Court Opinion

ID: 9396134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 16:14:48.005687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.324795
License: Public Domain

J-S08001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN THE MATTER OF: S.L.J.V., A      :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                              :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
                                    :
 APPEAL OF: L.M.J., MOTHER          :
                                    :
                                    :
                                    :
                                    :   No. 1373 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered August 25, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at
                          No(s): 30-AD-2022

 IN THE MATTER OF: C.R.J., A MINOR :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                   :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                   :
 APPEAL OF: L.M.J., MOTHER         :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :    No. 1374 MDA 2022

            Appeal from the Decree Entered August 25, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at
                          No(s): 29-AD-2022

 IN THE MATTER OF: J.E.H.J., A      :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                              :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
                                    :
 APPEAL OF: L.M.J., MOTHER          :
                                    :
                                    :
                                    :
                                    :   No. 1375 MDA 2022

            Appeal from the Decree Entered August 25, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at
                          No(s): 28-AD-2022
J-S08001-23

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.                                FILED: MAY 19, 2023

        L.M.J., (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees entered August 25, 2022,

that involuntarily terminated her parental rights to her dependent children,

S.L.J.V., C.R.J., and J.E.H.J. (collectively, the “Children”).   Mother’s rights

were terminated pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(a)(1), (2),

(5), (8), and (b). We affirm.

        On March 31, 2022, the Dauphin County Social Services for Children and

Youth filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to the

Children. Upon motion, the trial court appointed Jeffrey C. Clark, Esquire, to

serve as guardian ad litem for the Children.1 On July 26, 2022, and August

25, 2022, the trial court held hearings on the termination petitions. Mother

was represented by counsel during each hearing. Thereafter, on August 25,

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 On April 7, 2022, for each of the Children, Attorney Clark filed motions to
appoint guardian ad litem as counsel for purposes of involuntary termination
of parental rights proceedings. Motions to Appoint Guardian ad Litem, 4/7/22,
at 1-2. In each motion, Attorney Clark averred that he was “able to represent
both the best interest[s] and legal interests of the [Children] in the involuntary
termination of parental rights proceedings, as no conflict exists.” Id. at 2.
The trial court granted Attorney Clark’s motion and appointed him as counsel
for each of the Children during the involuntary termination of parental rights
proceedings. See Trial Court Orders, 4/11/22, at 1. Upon doing so, we
conclude that the trial court implicitly found that there was no conflict of
interest with Attorney Clark serving as both guardian ad litem and the
Children’s legal counsel in accordance with In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240
A.3d 1218, 1236 (Pa. Super. 2020).

                                           -2-
J-S08001-23

2022, the trial court entered decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights to

the Children under Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).2

       On September 23, 2022, Mother, through new counsel, timely filed her

notices of appeal from the trial court's decrees involuntarily terminating her

parental rights, and her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal,

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).3

       Mother raises the following issue on appeal:

        Did the trial court abuse its discretion, or commit an error of
        law by determining it was in the [C]hildren’s best interest to
        have Mother’s parental rights terminated[?]

Mother’s Brief at 7.

       We review this appeal in accordance with the following standard:

        [A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard
        when considering a trial court's determination of a petition for
        termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our
        standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the
        findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court
        if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179,
____________________________________________

2 That same day, the trial court also entered separate decrees involuntarily
terminating the parental rights of J.E.H.J.’s unknown father, and M.V., the
father of S.L.J.V. and C.R.J. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(a)(1), (2), (4)
and (b). See Trial Court Orders, 8/25/22, at 1. The decrees entered in the
cases involving S.L.J.V. and C.R.J. indicate that the parental rights of these
children’s “unknown father” were terminated. However, there is no dispute
the M.V. is the father of S.L.J.V. and C.R.J. and his rights were expressly
terminated by the decrees entered on August 5, 2022. The fathers have not
appealed the trial court’s termination decrees and are not parties to this
appeal.

3 In accordance with the decision of our Supreme Court in Commonwealth
v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), Mother filed three separate notices of
appeal at each relevant trial court docket.

                                           -3-
J-S08001-23

       1190 (Pa. 2010).      If the factual findings are supported,
       appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an
       error of law or abused its discretion. Id.; R.I.S., [36 A.3d 567,
       572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been often stated,
       an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
       reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Id.;
       see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34
       A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630, 634
       (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse
       of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
       unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.

       As we discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for applying
       an abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. We
       observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not
       equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold
       record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during
       the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other
       hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at
       1190. Therefore, even where the facts could support an
       opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and
       termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to
       second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility
       determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the
       trial judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the
       record and the court's legal conclusions are not the result of an
       error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of
       Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994).

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826–827 (Pa. 2012).

      We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the

parties, the detailed opinion of the trial court, and the pertinent case law. Our

review of the record demonstrates that there is sufficient, competent evidence

in the record that supports the trial court's factual and legal determinations.

Thus, we will not disturb the trial court's decision. In re Adoption of S.P.,

47 A.3d at 826-827.        Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decrees

terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children pursuant to Section

                                      -4-
J-S08001-23

2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act on the basis of the

well-reasoned and thorough analysis set forth in Judge John J. McNally, III’s

December 12, 2022 opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/22, at 1-33. In

any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing

party shall attach a copy of Judge McNally’s December 12, 2022 opinion.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 05/19/2023

                                      -5-
Circulated 05/18/2023 12:44 PM