Court Opinion

ID: 9911282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 19:09:22.691014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:05.446667
License: Public Domain

J-A29039-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  OF: L.'A. E. W., A MINOR                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: L.R.W., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 752 WDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Decree Entered May 30, 2023
                   In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
                    Orphans’ Court at No. 8C in Adoption 2023

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                            FILED: DECEMBER 19, 2023

       L.R.W. (Father) appeals from the decree terminating his parental rights

to L.’A. E. W. (Child). In addition, Father’s counsel (Counsel) has filed an

Anders1 brief and petition for leave to withdraw from representation. For the

following reasons, we affirm the decree and grant Counsel’s petition to

withdraw.

                                      Case History

       Child was born in October 2010. On or about March 4, 2022, the Erie

County Office of Children and Youth (Agency) sought emergency custody of

Child and her half-siblings, who were living with A.L.R. (Mother).2 The children

____________________________________________

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

2 Mother has voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to Child.
J-A29039-23

were removed from Mother’s home. On March 17, 2022, the court held a

dependency hearing. Pertinently, Father stipulated he

      had not been in a caregiving role for [Child]; …

      had not ensured [C]hild’s educational needs were being met.
      During the 2020/2021 school year, [C]hild had missed 17 days of
      school, and;

      [Father]’s whereabouts were unknown, and Agency attempts to
      make contact with him were unsuccessful. It was unknown how
      much contact he had with [C]hild.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 7/25/23, at 1-2 (citing Adjudication and Disposition

Order, 3/25/22).

      The juvenile court adjudicated Child dependent. Accordingly, the court

ordered Father to:

      1. Obtain and/or maintain safe and stable housing that is
         appropriate for [Child];

      2. Obtain and/or maintain employment or another appropriate
         source of income and provide proof to the Agency;

      3. Participate in the Family Reunification Program and
         demonstrate the skills learned to ensure [Child]’s basic needs
         are met, and;

      4. Maintain contact with the Agency and sign all releases upon
         request.

Id. at 2.

      The orphans’ court explained:

            The first Permanency Review Hearing was held on June 24,
      2022. [Father] was present and represented by [Counsel]. The
      Court Summary was provided to all parties before the hearing and
      admitted into the record without objection. The record reflects
      that [Child] was placed in the kinship home of her maternal aunt

                                      -2-
J-A29039-23

     with one of her siblings. The other siblings were placed in a
     nearby kinship [home] with another maternal aunt. [Child] was
     reportedly doing well in the kinship home, and there were no
     further truancy concerns.

           [Father] was reported to have done well during the review
     period. Specifically, the Agency set forth that [Father] had
     attended a mental health assessment in which no further care was
     recommended; participated in an intake appointment with Family
     Reunification; signed all releases; and provided proof of his
     income through Social Security. [Father]’s housing, although
     stable, remained a barrier to reunification as it was one bedroom
     and did not provide space for a twelve-year-old child. The [c]ourt
     found that during the first review period, [Father] had been
     substantially compliant with his treatment plan and had made
     substantial progress toward alleviating the circumstances that
     necessitated [Child]’s placement. [Child]’s permanency goal was
     reunification concurrent with adoption….

          The second Permanency Review Hearing was held on
     December 7, 2022. [Father] did not attend this hearing.
     [Counsel] was present on his behalf. Again, the Court Summary
     was provided to all parties in advance and made part of the record
     without objection.

           The Summary reflects that [Child] continued doing well in
     the kinship home during the review period. However, [Father]’s
     compliance with his treatment plan had gone significantly
     downhill. [Father] was reported to have gone to Florida to assist
     family during the review period without notifying his case worker[,
     and] more importantly, [C]hild. The Court Summary reflects that
     through Family Reunification, [Father] and [Child] had started
     with virtual visits and moved to in-person visits in the community.
     [Father]’s unexplained absence caused [Child] to become
     “uncomfortable with having [visits] and unsure of wanting to
     continue to build a relationship with him.” [Child] reported feeling
     abandoned by [Father].

            Additionally, it was reported [Father] had no contact with
     his caseworker or Family Reunification worker since September
     20, 2022, and had failed to attend scheduled meetings in October
     and December. Therefore, the [c]ourt found [Father] had no
     compliance with his treatment plan and made no progress in
     alleviating the circumstances that led to the original placement.

                                    -3-
J-A29039-23

     For those reasons, the [c]ourt granted the Agency’s request to
     change [Child]’s permanency goal to Adoption concurrent with
     Permanent Legal Custodianship (“PLC”). Additionally, the [c]ourt
     ordered the Agency to no longer offer services to [Father].

