Adoption of: O.J.B., Appeal of: N.B. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • J-S11029-20
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION           :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    OF: O.J.B.                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: N.B.                          :
    :
    :
    :
    :    No. 1464 WDA 2019
    Appeal from the Decree Entered August 22, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
    65 in Adoption 2019
    IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION           :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    OF: T.S.B.                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: N.B.                          :
    :
    :
    :
    :    No. 1465 WDA 2019
    Appeal from the Order Dated August 22, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
    65A in Adoption 2019
    BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
    MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                              FILED APRIL 29, 2020
    N.B. (Father) appeals from the decrees involuntarily terminating his
    parental rights to his daughters, O.J.B., born in June 2017, and T.S.B., born
    in April 2016 (collectively, Children). Additionally, Father’s counsel (Counsel),
    seeks to withdraw from representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 
    978 A.2d 349
    , 361 (Pa.
    J-S11029-20
    2009). Upon review, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the
    termination of Father’s parental rights.
    Children were placed in the custody of Erie County Office of Children and
    Youth (the Agency) on August 7, 2018, due to conditions associated with the
    homelessness of Father and A.B. (Mother). N.T., 8/22/19, at 4. Also, the
    Agency learned that Children were injured as a result of domestic violence
    between Father and Mother, including non-specified bruising to O.J.B. and an
    eye injury to T.S.B.
    Id. at 4,
    25. As a result of Children’s injuries, Father was
    charged with crimes related to child endangerment, which were pending at
    the time of the underlying proceeding. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/2/19, at
    6 n. 3.
    Children were adjudicated dependent on August 27, 2018. The Agency
    established permanency goals of reunification and required Father and Mother
    to comply with the following family service plan (FSP) objectives: complete
    mental health services, which included anger management and domestic
    violence counseling; complete drug and alcohol services; participate in
    random urine drug screens; maintain gainful employment; maintain safe and
    stable housing; and participate in a parenting program that included hands-
    on education during supervised visits with Children.
    Id. at 5-6.
    Permanency review hearings occurred on November 14, 2018 and May
    13, 2019. The juvenile court found that Father did not comply with any of his
    -2-
    J-S11029-20
    FSP objectives during either of the review periods.          The court changed
    Children’s permanency goal to adoption on May 13, 2019.
    On July 3, 2019, the Agency filed petitions for the involuntary
    termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (b).         A hearing occurred on August 22, 2019,
    during which the Agency presented the testimony of its caseworker, Melina
    Harden. Father and Mother testified on their own behalf. During the hearing,
    Children, then two and three years old, were represented by guardian ad litem
    Christine Konzel, Esquire, who cross-examined all of the witnesses and argued
    on the record and in open court that it was in Children’s best interests for the
    parental rights of Father and Mother to be terminated.1 See N.T., 8/22/19,
    at 53.
    ____________________________________________
    1 Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a), a child who is the subject of a contested
    involuntary termination proceeding has a statutory right to counsel who
    discerns and advocates for his or her legal interests, which our Supreme Court
    has defined as the child’s preferred outcome. See In re T.S., 
    192 A.3d 1080
    (Pa. 2018) (citing In re Adoption of L.B.M., 
    161 A.3d 172
    (Pa.
    2017)). Further, the T.S. Court held, “if the preferred outcome of a child is
    incapable of ascertainment because the child is very young and pre-verbal,
    there can be no conflict between the child’s legal interests and his or her best
    interests; as such, the mandate of Section 2313(a) of the Adoption Act that
    counsel be appointed ‘to represent the child,’ 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a), is
    satisfied where the court has appointed an attorney-guardian ad litem who
    represents the child’s best interests during such proceedings.” 
    T.S., 192 A.3d at 1092-1093
    .
