Mother brief in Pennsylvania

2022“Where the trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ____________________________________________ 2In this disposition, we identify Mother’s brief relating to C.M.M. as “Mother's Brief I” and A.S.C. as “Mother’s Brief II.” - 11 - J-A11038-22 J-A11039-22 ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580 , 591 (Pa. 2021). “[A]n abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion” or “the facts could supp

2020Mother’s brief at 5-6 (suggested answers omitted).6 Our standard of review is as follows: The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts “to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

2025See id.

2018In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 465 (Pa. - 19 - J-S75013-17 Super. 2017); Mother’s brief does neither.

2025See T.S.M., supra. Mother’s challenge to Section 2511(b) merits no relief. - 22 - J-A16027-25 Mother addresses her final two issues together in her brief.

2022In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations omitted and formatting altered). “[T]he trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence ____________________________________________ 4 Mother’s brief does not address her fourth issue or develop argument pertaining to this issue.

2022In re J.D.W.M, supra; In re Z.P., supra. In issues 1, 9, and 11, Mother argues that by denying Mother’s motion entitled “Preliminary Objections to Petition for Involuntary Termination/Petition to Return Custody to Natural Biological Mother/Finding No Reasonable Efforts”19 the trial court did not consider all information ____________________________________________ 18Linda Walters, Esquire, served as counsel for Mother at the termination hearings. 19 The motion was filed on December 16, 2021 and, thus, was timely appealed. - 19 - J-A21007-22 regarding whether to change the goal from reunificati

2022In addition, while the record does support Mother’s claim that she had “made some progress over time,” id., her inconsistency in visitation and her failure to take advantage of the services offered her largely negated any progress.

2023See In the Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that an appeal from a goal change order is moot when this Court affirms a decree involuntarily terminating parental rights). ____________________________________________ 5 Even if Mother had preserved a challenge to the adequacy of second counsel’s representation, we would conclude that Mother’s issue merits no relief.

2021See In the Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.Super. 2002)) (“[E]ven if Father had not waived his goal change claim, it would be moot in light of our decision to affirm the court’s termination decrees.”). - 23 - J-A21042-21 Nevertheless, even if not moot, upon independent analysis, Mother’s claim as to the goal change would likewise be frivolous and without merit.

2020See In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 , 339 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that issues are waived if appellate brief fails to provide meaningful discussion with citation to relevant authority); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b).

2015See In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 , 339 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 24 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2011) (quoting In re A.C., 991 A.2d 884 , -2- J-S49016-15 We consider Mother’s claim mindful of our well-settled standard of review: The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record.

2020See Krebs v. United Refining Co., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating that a failure to preserve issues by raising them both in the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and statement of questions involved portion of the brief on appeal results in a waiver of those issues). -5- J-A20010-20 abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id.

2020See Krebs v. United Refining Co., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating that a failure to preserve issues by raising them both in the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and statement of questions involved portion of the brief on appeal results in a waiver of those issues). -5- J-A20010-20 abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id.

2005We may not interfere with the trial court’s factual conclusions unless they are unreasonable in light of the factual findings, and thus represent a “gross abuse of discretion.” 1 Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 56 , 645 A.2d 836, 837-38 (1994); Jackson, supra at 1252 (quoting Luminella v. Marcocci, 814 A.2d 711, 716 (Pa.Super., 2002)); Graham v. Graham, 794 A.2d 912 , 914—15 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Vineski v. Vineski, 675 A.2d 722, 723 (Pa.Super.1996)); S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621, 623 (Pa.Super.2002.) Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931, 936 (Pa.Super.2004). ¶ 7 We find merit in Mother’s claim tha

2005We may not interfere with the trial court’s factual conclusions unless they are unreasonable in light of the factual findings, and thus represent a “gross abuse of discretion.” 1 Robinson v. Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 56 , 645 A.2d 836, 837-38 (1994); Jackson, supra at 1252 (quoting Luminella v. Marcocci, 814 A.2d 711, 716 (Pa.Super., 2002)); Graham v. Graham, 794 A.2d 912 , 914—15 (Pa.Super.2002) (quoting Vineski v. Vineski, 675 A.2d 722, 723 (Pa.Super.1996)); S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621, 623 (Pa.Super.2002.) Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d 931, 936 (Pa.Super.2004). ¶ 7 We find merit in Mother’s claim tha

2026Further, Mother does not direct any argument to that portion of the analysis regarding her own conduct as the parent; instead, Mother’s challenge is based on an analysis regarding Child’s needs and welfare and the alleged bond she shares with -7- J-S12044-26 Child.4 See R.J.S., 901 A.2d at 508 .

2022Moreover, despite Mother’s plea that she has changed, “[t]his Court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s need for permanence and stability to a parent’s claims of progress and hope for the future.” In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2026Overall, “[p]arents are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental duties.” In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d at 443 . - 12 - J-S46003-25 Mother contends that the “record does not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, . . . that incapacity would not be remedied[.]” Mother’s brief at 4.