           On March 8, 2023, the Agency filed the petition to terminate
     [Father]’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511
     (a)(1),(2),(5)(8), and (b). A [hearing] was scheduled for April 11,
     2023; however, due to a [conflict], [Counsel] requested a
     continuance on behalf of [Father], which the [c]ourt granted.

           The [termination hearing] was held on May 30, 2023.
     [Counsel] represented [Father]; however, he did not appear for
     the proceeding. [Counsel] told the [c]ourt the last contact she
     had contact with [Father] was after the first Permanency Review
     Hearing in June of 2022. Attorney Kevin Jennings (“Attorney
     Jennings”) represented the Agency, and Attorney Steven George
     appeared as legal counsel for [Child]. … The [orphans’ c]ourt
     heard testimony from Agency caseworker, Kayla Stewart (“Ms.
     Stewart”).

                                      ***

           At the close of the [termination hearing], the [orphans’
     c]ourt sought the position of Attorney George. Attorney George,
     acting as legal counsel for [Child,] stated he was in agreement
     with the Agency and believed the termination of [Father]’s
     parental rights was in [Child]’s best interest. On behalf of [Child,]
     [Attorney George] stated

            I would advocate that the [c]ourt … terminate rights.
            [Child] had some conflicted feelings regarding
            adoption, but those entirely related to [M]other and the
            relationship she had with [M]other. Those all sort of
            became moot once [Mother] voluntarily relinquished
            and the [c]ourt terminated [Mother’s parental rights].
            [Child] loves her [placement with her maternal aunt]
            and is doing well, so I would advocate that the [c]ourt
            terminate rights here.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 7/25/23, at 2-6 (record citations and footnote

omitted).

                                      -4-
J-A29039-23

      The orphans’ court found the Agency demonstrated clear and convincing

evidence to support termination. By decree entered May 30, 2023, the court

terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1),

(2), (5), (8) and (b). Counsel subsequently filed a timely notice appeal on

Father’s behalf, and a statement of intent to file an Anders brief.

      On September 5, 2023, Counsel filed a petition to withdraw and Anders

brief in this Court. We first address the Anders issue. See Commonwealth

v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (“‘When faced with a

purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the

underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.’”) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997)); see

also In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending Anders

provisions to appeals from involuntary termination decrees).

      To withdraw pursuant to Anders, counsel must:

      1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after
      making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has
      determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy
      of the [Anders] brief to the [appellant]; and 3) advise the
      [appellant] that he or she has the right to retain private counsel
      or raise additional arguments that the [appellant] deems worthy
      of the court’s attention.

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en

banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa. Super.

2009)). As to counsel’s duty to inform an appellant of his rights in light of

counsel’s proposed withdrawal, this Court has held that counsel must “attach

                                     -5-
J-A29039-23

to their petition to withdraw a copy of the letter sent to their client advising

him or her of their rights.” Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752

(Pa. Super. 2005).

      Additionally, an 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.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).

      Here, Counsel states that she conducted a thorough and conscientious

examination of the record, and concludes that Father’s appeal is frivolous.

Counsel also avers that she mailed Father a letter explaining his rights, and

has attached a copy of the letter to the petition to withdraw and Anders brief.

Counsel’s letter complies with the law, as it informs Father he may retain new

counsel or proceed pro se and raise any additional claims he deems worthy of

attention.   In addition, Counsel’s Anders brief summarizes the facts and

procedural history, includes issues which could arguably support Father’s

appeal, and Counsel’s assessment of why the issues are frivolous, with

citations to the record and relevant legal authority. As Counsel has complied

with Anders, we review the issues presented in the Anders brief. We also

“conduct an independent review of the record to discern if there are any

additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v.

                                     -6-
J-A29039-23

Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015); see also Commonwealth

v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (describing our

duty as a “simple review of the record to ascertain if there appears ... to be

arguably meritorious issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or

misstated”).

       Counsel identifies the following issues:

       A. WHETHER THE ORPHANS’ COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF
       LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT CONCLUDED
       THAT TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS SUPPORTED BY
       CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 23 Pa.C.S.A.
       § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5), & (8)?

       B. WHETHER THE ORPHANS’ COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF
       LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT CONCLUDED
       THAT TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS SUPPORTED BY
       CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 23 Pa.C.S.A.
       § 2511(b)?

Anders Brief at 3 (unnumbered).3

       Our standard of review is settled. “In cases concerning the involuntary

termination of parental rights, appellate review is limited to a determination

of whether the decree of the termination court is supported by competent

evidence.” In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). When

applying this standard, appellate courts must accept the trial court’s findings

of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record.

Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021).         “Where the trial

____________________________________________

3 We have assigned numbers to the corresponding pages of the Anders Brief

for future reference.

                                           -7-
J-A29039-23

court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may

not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or

abuse of discretion.”   In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa.

