Court Opinion

ID: 9957910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 16:10:30.860388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:36.142469
License: Public Domain

J-A25042-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF:             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    J.A.R., A MINOR                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: R.R.K., MOTHER                  :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 526 WDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Decree Entered May 1, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):
                            No. 4 in Adoption 2023

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                                 FILED: April 5, 2024

       R.R.K. (Mother) appeals from the decree entered May 1, 2023 in the

Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans’ Court that involuntarily

terminated her parental rights to her son, J.A.R. (Child), who was born in

2015. In this appeal, Mother’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw and an

Anders1 brief, stating that the appeal is wholly frivolous. After careful review,

we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm.2

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2 Counsel for Mother on March 6, 2024 filed a second petition to withdraw
based on the fact that he has now become a guardian ad litem in the
dependency system. Because we grant his first petition to withdraw, we deny
the second petition as moot.
J-A25042-23

      On February 23, 2022, the Erie County Office of Children and Youth

(OCY) obtained an emergency protective order removing Child from Mother.

OCY placed Child in foster care, and on March 14, 2022, Child was adjudicated

dependent and ordered to remain in foster care based on Mother’s drug use,

her allowing contact between Child and her paramour, who was prohibited

from having contact with Child, and her failure to make sure Child attended

school. Juvenile Court Adjudication and Disposition, 3/14/22 at 1-4. In this

adjudication, the juvenile court ordered that Mother have supervised weekly

visits with Child and ordered that Mother, inter alia, refrain from using drugs

and alcohol; participate in a drug and alcohol assessment and follow through

with all treatment recommendations; participate in a mental health

assessment and follow through with all treatment recommendations;

participate in an approved domestic violence class and demonstrate the ability

to refrain from violent relationships; participate in an approved parenting

program and follow through with all recommendations, as well as demonstrate

the ability to properly parent and care for Child; maintain safe and secure

housing and provide proof of residency; obtain and maintain employment or

another appropriate source of income; and attend all medical and educational

appointments for Child. Id. at 5.

      Permanency review hearings were held on June 22, 2022 and December

5, 2022.   The juvenile court found, following the first permanency review

hearing, that Mother was minimally compliant with her obligations under the

                                     -2-
J-A25042-23

adjudication and disposition order and had made minimal progress toward

alleviating the circumstances which necessitated Child’s removal from her

home. Juvenile Court Permanency Review Order, 6/27/22, at 1. In this first

permanency review order, the court again ordered that Mother refrain from

using drugs and alcohol; required her to participate in specific drug and alcohol

treatment programs; required her to participate in specific mental health,

domestic violence, and family reunification programs and to demonstrate the

ability to properly parent and care for Child; ordered her to engage in Child’s

trauma therapy to the extent requested by his therapist; and again ordered

that Mother maintain safe and secure housing and provide proof of residency,

obtain and maintain employment or another appropriate source of income,

and attend all medical and educational appointments for Child. Id. at 3.

      In September 2022, before the second permanency review hearing, OCY

filed a motion to suspend Mother’s visits with Child because the visits were

causing Child to engage in aggressive and threatening behavior, and the

juvenile court ordered the visitation suspended.      N.T., 2/10/23, at 52-53;

N.T., 4/14/23, at 19-21; Juvenile Court Order, 9/20/22. Following the second

permanency review hearing, the juvenile court found that there had been no

compliance by Mother with her obligations under its permanency review order

or progress by Mother toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated

Child’s removal and ordered that Child’s permanency placement goal be

                                      -3-
J-A25042-23

changed to adoption. Juvenile Court Permanency Review Order, 12/7/22, at

1.

       On January 5, 2023, OCY filed a petition for involuntary termination of

the parental rights of Mother.3         The Orphans’ Court appointed counsel to

represent Child and held hearings on the petition for termination of parental

rights on February 10, 2023 and April 14, 2023, at which nine witnesses

testified, four OCY employees, two employees of family services agencies,

Mother and her mother, and a clinical psychologist who had performed a

bonding assessment of Child.

