In the Interest of: L.D.T., a Minor

J-A28030-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.D.T., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: W.T., FATHER AND :
J.M., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 1878 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered May 16, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Civil Division at No(s): 14 OCA 2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017
W.T. (“Father”) and J.M. (“Mother”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal
from the May 16, 2017 order involuntarily terminating their parental rights to
L.D.T., a female, born in November 2015, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(1), (2), (8), and (b). We affirm.
In the statement of questions involved in their brief, Appellants state
the following issues: (1) “Whether Children and Youth fail[ed] to present clear
and convincing evidence that termination of [F]ather[’s] and [M]other’s
parental rights served the needs and interest of . . . L.D.T.?”; and (2) “Did the
trial court err in terminating [F]ather[’s] and [M]other’s parental rights
without clear and convincing evidence that termination of [M]other’s parental
rights served the needs and interests of . . . L.D.T.?” Appellants’ Brief, at 7.
J-A28030-17
Appellants, however, did not raise these issues in their concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
Therefore, we are constrained to find Appellants’ issues on appeal
waived. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011)
(holding that “any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived; the courts lack the authority to countenance deviations from
the Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc exceptions
or selective enforcement; appellants and their counsel are responsible for
complying with the Rule’s requirements; [and] Rule 1925 violations may be
raised by the appellate court sua sponte”). We affirm the order involuntarily
terminating Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to L.D.T.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/2017
-2-