In Re: Adoption of: M.L.M., minor, Appeal of: T.R.

J-S69029-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.L.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: T.R., NATURAL FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1009 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree June 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
O.A. 2 of 2017
BEFORE: BOWES, J., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2017
T.R. (“Father”) appeals from the decree dated June 8, 2017, and
entered on June 9, 2017, granting the petition filed by K.A.B. (“Mother”), to
involuntarily terminate his parental rights to M.L.M., born in October of 2009
(“Child”), his female child with Mother, pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511, so that Mother’s husband, J.A.B., (“Stepfather”) may adopt
Child. We vacate and remand.
The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history
of this appeal as follows.
. . . This case arises out of [Mother’s] Petition to
Involuntarily Terminate Parental Rights of the Birth Father, filed
on or about January 19, 2017. Said Petition was filed
simultaneously with a Petition for Adoption, filed on behalf of
[J.A.B.], Step-Father [sic] of [Child].
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S69029-17
Upon receipt [of] the aforesaid Petitions, a hearing was
scheduled for April 3, 2017. On or about April 5, 2017, counsel
for Natural Mother requested a continuance so as to perfect
service of notice of said hearing on [Father]. This [c]ourt
granted the request for continuance, and rescheduled the
hearing for June 8, 2017. On or about May 1, 2017, an Affidavit
of Personal Service was filed evidencing that on April 21, 2017,
at 10:23 A.M., [A.R.], [Father’s mother, (“Paternal
Grandmother”)], was personally served with the Petition to
Involuntarily Terminate Parental Rights of the Birth Father, as
well as the Order of Court under date of March 31, 2017,
scheduling the termination hearing. Said service [on Father]
was effectuated. . . .
On or about June 8, 2017, at the time set for a hearing on
[the termination petition], [Natural Mother] appeared along with
her counsel Gail E. Suhr, Esquire. Lynn M. Patterson, Esquire,
appeared on behalf of the proposed adoptee, [Child]. [Natural
Father] appeared as a Self–Represented Litigant. After
consideration of the contents of Natural Mother’s Petition. . .,
and [the] hearing thereon, [the trial court] issued a Decree
Terminating Parental Rights on or about June 8, 2017, which
extinguished the parental rights and duties of [Natural Father]
relative to [Child].
Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/17, at 1-2.1
On July 3, 2017, Father filed, in the trial court, a petition for in forma
pauperis status and court-appointed counsel, alleging that he was indigent,
and attaching supporting documentation of his financial status. On that
same date, the trial court granted Father’s petition, and appointed Attorney
Nicole Thurner-Kievit to represent him on appeal. On July 7, 2017, Father,
____________________________________________
1
On March 29, 2017, the trial court appointed Attorney Lynn M. Patterson to
represent Child with regard to the termination petition. Attorney Patterson
appeared on behalf of Child at the termination hearing, and filed a brief on
behalf of Child in this appeal.
-2-
J-S69029-17
through Attorney Kievit, timely filed a notice of appeal and concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i) and (b) with regard to the termination decree.
In his brief on appeal, Father raises the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and
an error of law in proceeding with the hearing to terminate
Appellant’s parental rights to the Child without Appellant having
the benefit of being represented by counsel, thereby violating his
due process rights?
2. Whether the trial court committed an error of law in finding
that the moving party met her burden of proof pursuant 23
Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a) and, based on that finding, erred in
terminating Appellant’s parental rights to the Child?
3. Whether the trial court erred when it failed to make findings
of fact as to the nature and strength of the bond and relationship
of the Child with the parents or guardian?
4. Whether the trial court failed to find that the Guardian Ad
Litem failed to fully and faithfully investigate the nature and
strength of the bond between Appellant and the Child as well as
the developmental, physical, and emotional needs of the Child?
5. Whether the trial court erred when it failed to conduct an
analysis of its findings pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(b)
regarding the best interests of the Child, taking into primary
consideration the developmental, physical, and emotional needs
of the Child?
Father’s Brief, at 8-9.
Termination of parental rights is governed by the Adoption Act, 23
Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938. In reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating
parental rights, we adhere to the following standard:
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion
standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a
-3-
J-S69029-17
petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency
cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to
accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the
trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T.,
608 Pa. 9, [19], 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual
findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if
the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.
Id.; R.I.S., [614 Pa. 275, 284,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011)
(plurality opinion)]. As has been often stated, an abuse of
discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court
might have reached a different conclusion. Id.; see also
Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 613 Pa. 371[,
455], 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, [575 Pa.
647, 654-655], 838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a
decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon
demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
As we discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for
applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these
cases. We observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are
not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold
record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during
the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other
hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., [608 Pa. at
28-30], 9 A.3d at 1190. Therefore, even where the facts could
support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency
and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to
second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility
determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the trial
judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the
record and the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an
error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of
Atencio, [539 Pa. 161, 165,] 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994).
In re Adoption of S.P., 616 Pa. 309, 325-326, 47 A.3d 817, 826-827
(2012).
The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental
rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009).