       On May 1, 2023, the Orphans’ Court entered a decree terminating

Mother’s parental rights, finding that Mother failed to stop using drugs and did

not make diligent efforts to do so, that Mother refused assistance, that Mother

was unable and unwilling to safely and adequately care for Child, and that

OCY had proved grounds for termination of parental rights under Section

2511(a)(1), (2), and (5) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2),

(5). Orphans’ Court Order, 5/1/23, at 1; Orphans’ Court Opinion at 21-26.

The Orphans’ Court further found that termination of Mother’s parental rights

was in Child’s best interest and that the requirements of Section 2511(b) of

the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b), were satisfied, concluding that the

____________________________________________

3 OCY also sought involuntary termination of the parental rights of Child’s
biological father (Father) in this petition. Father, who did not live with Mother
and had no involvement in Child’s life, voluntarily relinquished his parental
rights on February 10, 2023.

                                           -4-
J-A25042-23

evidence showed that contact with Mother was harmful to Child and that

severing his bond with Mother would not be detrimental to him. Orphans’

Court Order, 5/1/23, at 2; Orphans’ Court Opinion at 25-26.

      On May 5, 2023, Mother filed this timely appeal. On August 25, 2023,

Mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief and petition to withdraw as counsel.

In his Anders brief, counsel presents the following issues:

      A. Whether the Orphans Court committed an abuse of discretion
      and/or error of law when it determined that the petitioner
      established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for
      termination of parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 2511(a)(1)?

      B. Whether the Orphans Court committed an abuse of discretion
      and/or error of law when it determined that the petitioner
      established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for
      termination of parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 2511(a)(2)?

      C. Whether the Orphans Court committed an abuse of discretion
      and/or error of law when it determined that the petitioner
      established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for
      termination of parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 2511(a)(5)?

      D. Whether the Orphans Court committed an abuse of discretion
      and/or error of law when it determined that the petitioner
      established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for
      termination of parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 2511(b)?

Anders Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted). Mother has not filed

any response to counsel’s petition to withdraw or Anders brief.       OCY and

counsel for Child did not file briefs in this appeal and advised this Court that

they agree with the Orphans’ Court’s decision.

      Before this Court can consider the merits of this appeal, we must first

determine whether counsel has satisfied all of the requirements that court-

                                     -5-
J-A25042-23

appointed counsel must meet before leave to withdraw may be granted. In

re Adoption of M.C.F., 230 A.3d 1217, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2020); In re

J.D.H., 171 A.3d 903, 905 (Pa. Super. 2017).

      To withdraw from representing a party that is entitled to counsel on the

basis that the appeal is frivolous, counsel must (1) petition the court for leave

to withdraw stating that he has made a conscientious examination of the

record and has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a

sufficient Anders brief; and (3) provide a copy of the Anders brief to the

client and advise the client of her right to retain new counsel or proceed pro

se and to raise any additional points that she deems worthy of the court’s

attention. In re Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2020);

In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 3-4 (Pa. Super. 2014). The Anders brief must:

      (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with
      citations to the record;

      (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably
      supports the appeal;

      (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

      (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is
      frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record,
      controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the
      conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

B.G.S., 240 A.3d at 661 (quoting Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d

349 (Pa. 2009)); see also J.D.H., 171 A.3d at 907. If counsel has satisfied

the above requirements, it is then this Court’s duty to conduct its own review

                                      -6-
J-A25042-23

of the record and render an independent judgment as to whether the appeal

is wholly frivolous. B.G.S., 240 A.3d at 662; X.J., 105 A.3d at 4.

       Counsel has filed a petition to withdraw in which he states in that he has

made a conscientious examination of the record and determined that there

are no non-frivolous grounds for the appeal. Counsel provided copies of the

Anders brief and petition to withdraw to Mother and has sent a letter to

Mother advising her of her right to retain new counsel or proceed pro se on

appeal and to raise any points she deems worthy of the court’s attention.

Counsel’s Anders brief provides a procedural and factual summary of the case

with references to the record and cites and discusses the applicable law on

which counsel bases his conclusion that there are no non-frivolous issues that

he can raise on Mother’s behalf. Counsel has thus filed a sufficient Anders

brief and has adequately complied with the procedural requirements for

withdrawal as counsel in this appeal.