    -3-
    J-S11029-20
    By decrees dated August 22, 2019, and entered August 27, 2019, the
    orphans’ court involuntarily terminated Father’s and Mother’s parental rights
    pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (b). On September 23,
    2019, Father timely filed notices of appeal, which this Court consolidated sua
    sponte.2 That same day, Father’s court-appointed counsel filed a statement
    of intent to file a brief pursuant to Anders v. California.3 See In re J.T.,
    
    983 A.2d 771
    , 774 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that decision of counsel to
    follow Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) procedure in a termination of parental rights case
    was proper). The orphans’ court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on October 2,
    2019.
    ____________________________________________
    2   Mother did not file notices of appeal.
    3   Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4) provides:
    (c) Remand.
    ...
    (4) In a criminal case, counsel may file of record and serve on
    the judge a statement of intent to file an Anders/McClendon
    brief in lieu of filing a Statement. If, upon review of the
    Anders/McClendon brief, the appellate court believes that there
    are arguably meritorious issues for review, those issues will not
    be waived; instead, the appellate court may remand for the
    filing of a Statement, a supplemental opinion pursuant to Rule
    1925(a), or both. Upon remand, the trial court may, but is not
    required to, replace appellant's counsel.
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4).
    -4-
    J-S11029-20
    On December 23, 2019, Counsel filed a petition with this Court
    requesting to withdraw from representation, and submitted a brief pursuant
    to Anders and Santiago.       We begin by reviewing Counsel’s request to
    withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 
    874 A.2d 638
    , 639 (Pa. Super.
    2005) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review
    the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to
    withdraw.”) (quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 
    700 A.2d 1301
    , 1303 (Pa.
    Super. 1997)).
    This Court “extended the Anders principles to appeals involving the
    termination of parental rights.” In re X.J., 
    105 A.3d 1
    , 3 (Pa. Super. 2014).
    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) (citing Commonwealth v. Lilley, 
    978 A.2d 995
    , 997 (Pa. Super.
    2009)). 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 that counsel must “attach to their petition to withdraw a copy of the
    letter sent to their client advising him or her of their rights.” Commonwealth
    v. Millisock, 
    873 A.2d 748
    , 752 (Pa. Super. 2005).
    -5-
    J-S11029-20
    Additionally, an   Anders brief must comply with            the   following
    substantive requirements:
    (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.2d at 361
    .
    Instantly, Counsel filed a petition to withdraw certifying that he reviewed
    the case and determined that Father’s appeal was frivolous. Counsel also filed
    a brief that includes a summary of the history and facts of the case, the issues
    raised by Father, the facts that arguably support the appeal, and Counsel’s
    assessment of why the appeal is frivolous with citations to relevant legal
    authority. Finally, Counsel attached to his petition a letter he sent to Father
    pursuant to 
    Millisock, supra
    .        Therefore, Counsel complied with the
    requirements of Anders and Santiago.
    We must next “conduct a review of the record to ascertain if on its face,
    there are non-frivolous issues that counsel, intentionally or not, missed or
    misstated.” Commonwealth v. Yorgey, 
    188 A.3d 1190
    , 1197 (Pa. Super.
    2018) (en banc).
    Counsel’s Anders brief raises the following two issues for our review:
    -6-
    J-S11029-20
    I.   DID THE ORPHANS’ COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF
    DISCRETION OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
    AGENCY    ESTABLISHED    SUFFICIENT    GROUNDS    FOR
    TERMINATION UNDER 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511?
    II.  DID THE ORPHANS’ COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF
    DISCRETION OR ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT
    TERMINATION OF [FATHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS IN THE
    CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS UNDER SECTION 2511(b)?
    Anders Brief at 7.
    At the outset, we recognize:
    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. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
    courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
    or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse
    of   discretion    only   upon     demonstration      of    manifest
    unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
    court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
    the record would support a different result. We have previously
    emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
    observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
    In re T.S.M., 
    71 A.3d 251
    , 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted).
    Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the
    Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated
    analysis.
    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
    -7-
    J-S11029-20
    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 need only agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of
    Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), in order to affirm. See In re
    B.L.W., 
    843 A.2d 380
    , 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). In this case, we
    conclude that the certified record supports the decrees pursuant to Section
    2511(a)(2) and (b), which provides:
    (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).
