Court Opinion

ID: 9895537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 18:09:42.642897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:57.046709
License: Public Domain

J-S38002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: A.Z.B., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: A.B., FATHER                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 2037 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Decree Entered July 19, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-AP-0000111-2023

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                           FILED NOVEMBER 7, 2023

       A.B. (Father) appeals from the decree, entered in the Court of Common

Pleas of Philadelphia County, Juvenile Division, involuntarily terminating his

parental rights to his minor child, A.Z.B. (born 05/2020), pursuant to section

2511 of the Adoption Act.1 Father’s counsel, Harry R. Levin, Esquire, has filed

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.
J-S38002-23

an Anders2 brief seeking to withdraw from representing Father on appeal.3

After careful review, we affirm the trial court’s decree and grant counsel’s

petition to withdraw.

       The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) received a

General Protection Services (GPS) report on October 7, 2020, alleging

Philadelphia Police had responded to a domestic violence incident between

Father and A.K. (Mother),4 that Mother and A.Z.B. were locked out of the

family home, that Mother had blood on her elbow, and that A.Z.B. was

bleeding from his forehead. Mother admitted to accidentally hitting Father

with a hammer, but stated she did not know how A.Z.B. had sustained a

forehead injury. Police summoned paramedics to the scene after observing a

lump on the back of A.Z.B.’s head, which was the size of a small orange.

A.Z.B. was taken to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). A medical

examination indicated that A.Z.B. sustained a skull fracture and had

____________________________________________

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also Commonwealth

v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). The Anders principles and process
have been extended to appeals involving termination of parental rights. See
In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending Anders briefing
requirements to termination of parental rights appeals involving indigent
parents represented by court-appointed counsel).

3 DHS notified this Court that it agrees with Attorney Levin’s conclusion that

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal and, thus, will not file a brief.
See Letter, 9/7/23.

4 Mother’s parental rights to A.Z.B. were involuntarily terminated on July 19,

2023. She is not a party to this appeal.

                                           -2-
J-S38002-23

methamphetamine in his system. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 7/19/23, at

14-15.

       On October 8, 2020, DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OPC)

for A.Z.B., who remained hospitalized at CHOP.           On October 9, 2020, the

court held a shelter care hearing, the OPC was lifted, and A.Z.B. was

committed to the custody of DHS. The court adjudicated A.Z.B. dependent

on March 19, 2021, found aggravated circumstances against both parents,5

but ordered DHS to continue with reunification efforts. Father was

incarcerated at the time of the adjudicatory hearing, and, since Covid-19

protocols were in effect at that time, Attorney Levin sent Father a link to

participate remotely. Father, however, did not participate in the hearing.

       DHS developed a single case plan (SCP) for Father, which included the

following    objectives:     sign    all   necessary   releases,   attend   medical

appointments, complete dual diagnosis assessment, comply with assessment

recommendations, complete random drug screens as per court order,

complete domestic violence program, comply with Achieving Reunification

Center (ARC) recommendations, and comply with court-ordered objectives

regarding visitation, housing, and employment.             See N.T. Termination

Hearing, 7/29/23, at 36.

____________________________________________

5 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(2) (child has been victim of physical abuse resulting

in serious bodily injury, sexual violence, or aggravated physical neglect by
parent).

                                           -3-
J-S38002-23

      The court held six permanency review hearings and made the following

findings with regard to Father:       October 1, 2021 (no compliance with

permanency plan); February 15, 2022 (no compliance with permanency plan

and no progress toward alleviating circumstances that necessitated original

placement); May 16, 2022 (minimal compliance with permanency plan;

minimal progress toward alleviating circumstances that necessitated original

placement); August 1, 2022 (minimal compliance with permanency plan; no

progress   toward   alleviating    circumstances   that   necessitated   original

placement); October 18, 2022 (no compliance with permanency plan; no

progress   toward   alleviating    circumstances   that   necessitated   original

placement); and, January 24, 2023 (minimal compliance with permanency

plan; no progress toward alleviating circumstances that necessitated original

placement).

      On March 24, 2023, DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate

Father’s parental rights to A.Z.B.      On July 19, 2023, the court held a

termination hearing. At the hearing, before the Honorable Cateria R. McCabe,

Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) caseworker Ashley Wolfe testified that she

has been involved with this case since its inception in 2020. She stated that,

throughout the life of this case, DHS has had difficulty contacting Father, that

Father would not make himself available to meet with DHS outside of court

hearings, that his visits with A.Z.B. were “inconsistent,” and that he attended

a single case plan meeting, on September 30, 2022. See N.T. Termination

Hearing, supra at 35-36.          At the September 30, 2022 SCP meeting,

                                      -4-
J-S38002-23

Caseworker Wolfe reviewed Father’s objectives with him. Caseworker Wolfe

testified that Father completed none of his objectives, except for the dual

diagnosis assessment, which Father completed after the petition for

termination was filed. Id. at 37-38. Caseworker Wolfe stated Father’s

compliance with his objectives was “minimal,” id. at 39, and that he had made

no progress toward alleviating the circumstances that brought A.Z.B. into

care, including domestic violence. Id.

