]. However, [Grandmother] stated that Child has
     occasionally expressed that she would prefer not to visit with
     [Aunt and Uncle]. She further stated that Child is not reluctant to
     go to visits with [Aunt and Uncle], but when she returns, Child
     sometimes says that she was ready to come home.

     [Grandmother] testified that she is working to build a better
     relationship with [Aunt and Uncle] and believes if she adopts Child
     the relationship may improve. [Grandmother] testified that she
     believes their relationship will improve for Child’s sake because
     Child loves them and enjoys being with her aunt and with her.

                                    -5-
J-S42017-23

     She stated that if she was granted the adoption of Child she would
     be committed to continuing Child’s relationship with [Aunt and
     Uncle].

     [Grandmother] also testified that if she was granted the adoption
     of Child, she would be willing to sign a post-adoption agreement
     for the paternal family to have visitation with Child.

     [Grandmother] testified that she has a significant other, Edward
     Flippen, and she believes Child is safe in his presence. She
     described Mr. Flippen as a good, strong man who is positive and
     loving. She stated that Mr. Flippen has been very nurturing to
     Child, and that she and Child are comfortable with him. She
     testified that Child and T.R. calls Mr. Flippen “Grandpop Ed.” She
     testified that Mr. Flippen takes Child to school every day and
     provides a ride for [Grandmother] and Child to get to Child’s
     appointments and extra activities.

     [Grandmother] testified that she is aware that Mr. Flippen has a
     criminal history dating back a number of years and that history is
     not a concern. She testified that she known Mr. Flippen for over
     thirty years and that they have been in a relationship for the past
     fifteen years. She testified that she does not take the kids to Mr.
     Flippen’s home nor does she or the kids know where Mr. Flippen
     lives. She testified that she is not currently married but was
     married to a John Moore whom she divorced from on March 15,
     2011. [Grandmother] denied ever telling the child profile writer
     that she was married to Albert Sapp, Child’s maternal grandfather.

     [Grandmother] testified that Child enjoys to dance, she likes
     theater, playing the piano, and is interested in baseball and
     boxing. She testified that she involves Child in educational
     enrichment programs. She further stated that Child is not enrolled
     in dance this year, nor is she enrolled in baseball or boxing.
     [Grandmother] testified that Aunt and Uncle offered to enroll Child
     in swimming and to take her to her lessons but she declined the
     offer. She stated that the lessons would interfere with her time.
     [Grandmother] testified that she was not willing to give up her
     scheduled time with Child for swim lessons because she wanted
     to be able to do what she wanted with Child on her weekends.
     She testified that she did not know the details for the swim class,
     such as, the duration of the class nor the weekly time
     commitment. However, [Grandmother] testified that she planned
     on enrolling Child in swimming herself. [Grandmother] further

                                    -6-
J-S42017-23

     testified that a court order was entered allowing Child to go to
     Disney World with Aunt and Uncle, but she testified that she never
     was asked whether or not she wanted Child to go.

     At the hearing, T.R., Child’s older brother, testified that this was
     not his first time testifying for this case and that he previously
     testified to make sure Child stays with him and his grandmother.
     T.R. testified that he has lived with his grandmother all of his life
     and that she takes good care of him. He stated that he feels loved
     by his grandmother and that he loves his grandmother and sister.
     T.R. stated that he likes living with [Grandmother] and Child, and
     that he would like for Child to continue living with them. He
     testified that he and Child watch movies together and play with
     her toys. T.R. testified that Child has occasionally expressed not
     wanting to go to a visit at her aunt and uncle’s house. However,
     he testified that Child is happy when she comes homes, Child talks
     about having a good time, and about her dog.

     During closing arguments, Child Advocate, Aaron Mixon, Esquire,
     testified that he believed that [Aunt and Uncle]’s relationship
     probably would not continue if [Grandmother] were to be Child’s
     adoptive parent. He testified that ceasing contact with Child’s
     aunt and uncle, who raised Child for the first three years of her
     life, is not in the best interest of Child.