       We therefore proceed to conduct an independent review to ascertain

whether the appeal is indeed wholly frivolous. This Court first considers the

issues raised by counsel in the Anders brief and determines whether they are

in fact frivolous.   B.G.S., 240 A.3d at 662; J.D.H., 171 A.3d at 908.        In

addition, if the Court finds those issues frivolous, this Court conducts an

examination of the record to discern if there are any other issues of arguable

merit overlooked by counsel. B.G.S., 240 A.3d at 662; J.D.H., 171 A.3d at

908.

                                      -7-
J-A25042-23

      Our standard of review in this appeal is clear:

      When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental
      rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the
      trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse
      of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support
      for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial
      court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental
      rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the
      same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. 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.J.Z., 207 A.3d 914, 921 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting In re R.N.J., 985

A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009)). We conclude that the Orphans’ Court’s findings

are supported by the record and that it did not err in holding that the

requirements of Section 2511 of the Adoption Act for termination of parental

rights were satisfied.

      Under Section 2511, the courts must engage in a bifurcated analysis

prior to terminating parental rights. In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439,

442 (Pa. Super. 2021); B.J.Z., 207 A.3d at 921. Initially, the focus is on the

conduct of the parent, and the party seeking termination must prove by clear

and convincing evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies one of the

statutory grounds for termination set forth in Section 2511(a). A.H., 247 A.3d

at 442; In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 99-100 (Pa. Super. 2011). If the court

determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of her parental

rights, the court then engages in the second part of the analysis pursuant to

Section 2511(b), a determination of the needs and welfare of the child under

                                     -8-
J-A25042-23

the standard of best interests of the child. A.H., 247 A.3d at 442; B.J.Z., 207

A.3d at 921.

       The Orphans’ Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child under

Sections 2511(a)(1), (2), and (5). Only one ground for termination under

Section 2511(a) need be shown to support the termination of parental rights,

however, and we therefore need only agree with the Orphans' Court as to one

of these subsections, in addition to Section 2511(b), in order to affirm the

termination of parental rights. A.H., 247 A.3d at 442; N.A.M., 33 A.3d at

100. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support termination

under Section 2511(a)(2).4

       Section 2511(a)(2) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

       (a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may
       be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
       grounds: . . .

                                   *      *      *

       (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or
       refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without
       essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his
       physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of
       the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be
       remedied by the parent.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2).         This ground for termination does not require a

showing of affirmative misconduct by the parent; incapacity of the parent to

perform parental duties that cannot be remedied is sufficient to support

____________________________________________

4 We therefore need not and do not determine whether Mother’s Issues A and
C, concerning Sections 2511(a)(1) and (5) have any merit.

                                           -9-
J-A25042-23

termination of parental rights. A.H., 247 A.3d at 443; B.J.Z., 207 A.3d at

922. “Parents are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably

prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities.” N.A.M., 33 A.3d at 100.

     The record here supports the Orphans’ Court’s determination that

Mother’s incapacity and neglect caused Child to be without essential parental

care and that she could not or would not remedy the causes of that incapacity

and neglect.   Testimony at the hearings established that Child had been

injured in a car accident by Mother’s paramour and not taken for medical

treatment, was in and out of shelters, was exposed to drug use, had problems

with aggression and suffered from post-traumatic stress, and was not

attending school reliably as a result of Mother’s drug abuse and mental health

issues. N.T., 2/10/23, at 11, 41-45, 65, 100, 109-10; N.T., 4/14/23, at 6-7,

9, 16-17, 19. Several witnesses who worked with Mother and Child testified

that between Child’s removal and the December 2022 permanency hearing,

Mother used drugs on multiple occasions, had repeated incidents of positive

drug tests and failure to submit to drug tests, was removed from drug

treatment programs or left against medical advice, and did not successfully

complete any mental health treatment program. N.T., 2/10/23, at 33-34, 47-

60, 63-64, 69-70, 80-83.     Mother herself admitted that she used drugs,

including methamphetamine and fentanyl, and failed drug tests throughout

that period. Id. at 101-04. Although Mother claimed that she stopped using

drugs after the December 2022 hearing, id. at 84-86, 88, 97-99, the Orphans’

                                    - 10 -
J-A25042-23

Court did not find her testimony credible. Orphans’ Court Opinion at 24-25.

Moreover, Mother admitted that she had a past history of temporarily stopping

her drug use and relapsing, and there was evidence that she had denied drug

use in the past when she was in fact still using drugs. N.T., 2/10/23, at 68-

69, 100-01, 103.

