In re T.M.E.S.
| Decision Date | 23 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 195 WDA 2011,No. 196 WDA 2012,No. 192 WDA 2011,J-A28012-12,No. 193 WDA 2012,No. 197 WDA 2012,No. 198 WDA 2012,No. 194 WDA 2012,192 WDA 2011,193 WDA 2012,194 WDA 2012,195 WDA 2011,196 WDA 2012,197 WDA 2012,198 WDA 2012 |
| Parties | In re: T.M.E.S. A/K/A T.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.M.E.S., A/K/A T.M., A MINOR In re: T.S.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.S.M. In re: T.C.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.C.M., A MINOR In re: T.R.M. A/K/A T.M., A/K/A T.M. A/K/A T.M. A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.R.M. A/K/A T.M. A/K/A T.M., A/K/A, A MINOR In re: T.J.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.J.M., A MINOR In re: T.A.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: T.A.M., A MINOR In re: N.D.M., A MINOR APPEAL OF: N.D.M., A MINOR |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Kids Voice, the guardian ad litem (GAL) for the seven minor children involved in this consolidated matter, appeals from the trial court's January 12, 2012 order that denied the petitions filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth & Families (CYF) seeking termination of the parental rights of Tanea M. (Mother) pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).1 We affirm.
In this appeal, the GAL raises the following issues for our review:
GAL's brief at 4.
In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Moreover, termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, which requires a bifurcated analysis.
Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights. 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 concerns the nature and status of theemotional 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) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511).
We have performed a comprehensive review of the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the two thorough opinions submitted by the Honorable John T. McVay, Jr., of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, one opinion dated May 7, 2012, and the other opinion dated October 1, 2012. We conclude that Judge McVay's extensive, well-reasoned opinions properly disposed of the issues presented by the GAL on appeal and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law.2 Accordingly, we adopt Judge McVay's opinions as our own and affirm the orders appealed from on that basis.3
Orders affirmed.
As I disagree with the orphans' court's conclusion that T.M. ("Mother") shared a beneficial parent-child bond with her seven children T.M.E.S., T.S.M., T.C.M., T.R.M., T.J.M., T.A.M., and N.D.M. (collectively "the Children") that could not be severed without causing irreparable harm, I respectfully dissent from the learned majority's decision to affirm on the basis of the two opinions authored by the orphans' court in this case. Rather than affirming the orders denying the petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights to the Children, whose ages range from six to thirteen, I would reverse those orders and direct the orphans' court to enter orders terminating Mother's parental rights in order to facilitate adoption.
As the trial court presided over the Children's dependency proceedings and the underlying termination proceedings, I outline the overlapping historyof both actions.4 Since 2001, Mother has had an extensive and disconcerting history with the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families ("CYF"). During 2002, allegations arose regarding physical abuse and neglect. T.C.M., now 13, T.M.E.S., now 12, and eleven-year-old twins T.S.M. and T.R.M., were initially adjudicated dependent in March of 2003. After a brief reunification, those children, along with ten-year-old T.A.M. and seven-year-old N.D.M., were again adjudicated dependent in August of 2006. Six-year-old T.J.M. was adjudicated dependent in April of 2007. In each case, the court-approved permanency goal for the Children was reunification with Mother.
The Children have moved between Mother and various placement alternatives throughout their dependency, but as of August 20, 2010, when CYF filed the petitions to terminate Mother's parental rights, none of the children had resided with Mother since January 8, 2009. The five...
To continue reading
Request your trial