In Re: W.M.S. Appeal of: S.A. ( 2016 )

J-S06031-16; J-S06032-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: W.M.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.A., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1295 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’
Court, at No(s): 4045
IN RE: T.L.S., JR., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.A., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1296 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’
Court, at No(s): 4044-2015
IN RE: T.L.S., JR., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.L.S., SR., NATURAL No. 1320 MDA 2015
FATHER
Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’
Court, at No(s): 4044
IN RE: W.M.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: T.L.S., SR., NATURAL No. 1308 MDA 2015
FATHER
Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’
Court, at No(s): 4045
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*FILED JANUARY 28, 2016
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S06031-16; J-S06032-16
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.
Appellants, S.A. (“Mother”) and T.L.S. (“Father”), appeal from the
orders entered July 2, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre
County, Orphans’ Court Division, involuntarily terminating the parental rights
of Mother and Father to W.M.S. (born December of 2011) and T.L.S., Jr.,
(born February of 2014) (collectively “the Children”), pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). In their Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Concise Statements of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Mother and Father
argue that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and the evidence
was insufficient for the trial court to terminate Mother and Father’s parental
rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a)(2), (a)(5) and/or (a)(8).1 Mother’s
Brief at 1; Father’s Brief at 5.
The trial court did not perform a Section 2511(b) analysis in its orders
terminating parental rights or in its opinions.
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 after determining that the parent's conduct warrants
termination of his or her parental rights must the court engage
in the second part of the analysis: determination of the needs
and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of
the child. Although a needs and welfare analysis is mandated by
the statute, it is distinct from and not relevant to a
determination of whether the parent's conduct justifies
termination of parental rights under the statute. One major
aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature
and status of the emotional bond between parent and child.
1
This Court has sua sponte consolidated Mother and Father’s appeals.
-2-
J-S06031-16; J-S06032-16
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 508 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citations
omitted).
Without the trial court’s Section 2511(b) analysis, we are constrained
to remand this matter to the trial court for an opinion addressing the
emotional bonds between Mother and the Children, and Father and the
Children, as well as the effect a termination of parental rights would have
upon the Children. The trial court shall conduct an analysis regarding this
issue as well as all other factors bearing upon the termination of Mother and
Father’s parental rights.
We remind the trial court that our Supreme Court recently stated,
“over the past fifteen years, a substantial shift has occurred in our society’s
approach to dependent children, requiring vigilance to the need to expedite
children’s placement in permanent, safe, stable, and loving homes.” In re
T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013). Despite the need for expeditious
handling of these cases, we are unable to proceed until the trial court effects
its duty.
Accordingly, we must remand this case and direct the trial court to file
supplemental opinions pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) containing the
requisite Section 2511(b) analysis no later than fourteen days from the
date of this decision.
Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.
-3-