    -8-
    J-S11029-20
    This Court has explained that the moving party must produce clear and
    convincing evidence with respect to the following elements of Section
    2511(a)(2): (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal;
    (2) such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal 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. See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 
    825 A.2d 1266
    , 1272 (Pa. Super. 2003).
    Pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2), parents are required to make diligent
    efforts   towards   the    reasonably   prompt   assumption   of   full   parental
    responsibilities.   In re A.L.D. 
    797 A.2d 326
    , 340 (Pa. Super. 2002).           A
    parent’s vow to cooperate, after a long period of uncooperativeness regarding
    the necessity or availability of services, may properly be rejected as untimely
    or disingenuous.
    Id. Further, the
    grounds for termination under Section
    2511(a)(2), due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied, are not
    limited to affirmative misconduct; to the contrary, those grounds may include
    acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties.
    Id. at 337.
    With respect to Section 2511(b), this Court has stated, “[i]ntangibles
    such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into
    the needs and welfare of the child.” In re C.M.S., 
    884 A.2d 1284
    , 1287 (Pa.
    Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Further, the trial court “must also discern
    the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the
    -9-
    J-S11029-20
    effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.”
    Id. (citation omitted).
    However, “[i]n cases where there is no evidence of any bond between the
    parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. The extent of
    any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily depends on the circumstances of the
    particular case.”     In re K.Z.S., 
    946 A.2d 753
    , 762-763 (Pa. Super. 2008)
    (citation omitted).
    Here, the orphans’ court explained:
    [I]n support of its order terminating Father’s parental rights, the
    court finds that[,] by his own admission[,] Father: (1) [s]uffers
    from untreated mental illness; (2) is essentially homeless (he
    occasionally stays with his mother); (3) is unemployed and not
    actively seeking employment; and, accordingly, (4) has failed to
    establish and maintain a lifestyle that would permit him to provide
    long-term care for Children. The court further finds that based on
    the credible testimony of the Agency caseworker, Ms. Harden,
    unrebutted by Father, Father failed to comply with required
    services both before and after his periods of incarceration in late
    2018, and early 2019. Father failed to attend any mandated urine
    drug screens, which he understood were a necessary first step to
    obtaining visitation with Children. He has a history of substance
    abuse dating back to 2004, and has current drug-related charges
    pending, yet he refused recommended drug and alcohol
    treatment. To the extent Father asserts he was hindered in
    complying with the permanency plan by lack of transportation, the
    court finds his excuse wholly lacking in merit. Ms. Harden testified
    that Father repeatedly missed meetings, appointments, and urine
    drug screens without advance notice. Were [Father] serious about
    obtaining the Agency’s help in meeting his responsibilities under
    the permanency plan, he could and should have contacted the
    Agency to address his difficulties.
    The court does not doubt that Father loves Children and desires
    their return; . . . Unfortunately, no evidence was presented to
    support a conclusion that the current conditions and causes of
    Father’s parental incapacity will be remedied in the foreseeable
    future. . . .
    - 10 -
    J-S11029-20
    Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/2/19, at 9-10.
    Our review supports the court’s findings. The Agency caseworker, Ms.
    Harden, testified that Father and Mother arrived late for Children’s
    adjudication hearing. N.T., 8/22/19, at 6. Ms. Harden testified that Father
    and Mother entered the courthouse after the hearing concluded and as she
    was leaving; however, she and her supervisor had an opportunity to speak
    with them.
    Id. at 6-7.
    Ms. Harden testified:
    Q. And what was discussed at that time with the parents?
    A. We had addressed with them that they were going to be offered
    the court-ordered treatment plan, mental health services, drug
    and alcohol and so on. They were going to need to remain in
    contact with me, because I was going to have to set them up for
    urines. . . . I gave them my contact information at that time, and
    we had just again, reiterated multiple times, the biggest thing was
    to remain in touch, to go to [the lab] for urines so they could have
    [supervised] visits [with Children].
    Id. at 7.
    Ms. Harden testified that during the first permanency review period, she
    attempted to meet with Father and Mother on more than one occasion to
    discuss their court-ordered treatment plan, but they did not keep their
    appointments.
