In Re: N.N.R., Appeal of: H.R.

J-S52043-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: N.N.R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: H.R., MOTHER : No. 1210 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Decree April 7, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
-9081-37
IN RE: N.W.R. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: H.R., MOTHER : No. 1211 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Decree April 7, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
-9082-37
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., AND FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated her
draw.
In its opinion, 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.
_____________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S52043-14
As a preliminary matter, appellate counsel seeks to withdraw her
representation pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 602 Pa.
159, 978 A.2d 349 (2009). Anders and Santiago require counsel to: 1)
petition the Court for leave to withdraw, certifying that after a thorough
review of the record, counsel has concluded the issues to be raised are
wholly frivolous; 2) file a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support the appeal; and 3) furnish a copy of the brief to the
appellant and advise him of his right to obtain new counsel or file a pro se
brief to raise any additional points the appellant deems worthy of review.
Santiago, supra at 173-79, 978 A.2d at 358-61. Substantial compliance
with these requirements is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934
A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa.Super. 2007).
requirements have been met, this Court must then make an independent
evaluation of the record to determine whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly
Commonwealth v. Palm, 903 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa.Super.
2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Townsend, 693 A.2d 980, 982
(Pa.Super. 1997)).
In Santiago, supra, our Supreme Court addressed the briefing
requirements where court-appointed appellate counsel seeks to withdraw
representation:
-2-
J-S52043-14
Neither Anders nor McClendon[1]
brief provide an argument of any sort, let alone the type of
argument that counsel develops in a merits brief. To
repeat, what the brief must provide under Anders are
references to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal.
* * *
Under Anders, the right to counsel is vindicated by
arguably supports the appeal.
Santiago, supra at 176, 177, 978 A.2d at 359, 360. Thus, the Court held:
[I]n the Anders brief that accompanies court-appointed
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
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.
Id. at 178-79, 978 A.2d at 361.
Instantly, counsel filed a petition to withdraw. The petition states
counsel thoroughly reviewed the record and determined the appeal is wholly
also supplied Mother with a copy
right to retain new counsel or to proceed pro se to raise any additional
See Letter to
1
Commonwealth v. McClendon, 495 Pa. 467, 434 A.2d 1185 (1981).
-3-
J-S52043-14
Mother, dated June 13, 2014, attached to Petition for Leave to Withdraw as
Counsel.) In the Anders brief, counsel provides a summary of the facts and
Counsel further states the reasons for his conclusion that the appeal is
wholly frivolous. Therefore, counsel has substantially complied with the
requirements of Anders and Santiago.
As Mother has filed neither a pro se brief nor a brief with privately
retained counsel, we review this appeal based on the issues raised in the
Anders brief:
WITHDRAW HIS APPEARANCE BECAUSE THE APPEAL IS
WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS?
WAS [MOTHER] UNFAIRLY PREJUDICED BY THE
ADMISSION, OVER OBJECTION, OF HEARSAY TESTIMONY
ABOUT HER EFFORTS TO OBTAIN TREATMENT AND
HOUSING?
(Anders Brief at 3).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James M.
hearsay issue merits no relief. The trial
court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
hearsay question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed May 2, 2014, at
10-13) (finding: (2) Mother has history of substance abuse, mental health
problems, and criminal behavior that caused repeated incarcerations; Mother
-4-
J-S52043-14
has not demonstrated ability to live life independent of illegal substances;
Mother failed to meet permanency goals for reunification with Children such
as getting sober, st
needs, including physical safety; at time of evidentiary hearing, Children had
been in care of Children and Youth Social Servi
approximately thirty-nine months; during this time, Mother entered four (4)
treatment programs but completed only one program and continued to
abuse substances; Mother has not demonstrated ability to refrain from drug
use to permit trial court to find credible her testimony that she is now sober
and will remain that way; Children have bonded to foster parents, who are
their paternal aunt and her boyfriend; representative of Agency testified
Children look to foster parents as their own parents, and go to foster parents
for their needs; Children also turn to foster parents for love and comfort;
N.N.R. expressed wish to stay with foster parents; once placed with foster
parents, N.W.R. became more active and all developmental problems
disappeared; foster parents provide Children with stable home life that
Children need to thrive; Children are not exposed to drug use with foster
needs and welfare, and does not sever existing beneficial relationship or
result in irreparable harm to Children; Agency met its burden under 23
Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b)). The record supports the trial
-5-
J-S52043-14
ingly, we
withdraw.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/20/2014
-6-
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM
Circulated 08/08/2014 10:37 AM