-4-
J-S69029-17
Moreover, we have explained, “[t]he standard of clear and convincing
evidence is defined as testimony 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.” Id. (quoting In
re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
This Court may affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the
termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of section
2511(a). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en
banc). We will consider section 2511(a)(1) and (b). Section 2511 provides,
in relevant part, as follows:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(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:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at
least six months immediately preceding the filing of the
petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or
failed to perform parental duties.
***
(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.
-5-
J-S69029-17
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.
First, Father argues that the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion and error of law in proceeding with the termination hearing when
he did not have the benefit of representation by counsel, in violation of 23
Pa.C.S. § 2313(a.1). See Father’s Brief, at 12. Father claims that he was
not afforded the opportunity to petition for court-appointed counsel, in
violation of his due process rights. Id. Father requests a new termination
hearing with counsel present to represent his interests. Id.
The appointment of counsel in involuntary termination proceedings is
governed by Section 2313(a.1) of the Act, which provides as follows.
(a.1) Parent.--The court shall appoint counsel for a parent
whose rights are subject to termination in an involuntary
termination proceeding if, upon petition of the parent, the court
determines that the parent is unable to pay for counsel or if
payment would result in substantial financial hardship.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a.1).
In In re Adoption of C.A.S., 166 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2017), this
Court recently stated as follows:
Parents in involuntary termination of parental rights proceedings
have a constitutional right to counsel. In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 4
(Pa. Super. 2014) (citing In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa.
Super. 2009)). This Court has held that trial courts need not
appoint counsel for indigent parents automatically. In re A.R.,
125 A.3d 420, 424 (Pa. Super. 2015). However, courts must
advise parents of their right to petition for counsel. X.J., 105
A.3d at 4 (citing In re Adoption of R.I., 455 Pa. 29, 312 A.2d
601, 603 (Pa. 1973)). A parent waives his or her right to
counsel if he or she is provided with clear instructions on how to
petition for counsel, but fails to take action. See A.R., 125 A.3d
-6-
J-S69029-17
at 424 (citing In re Adoption of J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa.
Super. 2005)).
In re Adoption of C.A.S., 166 A.3d at 356.
Here, the trial court stated the following:
It is clear that while court appointed counsel is available to
indigent parents, said parent must request same by petitioning
the [c]ourt. In re Adoption of J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775 (Pa.Super.
2005) (holding that the [c]ourt did not abuse its discretion in
failing to appoint counsel where the natural father of the child
was incarcerated, did not petition the trial court for court
appointed counsel, nor did he attempt to communicate with the
pertinent court administration office to determine the procedure
to obtain court appointed counsel). Additionally, even upon
request of the parent, the appointment of counsel is not
guaranteed. In re: A.R., 125 A.3d 420 (Pa.Super. 2015).
In the instant matter, Appellant did not petition this
[c]ourt for court-appointed counsel. Further, on the record, this
[c]ourt placed Appellant under oath and colloquied him relative
to his right to counsel. See Transcript, Involuntary Termination
of Parental Rights Proceedings, In Re: M.L.M., June 8, 2017, 3-
4. At that time and after having been advised by this [c]ourt
that he had a right to counsel, Appellant waived said right. Id.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/25/17, at 3-4.
The petition for the termination of Father’s parental rights does not
include a notice to Father regarding his right to counsel, nor is there any
such notice to Father separately filed in the record. The notes of testimony
from the termination hearing reflect the following exchange occurred
between the court and Father:
THE COURT: Are you under the influence of any drugs or alcohol
today, sir?
[FATHER]: No.
-7-
J-S69029-17
THE COURT: Do you understand this is the time that’s been
scheduled for a hearing on a petition to involuntarily terminate
your parental rights to [Child]?
[FATHER]: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand you have the right to counsel
today?
[FATHER]: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you desiring to proceed without counsel?
[FATHER]: Simple man. Can’t afford one.
THE COURT: Are you desiring to proceed without counsel?
[FATHER]: Yes.
THE COURT: You’re waiving your right to counsel?
[FATHER]: Yes.
N.T., 6/8/17, at 3-4.
Later in the testimony, during the questioning of Father by Mother’s
counsel, the following exchange occurred between Mother’s counsel and
Father:
Q [Father], is it true that if you truly wanted to see your
daughter, you could have hired an attorney to show up today;
isn’t that true?
A I guess I could have if I had the money to do so.
Q But you didn't, did you?
A I’m on unemployment right now. I don’t have that money.
Q So for the last 18 months, you’ve had no contact; isn’t that
true?
-8-
J-S69029-17
A Yeah, I guess it’s been about 18 months. If not – I’ve had no
contact with my daughter, correct. I have tried to get in contact
with [Mother] and did not.
Q So you could bring the whole family here today. You obviously
have transportation to come to a court proceeding; isn’t that
true?
A Correct.
N.T., 6/8/17, at 14-15.