     After closing statements and this Court’s ruling, the Judge
     provided a brief summary as to the conversation he had with Child
     with all counsel present. The Court asked Child if she knew why
     she was there and Child nodded her head that she did. The Court
     next asked Child if she knew who he was and what his job was,
     and he told her it was to decide who she was going to live with.
     The Court then asked Child if she wanted to help decide who she
     was going to live with. Child responded that she did not have a
     preference which family member she lived with.

Family Ct. Op., 8/2/23, at 3-7 (cleaned up; record citations omitted).

     The court continued, however, that Grandmother’s testimony raised

“serious credibility concerns.” Id. at 8. The court elaborated:

     During the bifurcated hearings, there was testimony from
     [Grandmother] wherein her background was discussed
     extensively, which included her current employment status,

                                     -7-
J-S42017-23

     current debts, prior marriages, current paramour, and her
     relationship with Child. [Grandmother] testified that she is able
     to meet all of Child’s needs, however, she failed to mention who
     helps her meet these needs. [Grandmother] testified that she has
     been dating a man by the name of Edward Flippen for the past 15
     years. Mr. Flippen plays a major part in Child’s life by providing
     daily transportation to and from school and transportation for
     extra activities. Child even calls him “Grandpop Ed.” However, in
     an attempt to bypass a criminal background search of Mr. Flippen,
     [Grandmother] testified that she does not know where Mr. Flippen
     lives and neither she nor Child have ever been to his residence. A
     background search into Mr. Flippen revealed that he has a criminal
     history. [Grandmother] testified that she was aware of his
     criminal history. She stated that Mr. Flippen’s criminal history is
     not a concern of hers. However, Mr. Flippen is the main resource
     [Grandmother] uses to ensure she is able to meet all of Child’s
     needs by providing transportation for all [Grandmother] and
     Child’s travels. Due to the extensive contact between Mr. Flippen
     and Child, a criminal background should have been conducted on
     Mr. Flippen. Moreover, [Grandmother] was not candid with the
     Court or DHS about Mr. Flippen. [Grandmother] failed to include
     him in the family profile and conveniently left him out of her
     Petition for Adoption. Mr. Flippen makes himself available to meet
     all of Child’s needs outside of the home for appointments, school,
     and extra activities. Ensuring Mr. Flippen received the required
     clearances and background check was in the best interest of the
     Child, but [Grandmother] would rather conceal Mr. Flippen’s
     criminal history.

     [Grandmother] repeatedly misrepresented facts and withheld
     information throughout the hearing. [Grandmother] reported that
     she receives Social Security Disability income, and the evidence
     proved that she is working gainful employment as the owner,
     editor, and distributor of “What’s Happening Philadelphia.”
     [Grandmother] has published Child’s photo and name in the
     newspaper that is published around the City of Philadelphia.
     [Grandmother] violated the foster care rules when she published
     Child’s kindergarten graduation picture, identified her by name,
     and listed the name of the school that she was currently attending
     and the name of the school that she was going to go to for first
     grade.

     At the hearing, one of [Grandmother]’s argument in support of
     her petition was that the Child’s maternal half-biological sibling

                                    -8-
J-S42017-23

      resides with her and she believes that the siblings should be raised
      together knowing one another. Child’s maternal half-biological
      sibling is fifteen years old. This Court is not persuaded by the
      argument that Child should be raised with her biological sibling
      when that sibling has essentially already been raised. Finally, this
      Court believes that [Grandmother] does not support the
      relationship between Child and the paternal side of her family to
      continue. Prior to Child’s removal, Aunt supported Maternal
      Grandmother and Child’s relationship and never tried to prevent
      Child from visiting [Grandmother].          Notably, the testimony
      throughout the hearing demonstrated that [Grandmother] herself
      became a barrier between Child and her paternal family’s
      relationship. [Grandmother] denied [Aunt and Uncle’s] request to
      take Child to Disney World which was then Court ordered.
      [Grandmother] testified that she was going to enroll Child in
      swimming lessons after she denied Aunt’s request to enroll Child
      in swimming lessons. [Grandmother] further testified that the
      only reason she denied Aunt’s request is because the swimming
      lesson would interfere with her weekend time with Child and did
      not want to share her time. [Grandmother] also testified that Child
      engages in extra activities and/or educational enrichment
      programs, however, when asked whether or not she was enrolled
      in those programs, she admitted that Child was not. Throughout
      the life of this case, [Grandmother] has consistently undermined
      the paternal family and made decisions that aligned with her own
      self-interests instead of Child’s best interest.

