In re S.C.

1

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.C., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.C., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: G.C., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: G.A.C., A MINOR APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER

Nos. 2373 EDA 2022, 2374 EDA 2022, 2375 EDA 2022, 2376 EDA 2022

No. J-A03011-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

April 5, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s) CP-51-DP-0003393-2017, CP-51-DP-0000848-2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 18, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000600-2019, CP-51-AP-0000450-2022

BEFORE: KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

J.C. ("Mother") appeals from the August 18, 2022 decrees involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her sons, S.C., a/k/a S.M.C. (born in December 2017), and G.C., a/k/a G.A.C. (born in August 2021) (collectively, "Children").^[1] Mother also appeals from the August 18, 2022 orders changing Children's permanency goals from reunification to adoption. In addition, Mother's appointed counsel, James W. Martin, Esquire ("Counsel"), has filed a petition to withdraw and accompanying brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009).

After careful review, we grant Counsel's petition to withdraw, affirm the termination decrees, and dismiss the appeals from the goal change orders as moot.

The following relevant facts and procedural history are undisputed.^[2] The Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") first became involved with this family in 2008 and then again in 2013 and 2014, with respect to her four children, none of whom are subjects of these appeals. DHS Petition, 8/5/2021, at ¶ a, e, m. On March 17, 2017, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights to three of those children.^[3] Id. at ¶ ff.

Thereafter, in December 2017, DHS received a general protective services ("GPS") report alleging that Mother gave birth to S.C. Id. at ¶ gg. The report further alleged that Mother did not appear prepared to care for S.C., and she had a history of using phencyclidine (PCP) and marijuana. Id. On December 27, 2017, DHS obtained an order of protective custody ("OPC") for S.C. and placed him in the kinship care of his maternal great-cousin, J.S., where he currently remains.

At a shelter care hearing on December 28, 2017, the trial court lifted the OPC, ordered legal custody to DHS, and ordered the temporary commitment to stand. Subsequently, on January 10, 2018, after a hearing, the trial court adjudicated S.C. dependent. On April 4, 2018, the trial court issued an order finding that aggravated circumstances exist as to Mother due to the termination of her parental rights to other children.

Nevertheless, the court maintained a permanency plan of reunification. In furtherance of this goal, Mother was required to comply with the following objectives: (1) comply with mental health services, sign releases, and comply with all recommendations; (2) attend visitation; (3) report for random drug screens; (4) attend family school; (5) maintain stable employment; (6) obtain appropriate housing; (7) complete a parenting capacity evaluation and comply with the recommendations; and (8) attend Achieving Reunification Center ("ARC") for anger management, housing, and employment services. DHS petition, 8/5/2021, at ¶ pp; DHS petition, 7/25/2022, at ¶ q; Notes of testimony, 8/18/22 at 26-27.

In August 2021, DHS received another GPS report alleging that Mother gave birth to G.C.; she was homeless; she did not have infant supplies; and S.C. and one other child were in placement. On August 16, 2021, DHS obtained an OPC for G.C., and placed him in the kinship care of a family friend, S.M., where he currently remains.

At a shelter care hearing on August 18, 2021, the trial court lifted the OPC, ordered legal custody to DHS, and ordered the temporary commitment to stand. On September 21, 2021, after a hearing, the trial court adjudicated G.C. dependent. On the same date, the trial court issued an order finding that aggravated circumstances exist as to Mother due to the termination of her parental rights to other children. The trial court established a permanency plan of reunification and provided Mother with largely the same objectives.

The record does not contain significant detail, but provides that over the course of the dependencies, Mother failed to consistently attend mental health services. In February 2022, JFK Behavioral Health discharged Mother due to lack of attendance. Notes of testimony, 8/18/22 at 20. Mother has also failed to consistently visit with and care for Children. DHS petition, 8/5/2021, ¶ nnn; DHS petition, 7/25/2022 ¶ u; Notes of testimony, 8/18/22 at 38-40, 44-47. Mother also failed to obtain suitable housing and maintain stable employment. 8/5/2021, ¶ nnn; DHS petition, 7/25/2022 ¶ u. Furthermore, as best we can discern from the record, Mother did not complete her ARC objective. DHS petition, 8/5/2021, ¶ uu.

On August 5, 2021, DHS filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to S.C. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), along with a petition to change S.C.'s permanency goal from reunification to adoption.^[4] Thereafter, on July 25, 2022, DHS filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to G.C., then almost a year old, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), along with a petition to change G.C.'s permanency goal from reunification to adoption.

The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 18, 2022, at which time Children were ages four and one, respectively. Children were represented by Faryl Bernstein, Esquire, as guardian ad litem ("GAL") and legal counsel.^[5] DHS presented the testimony of Michaela Finley, outpatient therapist at JFK Behavioral Health, and Jacqueline Tillman, Community Umbrella Agency ("CUA") case manager. Mother was represented by Counsel and did not appear. Counsel stated on the record to the trial court that Mother texted him immediately prior to the hearing that "her health is more important than this hearing." Notes of testimony, 8/18/22 at 11-12.

By decrees dated and entered August 18, 2022, the trial court involuntarily terminated Mother's parental rights to Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). In addition, by orders dated and entered the same date, the court changed Children's permanency goals to adoption. Mother, through Counsel, filed timely notices of appeal and concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b), which this Court consolidated sua sponte. The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 25, 2022.

Counsel filed his petition to withdraw and Anders brief in this Court on December 1, 2022, which we address first. This Court has explained:

When counsel files an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits without first addressing counsel's request to withdraw. [T]his Court [has] extended the Anders principles to appeals involving the termination of parental rights. . . .

In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 3 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citations omitted).

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) (citation omitted).

In Santiago, our Supreme Court held:

[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed counsel's petition to withdraw, counsel 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.

Santiago, 978 A.3d at 361.

Additionally, this Court has stated that,

[P]ursuant to Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748 (Pa.Super. 2005) and its progeny, [c]ounsel also must provide a copy of the Anders brief to his client[, along with] a letter that advises the client of his right to: (1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[']s attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.

In re X.J., 105 A.3d at 4 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

With respect to the third requirement of Anders, that counsel inform the appellant of his or her rights in light of counsel's withdrawal, this Court has held counsel must "attach to their petition to withdraw a copy of the letter sent to their client advising him or her of their rights." Millisock, 873 A.2d at 752. Finally "[o]nce counsel has satisfied the above requirements, it is then this Court's duty to conduct its own review of the court's proceedings and render an independent judgment as to whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous." In re X.J., 105...