       Caseworker Wolfe testified that A.Z.B., who was 3 years old at the time

of the termination hearing, has been in foster care with his younger brother

since 2020. Id. at 11, 44. She testified that A.Z.B. has a “parent[-]child”

bond with foster parent, that A.Z.B. refers to foster parent as “mom,” that

A.Z.B. seeks comfort from foster parent, and that A.Z.B.’s basic needs are

being met by foster parent. Id. at 32.           Caseworker Wolfe characterized

Father’s bond with A.Z.B. as that of “uncle[-]nephew,” adding that, in her

opinion, they were not close, that A.Z.B. does not look to Father to meet any

of his needs, and that A.Z.B. is not upset when he leaves visits with Father.

Id. at 41.

       Father did not appear at the hearing.6 At the conclusion of the hearing,

the court stated the following on the record:

____________________________________________

6 Attached to Attorney Levin’s Anders brief is a copy of a letter from
                                                                    Father’s
physician, dated August 3, 2023, indicating that Father underwent a
diagnostic medical procedure on July 10, 2023, and was stable to return to
work on July 23, 2023, with no limitations. Anders Brief, Appendix A.

                                           -5-
J-S38002-23

       [Father] has made absolutely no progress. He visits at times but
       has failed to comply with the [SCP] objectives with [the] exception
       of approximately three. And those were after the filling of the
       goal change[/]termination petitions. He also has failed to provide
       any documentation of compliance with the [SCP] objectives.
       [V]isits have been inconsistent for [Father]. He[,] according to
       testimony, began to engage a little more since the last court date,
       which was May 31, 2023. There’s no father[-]child bond. The
       testimony reflects he’s more or less like an uncle to his son.
       Similarly, I find that [A.Z.B.] would not suffer any irreparable
       harm if [F]ather’s rights are terminated. This child has been in
       care almost three years and needs permanency. Again, the foster
       parent is meeting his needs and his bond is with her and he calls
       her [“]mom[”]. Thus, I find that it’s in his best interest for the
       goal to be changed to adoption and parental rights to be
       terminated under [subsection] 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8), as
       well as [subsection] (b).

N.T. Termination Hearing, at 78-79.            On July 19, 2023, the court entered its

decree terminating Father’s parental rights to A.Z.B. Father filed this timely

appeal. Both Father and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.7

       Counsel raises the following questions on behalf of Father:

       1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it
          involuntarily terminated Father’s parental rights where such
          determination was not supported by clear and convincing
          evidence under [] 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and
          (8)?

       2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it
          involuntarily terminated Father’s parental rights without giving
____________________________________________

7 Pa.R.A.P 905(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “If the appeal is a children’s

fast track appeal, the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal as
described in Rule 1925(a)(2) shall be filed with the notice of appeal and served
in accordance with Rule 1925(b)(1).” Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(2). Here, Father filed
his Rule 1925(b) statement contemporaneously with his notice of appeal. The
trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion sets forth the location in the record
where the court stated the reasons for its decision. See Trial Court Opinion,
8/17/23, at 1-2.

                                           -6-
J-S38002-23

        primary consideration to the effect that the termination would
        have on the developmental, physical, and emotional needs of
        [A.Z.B.] as required by [] 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?

     3. Whether the trial court erred because the evidence was
        overwhelming and undisputed that Father demonstrated a
        genuine interest and sincere, persistent, and unrelenting effort
        to maintain a parent-child relationship with [A.Z.B.]?

     4. Whether Father was too ill to attend the termination hearing?

Anders Brief, at 6.

     Our standard of review is well-settled:

     In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our scope
     of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence
     presented as well as the trial court’s factual findings and legal
     conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will
     reverse the trial court’s order only if we conclude that the trial
     court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked
     competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge’s
     decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).

Further, we have stated:

     Where the hearing court’s findings are supported by competent
     evidence of record, we must affirm the hearing court even though
     the record could support an opposite result. We are bound by the
     findings of the trial court which have adequate support in the
     record so long as the findings do not evidence capricious disregard
     for competent and credible evidence. 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. Though we are not bound by the trial court’s
     inferences and deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if
     they involve errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of
     the trial court’s sustainable findings.

In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

                                     -7-
J-S38002-23

      Before we begin our analysis, we must dispose of the application to

withdraw as counsel filed by Attorney Levin.     When counsel files an Anders

brief, this Court may not review the merits without first addressing counsel’s

request to withdraw. Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797, 800

(Pa. Super. 2013). We review Attorney Levin’s Anders brief for compliance

with the requirements set forth by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v.

Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

      [C]ounsel 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.

Id. at 361.

      Additionally, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748

(Pa. Super. 2005) and its progeny, “[c]ounsel also must provide a copy of the

Anders brief to his client.” Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 880

(Pa. Super. 2014). Counsel must attach to the brief a letter that advises the

client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed

pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of

the court’s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders

brief.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).     “Once counsel

has satisfied the above requirements, it is then this Court’s duty to conduct

                                      -8-
J-S38002-23

its own review of the trial court’s proceedings and render an independent

judgment    as   to   whether   the   appeal   is,   in   fact,   wholly   frivolous.”

Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 291 (Pa.Super.2007) (en

banc), quoting Commonwealth v. Wright, 846 A.2d 730, 736 (Pa. Super.

2004).

      Here, Attorney Levin filed his petition to withdraw, indicating that he

sent Father a letter informing him of his right to obtain new counsel, or to

proceed pro se, and explaining that Father may raise any additional arguments

with this Court. A copy of this letter is attached to the petition to withdraw.

See Petition to Withdraw, 9/1/23; Letter to Father, 9/1/23. In his Anders

brief, Attorney Levin sets forth the relevant history of the case, as well as his

reasons for concluding that Father’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Attorney Levin

states in his petition that a copy of this brief was forwarded to Father. See

Petition to Withdraw, 9/1/23. Accordingly, we conclude that Attorney Levin

has complied with the technical requirements of Anders, Santiago, and

Millisock. We, therefore, proceed with our independent review of the record

and the issues presented on Father’s behalf.

      Instantly, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to

23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).             In order to affirm the

termination of parental rights, this Court need only agree with the trial court’s

findings under any one subsection of section 2511(a).             See In re B.L.W.,

843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). After review, we conclude

that the record supports termination under subsection 2511(a)(2).

                                      -9-
J-S38002-23

      Pursuant to subsection (a)(2), parental rights may be terminated, after

the filing of a petition, when

      [t]he 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.A. § 2511(a)(2).

      The record demonstrates that, at nearly every turn, Father has failed to

show any initiative to act as a parent, causing A.Z.B. to be without the

essential parental care or control necessary for his well-being. Because of

Father’s continued course of conduct, his failure to meet any of his objectives,

and his inability or unwillingness to remedy the situation, we conclude DHS

has met its burden of proof under section (a)(2). Accordingly, we conclude

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental

rights to A.Z.B. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2).

      With respect to subsection (b), Judge McCabe concluded termination

was would best serve A.Z.B.’s “developmental, physical[,] and emotional

needs and welfare,” and, thus, termination was in A.Z.B.’s best interests. See

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) (“The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall

give primary consideration to the developmental, physical[,] and emotional

needs and welfare of the child.”). The record, in particular Caseworker Wolfe’s

testimony, supports this determination. See In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529,

533 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when conducting bonding analysis, court is not

                                     - 10 -
J-S38002-23

required to use expert testimony); see also. In re A.R.M.F., 837 A.2d 1231

(Pa. Super. 2003) (holding court properly terminated parental rights where

decision was based in part on social worker’s and caseworker’s testimony

children did not share significant bond with biological parents and were well

bonded with foster parents).

      With respect to the third issue, that the trial court erred because “the

evidence was overwhelming and undisputed that Father demonstrated a

genuine interest and sincere, persistent, and unrelenting effort to maintain a

parent-child relationship [A.Z.B.],” Anders Brief, at 6, no relief is due. There

is nothing in the record that would support this claim.

      Further, the final issue, whether Father was too ill to attend the

termination hearing, merits no relief.    Other than a photocopy of a letter

attached to the Anders brief, there is nothing in the record that would enable

this Court to review this claim.   Moreover, even granting that Father was

unable to physically attend, there is nothing indicating that Father could not

attend the hearing virtually or by phone. Furthermore, Father’s attendance

at the hearing would not undo the prior three years of inability or failure to

demonstrate any progress or interest in maintaining a relationship with A.Z.B.

See In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 340 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“Parents are required

to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full

parental responsibilities.”); see also In the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d

753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for

                                     - 11 -
J-S38002-23

a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities

while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs.”).

      Finally, our review of the record does not reveal any non-frivolous issues

overlooked by Attorney Levin.

      After our independent review, we conclude that the evidence presented

supports the trial court’s decree involuntarily terminating Father’s parental

rights pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(2) and (b). See In re Z.P., 904 A.2d

1108, 1115 (Pa. Super. 2010) (absent abuse of discretion, error of law, or

insufficient evidentiary support for trial court’s decision, decree in termination

of parental rights proceeding must stand).

      Decree affirmed. Motion to withdraw granted.

Date: 11/7/2023

                                     - 12 -