      In addition, there was testimony from multiple witnesses who had

observed Mother’s interactions with Child that Mother was unable or unwilling

to act as parent in dealing with Child’s behavioral problems. N.T., 2/10/23,

at 9-10, 18-19, 26-27, 71-78, 111; N.T., 4/14/23, at 24-27.               These

deficiencies included Mother failing to restrain Child from trying to run into a

busy street and Mother allowing Child to repeatedly hit and kick her. N.T.,

2/10/23, at 72-73, 75-78. Despite these problems, Mother was uncooperative

with her parenting assistance program and was discharged from the program.

N.T., 2/10/23, at 33-39, 53, 63, 70.

      The Orphans’ Court likewise did not err in finding that the requirements

of Section 2511(b) were satisfied. Section 2511(b) provides, in relevant part:

      (b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the right of
      a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
      physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
      of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
      environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
      income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
      control of the parent.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Under this section, the Orphans’ Court is to consider

intangible factors, such as love, comfort, security, and stability, whether the

                                     - 11 -
J-A25042-23

child has any emotional bond with the parent, the nature of that bond, and

the effect on the child of permanently severing the parent-child bond. B.J.Z.,

207 A.3d at 922; N.A.M., 33 A.3d at 103. The Section 2511(b) analysis is

focused on the needs and welfare of the child over the concerns of the parent,

and each child’s particular developmental, physical, and emotional needs must

be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d

1085, 1105 (Pa. 2023). The lower court must consider the emotional bonds

between the parent and child, with the threshold inquiry being whether

termination will sever a necessary and beneficial relationship, such that the

child could suffer extreme emotional consequences or significant, irreparable

harm. Id. at 1109-10.

      The Orphans’ Court based its conclusion that terminating Mother’s

parental rights was in Child’s best interests on its findings that contact with

Mother caused Child to engage in harmful behaviors, that he improved when

he no longer had contact with her, and that severing Child’s bond with Mother

would have no detrimental effect on him, and considered expert opinion

concerning Child’s bond with Mother and Child’s need for a secure environment

in reaching its conclusion. Orphans’ Court Opinion at 9-12, 25-26. The record

supports the Orphans’ Court’s determination.

      Witnesses who worked with Child after he was removed from Mother’s

home testified that Child became aggressive during and after his visits with

Mother, including threatening to kill his foster mother and others and hurting

                                    - 12 -
J-A25042-23

her autistic son. N.T., 2/10/23, at 51, 53, 73-74; N.T., 4/14/23, at 11, 20,

24-25; OCY Ex. 13. The witnesses who continued to work with Child testified

that his behavior significantly improved after his visits with Mother were

stopped. N.T., 2/10/23, at 59, 61-62; N.T., 4/14/23, at 20-22.

      While there was evidence that there was affection between Child and

Mother and that Child was happy to see Mother at the visits, N.T., 2/10/23,

at 22, 24, 109; N.T., 4/14/23, at 24, 27, there was also evidence that Child

did not ask to see Mother after contact with her stopped and that he was not

negatively affected by lack of contact with her. N.T., 2/10/23, at 61-63; N.T.,

4/14/23, at 20, 22. The clinical psychologist who had performed a bonding

assessment of Child opined that the attachment between Child and Mother

was not a secure attachment and that severing the relationship with Mother

would be better for Child.    N.T., 2/10/23, at 20-23.     In addition, Child’s

caseworker testified that she did not believe that severing Child’s bond with

Mother would have any detrimental effect on him and that terminating

Mother’s parental rights would best serve Child’s needs and welfare. N.T.,

2/10/23, at 62, 64.

      Accordingly, we conclude from our independent review that the evidence

in the record supports the Orphans’ Court’s determinations that OCY proved

grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2)

of the Adoption Act and that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s

best interest. Mother’s issues are therefore without merit. In addition, our

                                     - 13 -
J-A25042-23

review of the record does not reveal any non-frivolous issues overlooked by

counsel.   We therefore grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the

Orphans’ Court’s decree.

     Petition to withdraw granted.    Decree affirmed. Second petition to

withdraw denied as moot.

DATE: 04/05/2024

                                   - 14 -