    Id. at 9-10.
    Ms. Harden testified that Father and Mother never
    inquired about transportation or requested that she provide them with bus
    passes.
    Id. at 10.
    In addition, the parents did not provide Ms. Harden with
    their home address.
    Id. During a
    telephone call with Father on October 4,
    2018, in an attempt to schedule an appointment, Ms. Harden stated, “He was
    - 11 -
    J-S11029-20
    extremely agitated. It was very hard to keep the dialogue going with him,
    and I did have to end that phone call due to him being so agitated.”
    Id. Ms. Harden
    testified that she finally met with Father on December 20,
    2018, when he was incarcerated.
    Id. at 14.
    Ms. Harden explained that at an
    unspecified time after the first permanency review hearing, Father was
    incarcerated on criminal charges involving possession of drug paraphernalia
    and weapons, and the criminal case was pending at the time of the underlying
    proceeding.
    Id. at 8,
    14. Ms. Harden testified that during her conversation
    with Father in prison, he “was completely in denial about the reasons why
    [C]hildren were removed. He placed all the blame for the circumstances on
    [M]other, [and] took no responsibility for the domestic violence they were
    engaging in.”
    Id. at 15.
    Ms. Harden further testified that Father was released from prison at an
    unspecified time, but was re-incarcerated on February 10, 2019, through April
    12, 2019, due to criminal charges involving a physical altercation with Mother.
    Id. at 16.
       Upon his release from this incarceration, Ms. Harden stated,
    “[Father] did come to the Agency to visit prior to the permanency review
    [hearing] in May of [2019].”
    Id. at 17.
    Ms. Harden reiterated the permanency
    plan requirements to Father, and testified that he understood what he needed
    to do to reunify with Children.
    Id. However, Father
    did nothing to remedy
    the conditions which led to Children’s placement.
    Id. at 17-18.
    - 12 -
    J-S11029-20
    Specifically, because Father did not comply with drug urinalysis testing,
    Father did not have supervised visitation with Children from the time of their
    placement in August of 2018.
    Id. at 8-9,
    18. Ms. Harden testified that Father
    tried to see Children at their kinship care home on multiple occasions, “but
    the kinship family did not allow him to see them.”
    Id. at 26.
    She explained
    that approximately one month before the termination hearing, Father went to
    the kinship home, which resulted in the police being called, a 302 petition 4
    being filed, and Father being admitted to the hospital for 10 days.
    Id. at 26-
    27.
    Father testified, “the reason why I was 302’d was because I actually got
    naked to show my sign of faith, and to show that I, like, you know, have faith
    in God. And I didn’t see anything like they were trying to say. I believe that
    I was showing my faith to God, that I believe that what I was being shown
    was his plan. And since then, I still continue being led through people and
    different signs of metaphoric communication through people.”
    Id. at 34.
    Father testified that following a drug and alcohol assessment, it was
    ____________________________________________
    4 Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. § 7302, provides:
    “Emergency examination may be undertaken at a treatment facility upon the
    certification of a physician stating the need for such examination; or upon a
    warrant issued by the county administrator authorizing such examination; or
    without a warrant upon application by a physician or other authorized person
    who has personally observed conduct showing the need for such examination.”
    50 P.S. § 7302(a) (Involuntary emergency examination and treatment
    authorized by the physician--not to exceed one hundred twenty hours)
    (amended October 24, 2018, effective April 22, 2019).
    - 13 -
    J-S11029-20
    recommended that he “do inpatient.”
    Id. at 33.
    Father explained, “My reason
    why I didn’t [enter inpatient drug and alcohol treatment] is because . . . since
    I was released the last time from prison, I’ve sought out a spiritual
    enlightenment in God, and seen miraculous things, not hallucinations from
    drugs.”
    Id. at 34.
    Father testified that he was not treating for mental health
    illness because “I just turned it back over to God, . . . and I’ve been just going
    through this spiritual journey.”
    Id. at 35,
    44.
