Court Opinion

ID: 9366694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:08:10.002167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.386160
License: Public Domain

J-S39013-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INT. OF: J.M., A MINOR            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
 APPEAL OF: S.L.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
                                          :
                                          :
                                          :   No. 997 MDA 2022

               Appeal from the Decree Entered June 10, 2022
               In the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County
                    Orphans' Court at No(s): 22 OC 2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                     FILED: JANUARY 27, 2023

      This matter involves two competing petitions to adopt J.M. (“Child”),

one filed by Child’s maternal aunt (“Aunt”) and the other filed by Child’s foster

parents (“Foster Parents”). Although the orphans’ court found both petitioners

“have the desire and capacity to meet [Child’s] needs,” the court ultimately

concluded it was in Child’s best interests to be adopted by Foster Parents.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/9/22, at 6 (unpaginated). The court therefore

entered an order granting Foster Parents’ adoption petition and an order

denying Aunt’s adoption petition. Aunt appealed the latter order, primarily

arguing the orphans’ court abused its discretion by failing to give sufficient

weight to her biological connection to Child. We discern no such abuse of

discretion, and we therefore affirm.
J-S39013-22

      The orphans’ court summarized the facts leading up to the filing of the

adoption petitions, and our review indicates the summary is accurate. We

therefore borrow liberally from that summary. Child was born to K.H.

(“Mother”) and S.M. (“Father”) in November 2019. The Tioga County

Department of Human Resources (“Agency”) became involved with the family

in December 2019, and Child was placed with Foster Parents at that time.

Meanwhile, Aunt commenced the process to obtain placement of Child in her

home in Buffalo, New York, and her home was approved for placement in

October 2020.

      At the permanency review hearing in December 2020, Mother advised

the court she intended to relocate near Aunt’s home in New York and

requested Child be placed with Aunt. The court granted the request, and Child

was transitioned to the physical custody of Aunt in January 2021. Mother

relocated to New York, but returned to Pennsylvania just several weeks later.

Mother filed a motion seeking the return of Child to Foster Parents in

Pennsylvania. The court granted this motion on March 13, 2021, and Child

was returned to the physical custody of Foster Parents. She has remained in

Foster Parents’ care since that time. Aunt retained partial physical custody of

Child for one weekend every month.

      In May 2021, Mother and Father each signed a consent for adoption of

Child, and both of their parental rights to Child were subsequently terminated.

Foster Parents filed their petition to adopt Child on August 10, 2021, and

                                     -2-
J-S39013-22

Aunt’s petition seeking to do the same followed two days later. The Agency

filed a report of intermediary and consented to the adoption of Child by Foster

Parents. The orphans’ court held a two-day consolidated hearing on the

adoption petitions, and ultimately granted Foster Parents’ petition to adopt

Child and denied Aunt’s petition. Aunt filed a timely notice of appeal, and both

she and the orphans’ court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Aunt raises the

following issue for our consideration:

      Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in finding that it was
      in the best interests of the child to be adopted by a non-relative
      foster parent rather than her maternal aunt with whom she had a
      bond and ongoing involvement, and against the recommendation
      of the Guardian Ad Litem and Legal Interest Attorney?

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

      We review an orphans’ court decision regarding the adoption of a child

for an abuse of discretion. See In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super.

2016). In cases that could be deemed a “close call,” it is especially critical to

be mindful of the contours of that standard. The mere fact that this Court may

have reached a conclusion different from the one reached by the orphans’

court does not amount to an abuse of discretion. See id. Rather, an abuse of

discretion only exists if the orphans’ court misapplied the law, or the record

shows the orphans’ court’s judgment was manifestly unreasonable or the

product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. See id.

      As all parties agree, and the orphans’ court made clear, the paramount

concern of an adoption proceeding is the best interests of the child involved.

                                       -3-
J-S39013-22

See id. This requires the court to look at “all factors that bear on the child’s

physical, emotional, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being.” Id. at 153

(citation omitted). It also means the court “may examine a variety of

matters[,] including, but not limited to, any specific needs of the child, sibling

relationships, [and] the proposed adoptive family.” Orphans’ Court Opinion,

6/9/22, at 3 (unpaginated). See also In re Adoption of D.M.H., 682 A.2d

315, 319 (Pa. Super. 1996) (stating factors relevant to best interests standard

in adoption proceedings include parenting and marriage stability of proposed

adoptive family and sibling relationships).

      Here, in finding it was in the best interests of Child to allow Foster

Parents to adopt Child, the orphans’ court highlighted that Child deserves

permanency and has spent the “vast majority” of her young life with Foster

Parents. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/9/22, at 3 (unpaginated). The orphans’

court acknowledged the relationship Aunt has with Child, and the connection

Child has made with Aunt’s children, along with the ability Child has at times

to visit her older half-sibling living with Aunt’s and Mother’s sister. See id. at

4 (unpaginated). However, the court noted Child was clearly bonded to Foster

Parents, and called them “mom” and “dad.” See id. The court added Child has

also bonded with her younger biological sibling, who has already been adopted

by Foster Parents, as well as with Foster Parents’ older daughter. See id.

      The orphans’ court pointed out that Foster Parents are immediately

willing and able to finalize the adoption of Child, as all approvals have been

                                      -4-
J-S39013-22

completed. In contrast, the trial court noted, Aunt would still need additional

approval to adopt child by the state of New York, which would “result in

additional delay in permanency and prolong confusion for [Child], neither of

which are in her best interest.” Id. at 5 (unpaginated).