2021). “[A]n abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing

court might have reached a different conclusion” or “the facts could support

an opposite result.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012).

This Court may reverse for an abuse of discretion “only upon demonstration

of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id. at

826. We defer to the trial courts, which observe the parties first-hand and

often in multiple hearings. S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d at 1123-24.

      Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act, which provides for a bifurcated analysis.    First, the orphans’

court “must focus on the parent’s conduct” relative to the “eleven enumerated

grounds” for termination set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)-(11).

Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 830 (Pa. Super. 2022). If the court finds

grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it must then assesses the

evidence relative to the child’s needs and welfare under Section 2511(b),

“giving primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional

needs and welfare of the child.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

This Court need only agree with the orphans’ court as to “any one subsection

of [Section] 2511(a), in addition to [Section] 2511(b), in order to affirm the

termination of parental rights.” Id.

                                       -8-
J-A29039-23

                    Section 2511(a) - Grounds for Termination

       In his first issue, Father argues the Agency “failed to establish grounds

for termination of his parental rights to [Child] by clear and convincing

evidence as it pertains to Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) & (8).”4 Anders Brief

at 8. As we need only agree with the orphans’ court as to one subsection of

Section 2511(a), we address subsection (1), which provides for termination

of parental rights when

       [t]he parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six
       months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has
       evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a
       child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) (emphasis added).

       Pertinently, “the moving party must produce clear and convincing

evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of

the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental

claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties.”         In re

Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).                The

Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained:

       Section 2511 does not require that the parent demonstrate both
       a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child and
       refusal or failure to perform parental duties. Accordingly, parental
       rights may be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) if the

____________________________________________

4 The Agency has not filed a brief and advised it “would join in the well-
reasoned opinion of the Trial Court and ask that the Order be affirmed.”
Letter, 10/16/23.

                                           -9-
J-A29039-23

      parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of relinquishing
      parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental duties.

In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998) (underline in

original, citation omitted).

      Father claims “the record fails to show [Father] displayed conduct

continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing

of the   termination petition   [which]      evidenced a settled purpose     of

relinquishing parental claim[, or that Father] refused or failed to perform

parental duties.” Anders Brief at 9. We disagree.

      The Agency filed the termination petition on March 8, 2023. The Agency

caseworker, Ms. Stewart, testified that in June 2022, Father had “made some

progress, but not enough to care for” Child. N.T., 5/30/23, at 6 (emphasis

added). Father’s housing was not appropriate, as he only had one bedroom.

Id. at 7.     In addition, Father “had just begun [a program for] family

reunification.” Id. Ms. Stewart further explained that after the June 2022

review hearing, Father

      started some visits with [Child, because Father] and [Child] did
      not have a working relationship, so they were being reintroduced
      … to each other very slowly. At some point in the fall, [Father]
      left. He did not notify the Agency or [the family reunification
      worker]. He was gone for about a month without any contact.
      After we were able to make contact with him, he reported he went
      to Florida to help care for his sister and his nephews.

Id. at 7-8.

      Ms. Stewart testified that Father returned to Pennsylvania in October

2022, but failed to resume his treatment plan or his relationship with Child.

                                    - 10 -
J-A29039-23

Id. at 8. Father did not attend the December 2022 review hearing. Id. Ms.

Stewart stated that Father was “not in any different position with [C]hild than

he was at the time [Child] was removed [from care].” Id. at 10. According

to Ms. Stewart, Child did not look to Father to meet her needs and did not

have a “father-daughter” relationship with him. Id. at 12.

      Father did not appear at the termination hearing.      After Ms. Stewart

testified, the orphans’ court asked Father’s counsel whether she had “anything

to present?” Id. at 13. Father’s counsel replied:

      [COUNSEL]:         No, Your Honor. I’ve had no contact from my
      client since – not the last hearing, but the one before that. Even
      after[,] as Ms. Stewart just testified [about advising] him to reach
      out to me, I didn’t receive any information from him.

      THE COURT:        Still nothing?

      [COUNSEL]:        Still nothing.

Id.

      Next, Child’s legal counsel stated that he “would advocate that the

[orphans’ c]ourt … terminate rights.” Id. at 14.

      On this record, the orphans’ court concluded:

            I’m in agreement [with termination] based on the history of
      this case, [and] the lack of [F]ather’s complete participation.
      Although he came around for a little bit, he then kind of fell off,
      and it’s very clear that he can’t … parent this child.

Id.

      The orphans’ court subsequently explained:

            Early on, [Father] demonstrated a willingness to reunify
      with [Child] and began working toward that goal. However,

                                     - 11 -
J-A29039-23

      [Father] was unable to remain consistent. At some point in the
      fall of 2022, [Father] left the state for a month without notifying
      anyone of his absence, including [Child]. In fact, [Father] just
      stopped contact altogether for approximately one month.
      [Father]’s conduct negatively affected [Child], and she resisted
      further contact with him.

