Court Opinion

ID: 9838506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 16:08:36.501884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.748575
License: Public Domain

J-S19003-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN RE: D.K.M., A MINOR                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: D.M.-K., MOTHER                   :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 349 MDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Orphans' Court at
                            No(s): 2022-6825

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                        FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

       D.M.-K. (Mother) appeals from the order entered on February 23, 2023,

that granted Lycoming County Children & Youth Services’ (Agency) petition to

involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to D.K.M., born in June of

2015.1 Following our review, we affirm the order on appeal.

       The orphans’ court provided a detailed recitation of the facts and

procedural history of this case, which we need not reproduce herein.         See

Orphans’ Court Opinion and Order (OCOO), 2/23/23, at 1-7.             Essentially,

D.K.M. was removed from Mother’s care in May of 2021 based on evidence

that Mother was using drugs and was unfit to care for D.K.M.2 In June of

____________________________________________

1 D.K.M.’s father is deceased.

2 We note that the record indicates Mother has four other children in addition

to D.K.M. However, those children are not involved in this dependency
proceeding.
J-S19003-23

2021, D.K.M. was adjudicated dependent and the Agency was granted legal

and physical custody of the child. Over the ensuing two years, the Agency

attempted to work with Mother to resolve the issues that led to D.K.M.’s

adjudication of dependency to no avail. Ultimately, in August of 2022, the

Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to

D.K.M. After a hearing on January 13, 2023, the orphans’ court granted the

Agency’s petition.

      Mother filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of

the errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The

orphans’ court filed a responsive opinion indicating that it was relying on the

rationale set forth in its February 23, 2023 order and opinion granting the

Agency’s petition. Herein, Mother presents four issues for our review:

      I. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in terminating Mother’s
      parental rights when she has not failed to perform parental duties
      for a period of six months and has made every effort to have a
      relationship with her child.

      II. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in terminating Mother’s
      parental rights because the evidence established that Mother had
      made substantial progress to remedy her prior incapacity and is
      able to provide the child with the essential parental care, control,
      and subsistence necessary for his physical and mental well-being.

      III. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in terminating Mother’s
      parental rights because the conditions that led to the removal or
      placement of the child do not continue to exist and the needs and
      welfare of the child would not be served by the termination of
      Mother’s parental rights.

      IV. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in terminating Mother’s
      parental rights because the best interests of the child are not
      served by termination.

                                     -2-
J-S19003-23

Mother’s Brief at 6-7.

      We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the

following standard:

      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 R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879

A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, we have explained that:

      The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as
      testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to
      enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
      hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”

Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented

and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts

in the evidence.   In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004).           If

competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if

the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B.,

835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

                                      -3-
J-S19003-23

      We are guided further by the following: Termination of parental rights

is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938,

which requires a bifurcated analysis.

      Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court
      must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental
      rights. Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The
      party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
      evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds
      for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court
      determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his
      or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of
      the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the
      needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests
      of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis
      concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between
      parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child
      of permanently severing any such bond.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511;

other citations omitted). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear

and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination

of parental rights are valid. R.N.J., 985 A.2d at 276.

      In Mother’s issues on appeal, she essentially avers that the orphans’

court erred by concluding that the Agency demonstrated, by clear and

convincing evidence, that she had a settled purpose of relinquishing her

parental claim to D.K.M., that she has voluntarily failed to perform her

parental duties, and that she has not done the work necessary to overcome

the obstacles of her addiction and mental health issues. Mother stresses that

she has now “been in treatment for a lengthy period of time and will continue

treatment in an intensive outpatient program.” Mother’s Brief at 20.           She

                                      -4-
J-S19003-23

explains that, while in treatment, “[s]he has received substantial therapy for

her mental health and is taking psychiatric medication.” Id. Mother further

claims that “[s]he has developed the appropriate parenting skills to provide

D.K.M. with the necessary physical and mental well-being that he needs to

thrive.” Id. She concludes that, because she “is no longer incapacitated and

… she has developed the skill set to properly parent D.K.M., the [orphans’]

court erred in terminating her parental rights.” Id. at 13. Mother further

insists that it is not in D.K.M.’s best interest that her rights be terminated,

especially because “he will be the only one of his siblings to be removed from

his family.” Id.

      In reviewing Mother’s arguments, we have considered the briefs of the

parties, the certified record, and the applicable law. We have also assessed

the detailed and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Ryan M. Tira of the

Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. Judge Tira’s opinion thoroughly

explains the basis for his conclusion that the Agency established, by clear and

convincing evidence, that Mother’s parental rights with respect to D.K.M.

should be involuntarily terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2),

(5), and (8).      See OCOO at 7-17.     Additionally, Judge Tira provides a

comprehensive discussion to support his conclusion that the Agency

established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of Mother’s

parental rights would not cause irreparable harm to D.K.M. and that his

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare will best be served

by termination of Mother’s parental rights. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); OCOO

                                     -5-
J-S19003-23

at 17-20.   Notably, Judge Tira recognizes that Mother entered in-patient

treatment and has received therapy, medication, and parenting classes. See

OCOO at 16.     The judge then explains why Mother’s recent efforts and

progress do not overcome the evidence demonstrating that the statutory

grounds for termination have been met, and that termination will best serve

the needs and welfare of D.K.M. See id. at 16-17. The record confirms that

Judge Tira’s decisions regarding both sections 2511(a) and (b) are supported

by ample, competent evidence. Therefore, we adopt his opinion as our own,

and affirm the order granting the Agency’s petition to involuntarily terminate

Mother’s parental rights for the reasons set forth therein.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/05/2023

                                     -6-
Circulated 08/14/2023 09:10 AM