      The orphans’ court also credited and gave “substantial weight” to the

testimony of Dr. Denise Feger, who testified at the hearing as an expert on

attachment and bonding and who had conducted a bonding assessment on

behalf of Foster Parents. Id. The court stated:

            Dr. Feger testified that [Child] appears to have a secure
      attachment with [Foster Parents], that she is meeting her
      developmental expectations and responds appropriately during
      interactions. Further, [Child] recognizes [Foster Parents] as her
      primary caregivers and relies upon them for support.

             Dr. Feger noted that [Child] is at a critical age for forming
      attachments and separation from [Foster Parents] would be a
      significant loss, perhaps comparable to a death. A removal from
      [Foster Parents’] home would require clinical intervention to
      address the loss [Child] would experience and [to] support healthy
      attachment[s] in another home. This Court finds this evidence to
      be significant in evaluating the best interests of [Child] and finds
      it weighs heavily in favor of [Child’s] adoption by [Foster Parents].

Id. (paragraphs and paragraph indentations added).

      Aunt takes issue with the court’s reliance on Dr. Feger’s testimony

because, according to Aunt, the foster mother “went to significant lengths to

influence the bonding evaluation.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. However, Aunt’s

assertions essentially challenge the court’s credibility determinations and the

weight it chose to give to Dr. Feger’s testimony. Of course, the credibility and

weight to be assigned to that testimony was for the orphans’ court to decide

                                      -5-
J-S39013-22

as the fact-finder. See In re Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662, 670 (Pa.

Super. 2019).

      Aunt’s primary complaint with the orphans’ court decision is that it failed

to place sufficient weight on the fact that she is biologically related to Child

and Foster Parents are not. As the orphans’ court noted in rejecting this claim,

however, the existence of a blood relationship is a relevant factor when

evaluating an adoption petition, but it is not a controlling one. See Orphans’

Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 8/1/22, at 1 (citing In re Adoption of

D.M.H., 682 A.2d at 319). In fact, the orphans’ court explained, it is an abuse

of discretion for an orphans’ court to rely exclusively on the biological nature

of a relationship when considering an adoption petition, rather than relying on

the whole record to determine what is in the best interests of the child. See

Orphans’ Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 8/1/22, at 1 (citing In re K.D.,

144 A.3d at 152).

      The orphans’ court specifically confirmed that, here, it had considered

the biological relationship between Child and Aunt when making its decision.

See Orphans’ Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 8/1/22, at 1 (unpaginated).

At the same time, the court explained it had also considered the fact that Child

had a biological connection to her younger sibling, who has already been

adopted by Foster Parents and with whom Child would live if also adopted by

Foster Parents. See id. The court acknowledged Child’s half-sibling was in the

care of Aunt’s and Mother’s sister. However, the court found that, even if it

                                      -6-
J-S39013-22

were to grant Aunt’s adoption petition, Child’s opportunity to see her half-

sibling would be limited because the sister lives over two hours away from

Aunt. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/9/22, at 4 (unpaginated).

       Based on the above, it is clear the orphans’ court considered Child’s

biological connections as a relevant but not controlling factor. The court then

determined, based on the entire record and the multiple factors outlined

above, that the best interests of Child would be served by granting Foster

Parents’ adoption petition. Contrary to what Aunt suggests, the orphans’

court’s evaluation comported with our case law, see In re Adoption of

D.M.H., 682 A.2d at 319); In re K.D., 144 A.3d at 152, and did not represent

an abuse of discretion.

       Aunt also asserts the orphans’ court abused its discretion by failing to

follow the recommendations of the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and Legal

Interest Attorney (“LIA”), with both attorneys ultimately recommending the

court grant Aunt’s adoption petition.1 This claim fails.

       In the first place, Aunt does not meaningfully develop her claim or offer

any analysis to support her bald assertion. The claim is waived for that reason.

____________________________________________

1 The GAL testified at the hearing that he was “torn” on what the best interests
of Child were given “there is bonding between [Aunt and Child] and a bonding
between [Foster Parents and Child].” N.T., 4/22/22, at 131. In the opinion of
the GAL, “it could go either way.” Id. However, in the GAL’s subsequent
findings of fact and conclusions of law, the GAL recommended that Aunt’s
adoption petition be granted.

                                           -7-
J-S39013-22

See Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(stating that arguments that are not sufficiently developed are waived).

      Even if not waived, the claim would offer Aunt no basis for relief. Aunt

does not cite any case law in support of her claim, much less any case which

obligates an orphans’ court to follow the recommendations of either the GAL

or the LIA. In fact, as Foster Parents point out, this Court has found it is an

abuse of discretion for a court to solicit advice on rulings from a GAL and rely

too heavily on the GAL’s recommendations so as to give the improper

appearance that the GAL is doing the court’s job. See C.W. v. K.A.W., 774

A.2d 745, 750 (Pa. Super. 2001).

      Still, the orphans’ court made clear that just because it did not accept

the recommendations of the GAL and the LIA, that did not mean the court had

failed to fulfill its duty to consider the recommendations. See In re Adoption

of D.M.H., 682 A.2d at 322 (stating that the orphans’ court has the duty to

consider the opinions of the GAL while making its own determination of which

adoptive family would better serve a child’s best interests). To the contrary,

the court specifically reiterated it had considered the positions of both the GAL

and the LIA. See Orphans’ Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 8/1/22, at 2

(unpaginated). The court stressed that neither the GAL nor the LIA ever

argued Foster Parents were unfit or their home inappropriate for Child. The

court stated it then considered the positions of the GAL and the LIA in

conjunction with all of the other evidence and arguments, along with the

                                      -8-
J-S39013-22

applicable law, and made its determination that it was in the best interests of

Child to grant the adoption petition of Foster Parents. See id. at 3

(unpaginated). Again, we can discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’

court’s decision and for that reason, we affirm.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 01/27/2023

                                     -9-