In re Of

279 A.3d 1257 (Table)

In the MATTER OF the ADOPTION OF I.R.B.

Appeal of: J.R.B., Father

In the Matter of the Adoption of T.J.B.

Appeal of: J.R.B., Father

No. 1460 WDA 2021

No. 1461 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: May 17, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J. :

J.R.B. ("Father") appeals nunc pro tunc from the decrees entered on October 15, 2021, which involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor daughters, T.J.B., born in August 2017, and I.R.B., born in May 2019 (collectively, "Children"). After review, we affirm the decrees.

We begin with an overview of the facts and procedural history. After receiving a referral with concerns about drug use, domestic violence, and substandard housing, Erie County Office of Children and Youth ("OCY") opened a case in August 2020, and began providing services to Father and Children's mother, S.B. ("Mother"). On October 15, 2020, Father took T.J.B. to the emergency room, where medical staff discovered that T.J.B. had three spiral fractures to her right tibia, a dislocated heel, and suspicious foot and ankle injuries. See N.T., 10/13/21, at Exhibit 5. Medical staff determined that the injuries were indicative of child abuse, and police began investigating the Children's mother, S.B. ("Mother"), as the alleged perpetrator.¹ See id.

Several weeks later, OCY learned that Father, who had been caring for Children, returned them to Mother's care because he had a warrant out for his arrest and did not believe Mother abused T.J.B. See id. On November 3, 2020, OCY obtained an emergency custody authorization to remove Children. After searching for Children, OCY located Children back with Father. When OCY attempted to remove Children pursuant to the emergency custody authorization, Father took one child from the arms of a caseworker and absconded with her. See id. Father's mother ultimately returned the child to OCY, and OCY placed Children in foster care. See id.

OCY then filed a petition to adjudicate Children dependent. See id. at Exhibit 4. Father stipulated to most of the allegations in the petition, and the juvenile court determined the agency proved the remainder. See id. at Exhibit 5, 6. In addition to Father's actions in returning Children to Mother and absconding during Children's removal, the court found that Father had "significant mental health issues as he admittedly defecated on [Mother's] bed on November 9, 2020[,] and threaten[ed] suicide when confronted with issues regarding [Children]." Id. at Exhibit 4; see also id. at Exhibit 5, 6. It also found Father had "significant anger management issues" based upon Father's aggressiveness and explosiveness towards OCY caseworkers. Id. at Exhibit 4; see also id. at Exhibit 5, 6. Additionally, Father was violent towards Mother in the presence of Children. See id. at Exhibit 4-6. Finally, Father did not have stable housing; initially refused to provide a urinalysis screen; and had a history of criminal convictions and current pending charges. See id. Based upon these areas of concern, on November 23, 2020, the court adjudicated Children dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1) of the Juvenile Act.

At the time of the adjudication and disposition of Children, the court permitted Father to visit with Children under supervision once per week and ordered Father to comply with specific goals. See id. at Exhibit 5, 6. Those goals included participating in a mental health assessment and following all recommendations; participating in urinalysis; obtaining a successful discharge from programs addressing parenting, anger management, and domestic violence; maintaining employment; obtaining and maintaining stable housing with working utilities; attending all medical appointments for Children; and meeting with OCY's caseworker at least once a month at Father's home. See id.

Father initially declined visits with Children but changed his mind and began having telephonic visits² in January 2021. See N.T., 10/13/21, at 7. He made some initial moderate progress, but his mental health and anger management deteriorated. On March 23, 2021, the juvenile court suspended visits due to Father's inappropriate comments to Children and Children's negative behaviors, which lasted for days following the calls. See id. Per the order of the juvenile court, visits could resume when Father engaged in mental health and parenting services and demonstrated an ability to control his emotional outbursts and an ability to understand the impact of his negative comments to Children. See N.T., 10/13/21, at Exhibit 3. However, this did not occur, and the juvenile court changed Children's permanency goal to adoption at the May 21, 2021 permanency review hearing. See Exhibit 5, 6.

On June 7, 2021, OCY filed a petition seeking to terminate Father's parental rights. OCY sought termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (b). The orphans' court appointed Steven George, Esquire, to represent Children.³ It also appointed Steven Srnka, Esquire, to represent Father.

The orphans' court conducted a hearing on the petition on October 13, 2021. The Agency called Father and its caseworker, Daniel Grochulski, as witnesses. It also introduced various exhibits, including orders related to Children's dependency matters, without objection. At the conclusion of testimony, the orphans' court announced its decision to grant OCY's petition pursuant to subsection 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (b). On October 15, 2021, the orphans' court entered the decree involuntarily terminating the parental rights of Father.⁴

After receiving permission to file an appeal nunc pro tunc ,⁵ Father filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The orphans' court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion addressing Father's claims.

Father sets forth two issues for our consideration.

1. 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), and (5) ?

2. 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) ?

Father's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

"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, we 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 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) (citation omitted).

"[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) (citations omitted). Instead, we may reverse for an abuse of discretion "only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Id . at 826. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple hearings. Interest of S.K.L.R. , 256 A.3d at 1123-24.

In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, the orphans' court must balance the parent's fundamental "right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control" of his or her child with the "child's essential needs for a parent's care, protection, and support." In re Adoption of C.M. , 255 A.3d at 358 (citation omitted). Termination of parental rights has "significant and permanent consequences for both the parent and child." In re Adoption of L.A.K. , 265 A.3d at 591. As such, the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving party to establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence, which is evidence that 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 Adoption of C.M. , 255 A.3d at 358 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Termination of parental rights is governed by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. Subsection (a) sets forth eleven enumerated grounds describing parental conduct warranting involuntary termination. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)-(11). In evaluating whether the petitioner proved grounds under subsection 2511(a), the orphans' court must focus on the parent's conduct and avoid using a "balancing or best interest approach." Interest of L.W. , 267 A.3d 517, 524 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2021). If the orphans' court determines the petitioner established grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the court then must assess the petition under subsection 2511(b), which focuses on the child's needs and welfare. In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

In the instant case, the orphans' court relied upon subsections 2511(a)(2) and (b),⁶ 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

...