In In re J.N.F., the notice attached to the termination petition
provided as follows:
You have a right to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer;
however, it is not necessary to have a lawyer at this hearing. A
court-appointed attorney will be assigned to represent you if you
cannot afford legal help. The Family/Orphans’ Court
Administrator will be present at this hearing. She will give you
an application for request of a court-appointed attorney. This
attorney will represent you at your [termination hearing]. If you
have any questions, contact [the Family/Orphans’ Court
Administrator].
In re J.N.F., 887 A.2d at 780.
This Court found that the father had failed to exercise his right to
counsel, reasoning as follows:
The above language was sufficient to communicate to Father the
following: (1) if he could not afford an attorney, one would be
provided to him upon his request; and (2) he was obliged to
communicate with the Family/Orphans’ Court Administrator to
obtain a court-appointed attorney or to obtain the information
necessary regarding the procedure for obtaining a court-
appointed attorney. Father did not request a court-appointed
attorney, and he did not attempt to communicated with the
Family/Orphans’ Court Administrator to determine the procedure
to obtain a court-appointed attorney. As such, we are satisfied
that Father did not petition the trial court for a court-appointed
attorney. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a.1) (indigent parent must
-9-
J-S69029-17
petition trial court for counsel in termination proceedings).
Consequently, we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by not appointing counsel for Father. As such,
Father’s argument fails.
Id.
In In re A.R., the petition for the termination of the father’s parental
rights contained the following notice:
You are warned that even if you fail to appear at the scheduled
hearing, the hearing will go on without you and your rights to
your children may be ended by the court without your being
present. You have a right to be represented at the hearing by a
lawyer. You should take this paper to your lawyer at once. If
you do not have a lawyer or cannot afford one, go to or
telephone the office set forth below to find out where you can
get legal help.
Lawyer Referral Service
The Allegheny County Bar Association
Koppers Building, Suite 1100
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-5555
Id., 125 A.3d at 422-423.
In In re A.R., this Court found that the father had proper notice of the
hearing and his right to counsel, and clear notice regarding how to obtain a
lawyer if he could not afford one. Thus, we rejected the father’s allegation
that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to advise him of his right
to counsel and proceeding with the termination hearing, despite his request
for a continuance to allow him time to obtain counsel. Id. This Court
likewise rejected the father’s contention that the trial court had previously
deemed him indigent, and, therefore, should have appointed counsel to
- 10 -
J-S69029-17
represent him in the termination proceedings, in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2313(a.1). Citing In re J.N.F., we found that the notice clearly instructed
the father to contact the Lawyer Referral Service if he did not have an
attorney or could not afford counsel, but he had failed to do so, to his peril.
In re A.R., 125 A.3d at 424.
Recently, in In re Adoption of C.A.S., supra, this Court found that
the father in the termination proceedings had been served with at least five
documents providing notice to him of how to seek court-appointed counsel
and/or legal assistance. The letter from the petitioners’ counsel, and the
additional notice of the termination petition and hearing, instructed the
father that he should request counsel by completing the enclosed in forma
pauperis statement, and delivering it to the Clerk of Orphans’ Court and
Register of Wills for Cambria County. The notice of hearing for the
termination petition, the notice required by Act 101 of 2010, and the
acknowledgment of notice of voluntary agreement law instructed the father
that he should obtain counsel and/or legal assistance by contacting Laurel
Legal Services. The panel of this Court stated:
Of the five sets of instructions that [the father] received
from the [petitioners’] counsel, three of them instructed [the
father] that he could request counsel and/or legal assistance
from Laurel Legal Services. Because it appears that [the father]
may have been misled by these conflicting and inaccurate
instructions, we cannot find that he waived his right to counsel.
Accordingly, we conclude that the orphans’ court erred by
failing to continue the termination proceedings so that [the
father] could petition for court-appointed counsel. We therefore
- 11 -
J-S69029-17
vacate the order terminating [the father’s] parental rights, and
we remand [the] matter to the trial court for a new termination
hearing, prior to which the court shall determine whether [the
father] continues to qualify for court-appointed counsel, and
shall appoint counsel for [the father], if necessary.
In re Adoption of C.A.S., 166 A.3d at 357.
Upon our careful review of the record in the present appeal, we find
that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Father had
waived his right to appointed counsel in this matter. Unlike the situation in
In re Adoption of J.N.F., and In re A.R., there is nothing in the record,
including the on-record colloquy by the trial court, to suggest that Father
received notice of his right to petition for court-appointed counsel based on
his purported inability to afford counsel. The lack of any such notice to
Father is akin to the father’s receipt of the confusing notice in In re
Adoption of C.A.S. that necessitated this Court’s vacation of the
termination order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Based on the foregoing, we vacate the decree terminating Father’s
parental rights. We remand the matter to the trial court for a new
termination hearing, prior to which the court shall determine whether Father
qualifies for court-appointed counsel, and shall appoint counsel for Father, if
necessary.
Decree vacated and remanded for further proceedings, with
instructions that, prior to the new termination hearing, the court shall
- 12 -
J-S69029-17
determine whether Father qualifies for court-appointed counsel, and shall
appoint counsel for Father, if necessary. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/18/2017
- 13 -