J-S04004-22 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: R.M., FATHER : : : : : No. 1683 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0003052-2017 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: R.M., FATHER : : : : : No. 1684 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Decree Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000489-2020 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 4, 2022 R.M. (Father) appeals from the decree and the order, both dated July 21, 2021, and entered on July 22, 2021, that granted the petitions filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights and to change the permanency goal to ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S04004-22 adoption for S.M. (Child),1 born in November of 2017. After review, we affirm.2 In Father’s brief, he sets forth the following issues for our review: 1. Did the court below err in finding that [DHS] … had met its burden in proving grounds under 23 Pa.C.S.[] §§ 2511[(a)] (2), (5), and (8)? 2. Did the court below err in finding that DHS had met its burden to prove that termination would be in the [C]hild’s best interests[] under § 2511(b)? 3. Did the court below err when it found that DHS by clear and convincing evidence had met its burden to change [C]hild’s goal to adoption? 4. Did the court below err in failing to make a finding as to “reasonable efforts”? Father’s brief at 4. We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the following standard: 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, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily ____________________________________________ 1 S.M. is also identified as S.B.M. The parental rights of Child’s mother, A.M. (Mother), were involuntarily terminated at the same time as Father’s rights. Mother’s appeal is addressed in a separate decision. At the time of Mother’s and Father’s marriage, he became the step-father to Mother’s older child, J.L.B. 2 By order, issued on September 22, 2021, this Court sua sponte consolidated these appeals because they involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 512. -2- J-S04004-22 terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals