In Re: Adoption of H.H., a minor ( 2014 )

J-A24007-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF H.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER : No. 1188 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 38 OCA 2013
IN RE: ADOPTION OF R.M.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.H., FATHER : No. 1189 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Domestic Relations at No(s): 39 OCA 2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., AND PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
appeals from the orders entered in the
Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated his
affirm.
In its opinion filed March 11, 2014, the trial court fully and correctly
set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore,
we have no reason to restate them. We add only that Father timely filed
notices of appeal, from the orders involuntarily terminating his parental
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A24007-14
rights, on April 9, 2014, along with concise statements of errors complained
of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Father raises the following issues for our review:
DID [MOTHER] FAIL TO EXHIBIT CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT [FATHER] HAD EVIDENCED A SETTLED
PURPOSE OF RELINQUISHING PARENTAL CLAIM TO HIS
CHILDREN?
A. DID THE COURT FAIL TO FOCUS ON THE ENTIRE
SITUATION EXISTING PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
TERMINATION PETITION, AND FAILED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE NUMEROUS EFFORTS [FATHER]
MADE TO ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP
AND FULFILL PARENTAL DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO
HIS CHILDREN WHICH WAS BLOCKED BY MOTHER?
B. DID THE COURT FAIL TO GIVE ANY WEIGHT TO
THE CONSISTENT CHILD SUPPORT THAT [FATHER]
SEPARATION, THE FACT THAT [FATHER] KEPT A LIFE
INSURANCE POLICY ON HIMSELF TO BENEFIT THE
CHILDREN, AND PAID THE PREMIUMS?
DID THE COURT FAIL TO ASSESS THE APPROPRIATENESS
POOR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER
AS A STRONG INDICATION THAT HE DOES NOT EXHIBIT
THE REQUISITE DEDICATION TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL
FATHERING RESPONSIBILITIES?
The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental
rights cases are as follows:
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating
parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the
decision of the trial court is supported by competent
evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law,
-2-
J-A24007-14
decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has
granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental
the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict.
We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the
decision is supported by competent evidence.
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of
fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses
and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the]
finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking
termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence
the existence of grounds for doing so.
The standard of clear and convincing evidence means
testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction,
without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.
We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis
are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the
ion, even though the record could support an
opposite result.
In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal
denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008) (internal citations omitted).
Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination
In re C.P., 901
security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and
welfare of the child. The court must also discern the nature and status of
the parent-child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of
Id. (internal citation omitted).
-3-
J-A24007-14
The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines
certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide
for their children. In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa.Super. 2001).
There is no simple or easy definition of parental
duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation
to the needs of a child. A child needs love,
protection, guidance, and support. These needs,
physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely
passive interest in the development of the child.
Thus, this court has held that the parental obligation
is a positive duty which requires affirmative
performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a
financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in
the child and a genuine effort to maintain
communication and association with the child.
Because a child needs more than a benefactor,
parental duty requires that a parent exert himself to
take and maintain a place of importance in the
Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively
with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every
problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship
A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve
the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable
firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of
maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental rights
are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or
while others provide the child
and emotional needs.
* * *
Where a non-custodial parent is facing termination of
-
-4-
J-A24007-14
neglect, including situations in which a custodial parent
has deliberately created obstacles and has by devious
means erected barriers intended to impede free
communication and regular association between the non-
required to perform the impossible, he must act
affirmatively to maintain his relationship with his child,
even in difficult circumstances. A parent has the duty to
exert himself, to take and maintain a place of importance
c constitutional right to the custody
permanent, healthy, safe environment.
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855-56 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582
Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the comprehensive opinions of the Honorable David J.
opinions discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. (See Trial
Court Opinion, filed March 11, 2014, at 5-9; Trial Court Opinion, filed May 6,
2014, at 1-2) (finding: Father has had no contact with Children for more
than three years and did not make reasonable attempts to see or contact
regarding Children after Protection From Abus
2012; Father took no concrete steps to modify custody order or establish
ties to Children; Father failed to comply with custody order directing Father
to complete psychiatric evaluation within sixty days, and did not complete
-5-
J-A24007-14
evaluation for more than one year after order; Father did not attend co-
parenting class as required by custody order for more than two years;
for custody modification are
attributable only to Father, and Father took no affirmative steps to overcome
obstacles for almost three years; Father has failed to perform parental
duties for period in excess of six months prior to filing of termination petition
and has evidenced settled purpose to relinquish parental rights by his
their father and have bonded with Stepfather; Children do not know or have
memories of Father; consid
ction 2511(a)(1)
and (b), and Stepfather shall have right to proceed with adoption of
Children).1
Orders affirmed.
1
as the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy does not satisfy his
requirements as a parent or undo his failure to perform parental duties. See
In re B.,N.M., supra; In re Shives, 525 A.2d 801 (Pa.Super. 1987)
(explaining it is not enough to remit child support payments as required by
of and bond with Children.
-6-
J-A24007-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/12/2014
-7-
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM
Circulated 09/05/2014 10:45 AM