    With respect to whether he has safe and stable housing, Father testified,
    “Right now, I’m not doing so well with that, because I’ve been following a
    spiritual quest, a journey, because I believe it will bring my kids back to me.”
    Id. at 35-36.
    On cross-examination by the guardian ad litem, Father stated
    that he does not have permanent housing, but “I stay with my mom here and
    there.”
    Id. at 50.
    Moreover, Father acknowledged “I’m not prepared . . . at
    this time to actually take my kids back, anything like that. . . .”
    Id. In sum,
    the evidence demonstrates that Father’s repeated and
    continued incapacity has caused Children to be without essential parental
    care, control or subsistence necessary for their physical or mental well-being.
    We discern no abuse of discretion by the court in concluding that the causes
    of Father’s incapacity cannot or will not be remedied, and thus we do not
    disturb the court’s conclusion that the Agency satisfied its evidentiary burden
    pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2).
    - 14 -
    J-S11029-20
    We next review the orphans’ court’s determination pursuant to Section
    2511(b). This Court has emphasized:
    While a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child is a major
    aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is
    nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the
    court when determining what is in the best interest of the child.
    [I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can
    equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should
    also consider the intangibles, such as the love, comfort,
    security, and stability the child might have with the foster
    parent. Additionally, this Court stated that the trial court
    should consider the importance of continuity of
    relationships and whether any existing parent-child bond
    can be severed without detrimental effects on the child.
    In re Adoption of C.D.R., 
    111 A.3d 1212
    , 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting
    In re N.A.M., 
    33 A.3d 95
    , 103 (Pa. Super. 2011)). In addition, our Supreme
    Court has stated that, “[c]ommon sense dictates that courts considering
    termination must also consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive
    home and whether they have a bond with their foster parents.” In re 
    T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268
    .    Moreover, the Court directed that in weighing the bond
    considerations pursuant to Section 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking
    clock of childhood ever in mind.”
    Id. at 269.
    The T.S.M. Court observed,
    “[c]hildren are young for a scant number of years, and we have an obligation
    to see to their healthy development quickly. When courts fail . . . the result,
    all too often, is catastrophically maladjusted children.”
    Id. Here, the
    orphans’ court concluded:
    [P]rimarily due to the young age of Children at the time of
    separation, and the lapse of over a year since they’ve had any
    - 15 -
    J-S11029-20
    contact with the parents, the court finds that it is unlikely any
    bond between Father and Children persists. Ms. Harden testified
    that Children do not ask for the parents, and actively seek and
    receive parental nurturing from the adoptive resource family. . . .
    Children are placed in a kinship home that provides for their
    developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare, and
    they are doing well there. . . .
    Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/2/19, at 11.      Again, the record supports the
    court’s findings.
    As there was no evidence of a parent-child bond between Father and
    Children, it was reasonable for the court to infer that no bond exists. See In
    re 
    K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 762-763
    . Ms. Harden testified that Children last saw
    Father approximately one year prior, in August 2018, when they were one and
    two years old, and they “don’t ask about [Father], or speak about him either.”
    N.T., 8/22/19, at 18, 25.    She testified that Children are placed in a pre-
    adoptive kinship home with their paternal aunt and uncle, whom they consider
    “to be like their parents.”
    Id. at 19-20.
    Ms. Harden stated that “Children go
    to [their kinship parents] for comfort, [and to] have their needs met. They
    are just doing extremely well in that home.”
    Id. at 20.
    As such, Ms. Harden
    opined that termination of Father’s rights would not have a detrimental effect
    on Children.
    Id. at 18.
      On this record, the orphans’ court did not err in
    concluding that termination of Father’s parental rights was consistent with
    Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare pursuant
    to Section 2511(b).
    - 16 -
    J-S11029-20
    In conclusion, our independent review of the certified record reveals no
    preserved non-frivolous issue that would arguably support this appeal.
    Therefore, we grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw from representation, and
    affirm the decrees terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23
    Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
    Counsel’s petition to withdraw granted. Decrees affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 4/29/2020
    - 17 -