            From September 2022 until the Permanency Review Hearing
      on December 7, 2022, [Father] had no contact with [the
      caseworker,] Ms. Stewart[,] or his Family Reunification worker[,]
      and essentially did nothing to demonstrate that he had alleviated
      the circumstances that led to [Child]’s placement. These actions
      and his failure to appear for his December Permanency Review
      Hearing or the [termination hearing] demonstrated … that
      [Father] was unable or unwilling to work his treatment plan.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 7/25/23, at 8.

      Our review reveals no abuse of discretion or error by the orphans’ court

in finding that Father failed to perform parental duties for at least six months

prior to the filing the termination petition in March 2023.      Thus, Father’s

challenge to termination under Section 2511(a)(1) is without merit.

                    Section 2511(b) – Needs and Welfare

      In his second issue, Father claims the orphans’ court erred in

terminating his parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

      When the court finds grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it

must separately consider a child’s needs and welfare. The court “shall give

primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs

and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). “Notably, courts should

consider   the   matter   from   the   child’s   perspective,   placing   [their]

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare above concerns for

                                     - 12 -
J-A29039-23

the parent.”   In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1105 (Pa. 2023).

Courts must also “discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with

utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.”

Id. (citation omitted). However,

      the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the
      circumstances of the particular case. Importantly, the question is
      not merely whether a bond exists, but whether termination would
      destroy this existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.

In re A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 444–45 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted).

      Our Supreme Court recently affirmed that “the parental bond is but one

part of the overall subsection (b) analysis.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113. Courts

must also consider factors such as: (1) the child’s need for permanency and

length of time in foster care; (2) whether the child is in a pre-adoptive home

and bonded with foster parents; and (3) whether the foster home meets the

child’s needs. Id. It bears repeating that “intangibles such as love, comfort,

security, and stability” are relevant to a child's needs and welfare. See id. at

1096, 1098, 1106, 1109, 1111 (citations omitted).

      Father claims “the record fails to support that it is in the best interest of

[C]hild to terminate the rights of [Father].” Anders Brief at 14. Father argues

      he was substantially compliant with the treatment plan ordered by
      the juvenile court when an unplanned and untimely family
      member fell ill in Florida that necessitated his departure. Upon
      [Father’s] return to Erie County, [Father] immediately attempted
      to resume services and visitation with [C]hild. [Father] argues
      that throughout the history of this case, he was working towards
      reunification with [C]hild and attempting compliance with his
      treatment plan. Further, [Father] argues that a bond did exist

                                      - 13 -
J-A29039-23

      with [C]hild and that bond was getting stronger as visitation
      increased and participation in family reunification persisted.

Id. at 14-15. This argument is not persuasive as it is belied by the record.

      The Agency caseworker, Ms. Stewart, testified that in 2022, Father and

Child “did not have a working relationship, so they were being reintroduced …

very slowly.”   N.T., 5/30/23, at 7.    When Father left Pennsylvania without

telling Child or the Agency, Child “felt abandoned.” Id. at 8. Ms. Stewart

stated it “was a struggle to even attempt to get [Child] to reengage with

[Father] because she was that upset and hurt that he just left.” Id. According

to Ms. Stewart, Father had last seen Child in the summer of 2022. Id. at 9.

      In addition, Ms. Stewart described Child as doing “great” in her

placement with her maternal aunt, who meets all of Child’s needs. Id. Ms.

Stewart stated:

      [Child is] attending school regularly. She’s in therapy weekly.
      She’s thriving. She appears to be a very happy and appropriate
      12-year-old.

Id.

      Ms. Stewart opined that termination of Father’s parental rights would be

in Child’s best interest and would not have a negative impact on Child. Id. at

10. Further, Child’s legal counsel indicated that termination was in Child’s

best interest, and expressed that Child “loves” her aunt and “is doing well.”

Id. at 14.

      Consistent with the foregoing testimony, the orphans’ court stated, “I

do find that it is in [Child’s] best interest” that Father’s “rights be terminated.”

                                       - 14 -
J-A29039-23

N.T., 5/30/23, at 15; see also Orphans’ Court Opinion, 7/25/23, at 9

(orphans’ court stating, “the testimony established that termination of

[Father’s] parental rights is in [Child’s] best interest.”). Our review reveals

no abuse of discretion or error by the orphans’ court in terminating Father’s

parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b).

      Finally, our independent review of the record reveals no non-frivolous

issues for challenging the orphans’ court’s termination of Father’s parental

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

withdraw.

      Decree affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

DATE: 12/19/2023

                                    - 15 -