Id. at 8-10 (record citations omitted).

     The court reasoned that all parties love Child, and Child has a bond with

all parties, but it was in Child’s best interest for Aunt and Uncle to adopt her

instead of Grandmother:

      The testimony demonstrated that Child has been in the care of
      [Grandmother] for almost four (4) years and [Aunt and Uncle] for
      the initial three (3) years of her life. Specifically, Child was
      placed—by the request of Father—with [Aunt and Uncle] at birth
      in 2016 and remained with them until the Court found that it was
      the best interest, at that time, for the siblings to be placed
      together. There was ample testimony that Child shares a bond
      with both [Aunt and Uncle] and [Grandmother]. There was also
      testimony that both [Grandmother] and [Aunt and Uncle] can

                                     -9-
J-S42017-23

      meet all of Child’s needs. It is certain that both parties love Child
      and wants her to live with them. However, [Grandmother] has
      shown she will not allow Child to maintain her relationship with
      [Aunt and Uncle]. [Aunt and Uncle] were required to get the
      Court’s permission to take Child to Disney World because the trip
      would interfere with [Grandmother] and Child’s time together.
      [Grandmother] ceased communications with [Aunt and Uncle]
      during the pandemic and would not even allow virtual visits, which
      led to the filing of their Petition for Adoption. The Child Advocate
      testified that it would not be in the best interest of the Child to be
      adopted by [Grandmother]. The Child Advocate believed that
      [Grandmother] would again cease communications with [Aunt and
      Uncle], which would be detrimental to Child’s given their bond.
      Furthermore, when Child was asked about which family she
      wanted to live with, Child did not have a preference[,] which
      shows she loves them both and wants to maintain a relationship
      with both parties. This Court wants to preserve the whole family
      unit. For the foregoing reasons, this Court properly determined
      that it was in the Child’s best interest to be adopted by [Aunt and
      Uncle].

Id. at 11-12.

      We conclude that the court’s decision to deny Grandmother’s petition

for adoption and grant Aunt and Uncle’s petition was not an abuse of

discretion. The court reached its decision by reviewing all evidence of record

carefully and weighing all factors in determining Child’s best interests. It is

undisputed that Grandmother, and Aunt and Uncle, have a strong bond with

Child and are willing and able to meet the Child’s needs. The court found that

Grandmother had several serious credibility problems, such as her failure to

include Flippen in the family profile or in her adoption petition, and the fact

that she receives social security disability income despite also being gainfully

employed.    Id. at 8-10.    The failure to include Flippen in the petition is

significant because, as the trial court noted, Flippen has a criminal history and

                                     - 10 -
J-S42017-23

spent a substantial amount of time with Child. We defer to this credibility

determination, since nothing in the record indicates that it is manifestly

unreasonable. A.S.H., 674 A.2d at 700. Moreover, the court determined that

Aunt and Uncle would preserve the entire family unit, while Grandmother

would cut off Child’s access to Aunt and Uncle and disrupt the bond between

them. Id. at 11-12. Based on our own review of the record, we conclude that

it provides ample evidence for this determination.      The record, in short,

supports the court’s conclusion that denying Grandmother’s petition and

granting Aunt and Uncle’s petition was in Child’s best interests.

      For these reasons, we affirm the order denying Grandmother’s adoption

petition and granting Aunt and Uncle’s adoption petition.

      Order affirmed.

Date: 2/22/2024

                                    - 11 -