In re C.L.

IN THE INTEREST OF C.L., A MINOR APPEAL OF: B.L., FATHER

No. 918 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

October 28, 2021

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered March 17, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Orphans' Court at No: 55 OCA 2020

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS P.J.E.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

Appellant B.L. ("Father"), files this appeal from the order entered March 17, 2021, in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, granting the petition of the Monroe County Children and Youth Services ("MCCYS" or "the Agency") to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights to his minor, male child, C.L., born in October 2018 ("Child"), pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).^[1] After review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the procedural and factual history as follows:

This case begins the day after [Child]'s birth [in October 2018]. On October [], 2018, [the] Agency received a referral because Mother and [Child] tested positive for Amphetamines and Marijuana. [Child] was placed in [E]mergency [P]rotective [C]ustody on October 15, 2018 and held to be dependent on October 25, 2018; being subsequently placed in the home with Mother. Mother was offered JusticeWorks services to assist in receiving] drug treatment services. Mother, however, was not compliant and so the services were terminated. In the Spring of 2019[, ] Mother began to comply with services, allowing access to the home, and was working on her goals. Consequently, dependency of [Child] was terminated on April 12, 2019.^[2]

However, on October 2, 2019, [the] Agency received a new referral that Mother was arrested with [Child] in the car, where she was found to be in possession of a large quantity of Methamphetamines and Heroin and was charged with a DUI and Reckless Endangerment. . . . The police placed [Child] with [his godmother, M.C.] ("Godmother"). After being bailed out of prison, Mother went to Godmother's home and took [Child]. [Child]'s whereabouts were unknown until October 21, 2019[, ] when law enforcement found [Child] in the vehicle with Father who was driving around purportedly committing crimes. Emergency Protective Custody was then granted by [the court]. . . . On October 23, 2019[, ] a Shelter Care Hearing was held . . . with protective custody being continued. . . . On November 8, 2019[, ] a Dependency Adjudication Hearing was held and [Child] was found to be dependent in need of the care and supervision of the [c]ourt.^[3]

Trial Court Opinion ("T.C.O."), 5/14/21, at 1-2 (citations to record omitted).

Throughout the next year, the court conducted regular permanency review hearings, finding that both Mother and Father achieved minimal compliance with the permanency plan and minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated placement. See Permanency Review Order, 9/21/20; see also Recommendation-Permanency Review, 3/5/20. As such, the court maintained Child's commitment and placement.^[4] Notably, on September 21, 2020, the court changed Child's permanent placement goal to adoption. See Permanency Review Order, 9/21/20; see also Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 3/9/21, at 45.^[5]

Thereafter, on November 19, 2020, the Agency filed a petition for the termination of parental rights. The court eventually held a hearing on March 9, 2021. Mother was present and represented by counsel. While not present, Father was also represented by counsel.^[6] Child was represented by a guardian ad litem.^[7] The Agency presented the testimony of employees, Michele Haydt, ^[8]Supervisor, Permanency Services Unit, and Cassandra Gehr, current caseworker. Additionally, Mother testified on her own behalf.

By order dated March 12, 2021, and entered March 17, 2021, the court terminated Mother's and Father's parental rights 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).^[9] Thereafter, on April 13, 2021, Father, through counsel, filed a timely notice of appeal, as well as a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).

On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review: "1) Did the [c]ourt err when it terminated the Parental Rights of Biological Father due [sic] solely based upon his incarceration?" Father's Brief at 7.^[10] In matters involving involuntary termination of parental rights, our standard of review is as follows:

The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts "to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record." In re Adoption of S.P., [616 Pa. 309, 325, 47 A.3d 817, 826 (2012)]. "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. "[A] decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Id. The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. Id. at 827. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re R.J.T., [608 Pa. 9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)].

In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 628, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013). "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. & J.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). "[I]f 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) (citation omitted).

The termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, and requires a bifurcated analysis of the grounds for termination followed by the needs and welfare of the child.

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) (citations omitted). We have defined clear and convincing evidence as that which 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." In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998)).

In the case sub judice, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). We have long held that, in order to affirm a termination of parental rights, we need only agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d at 384. Here, we analyze the court's termination decree pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2) and (b), which provide as follows:

(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:

. . .

(2) The 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.

. . .

(b) Other considerations.--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 rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), and (b).

With regard to termination of parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2), we have indicated:

In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), the following three elements must be met: (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being; and (3) the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied.

In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (P...