2026See A.H., 247 A.3d at 446 (citation omitted).

2024To satisfy Section 2511(a)(1), the petitioner “must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties.” In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 706-07 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted); see also In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998) (“Section 2511[(a)(1)] does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a chil

2019Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P 2116, this Court may disregard issues that are not identified in the statement of questions presented.3 However, in an abundance of caution, and mindful of the three-step review outlined in In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., supra, we address Mother’s claim insofar as it implicates D.M.L.’s bests interests. ____________________________________________ 3 Rule 2116 provides, “[n]o question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.” Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a). -9- J-S42010-18 In deciding In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121

2025See Int. of A.M., 256 A.3d 1263, 1272-73 (Pa.Super. 2021) (finding issues regarding goal change moot in light of termination of parental rights).

2024See Interest of A.M., 256 A.3d 1263, 1272-73 (Pa. Super. 2021) (finding issues regarding goal change are moot once parental rights are terminated).

2024See, e.g., Interest of R.R.D., 300 A.3d 1077, 1080-81 (Pa. Super. 2023) (concluding that the late filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement in a Children’s Fast Track appeal that did not prejudice either party did not require waiver); see also, e.g., In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2009) (same). 4 Although filed by counsel, Mother’s brief violates the requirements of both Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”) and 2119(a) (“The argument shall be divided into as many parts as there ar

2015Because Appellees have not objected or claimed any prejudice as a result of Mother’s failure to file a concise statement, we have accepted Mother’s statement in reliance on our decision in In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that a mother’s failure to comply strictly with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) did not warrant waiver of her claims, as there was no prejudice to any party). -2 - J-S29045-15 under 23 Pa.C.S.[] §[]2511 (a)(1), 23 Pa.C.S.[] §[]2511 (a)(2), and 23 Pa.C.S.[] §[]2511 (b).” Mother’s brief at 1.

2024To satisfy Section 2511(a)(1), the petitioner “must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties.” See In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 706-07 (Pa. Super. -9- J-A16016-24 2021) (citation omitted); see also In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998) (“Section 2511[(a)(1)] does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing pare

2024To satisfy Section 2511(a)(1), the petitioner “must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties.” In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 706-07 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted); see also In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998) (“Section 2511[(a)(1)] does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a chil

2020See Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908 , 912 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2002) (“[A]n issue identified on appeal but not developed in the appellant’s brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived.”); see also Mother’s brief at 4, 5. -2- J-A27013-19 informed D.N.G.’s school counselor that D.N.G. had been truant due to transportation issues from the shelter where the family was residing.

2020See Commonwealth v. Heggins, 809 A.2d 908 , 912 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2002) (“[A]n issue identified on appeal but not developed in the appellant’s brief is abandoned and, therefore, waived.”); see also Mother’s brief at 4, 5. -2- J-A27013-19 informed D.N.G.’s school counselor that D.N.G. had been truant due to transportation issues from the shelter where the family was residing.

2022See Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 6 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) (noting that an appellate court may only consider that which is in the certified record).

2018See Commonwealth v. Preston , 904 A.2d 1 , 6 (Pa.Super. 2006) ( en banc ) (noting that an appellate court may only consider that which is in the certified record). *1125 Turning now to Father's issues on appeal, with his first issue, Father argues that the trial court erred in not interviewing Child with regard to flying as an unaccompanied minor.

2021See In the Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citing In re D.A., 801 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa.Super. 2002)) (“[E]ven if Father had not waived his goal change claim, it would be moot in light of our decision to affirm the court’s termination decrees.”). - 23 - J-A21042-21 Nevertheless, even if not moot, upon independent analysis, Mother’s claim as to the goal change would likewise be frivolous and without merit.

2019See In re D.A., supra. In her fifth issue, Mother asserts that the court abused its discretion in finding that she “has some paranoid tendencies in that she believes the court system in Hawaii and Pennsylvania are biased against her and this is the reason she doesn’t have custody.” Mother’s brief at 28.

2025See S.P., 313 A.3d 156 (unpublished memorandum at 7) (holding Judge Menges “properly imposed non-punitive sanctions against Mother… due to Mother’s intentional, obstructionist actions.” (emphasis added)); Gross, supra; Luminella, supra; see also Godfrey v. Godfrey, 894 A.2d 776, 783 (Pa. Super. 2006) (concluding the evidence of record supported the trial court’s holding father/appellant in civil contempt, where father willfully violated a child support order by never complying with the order and accumulating substantial arrearages).

2025When determining whether a party acted with wrongful intent to support a finding of contempt, the trial court “should use common sense and consider context[;] wrongful intent can be imputed to a defendant by virtue of the substantial certainty that his actions will violate the court order.” Gross v. Mitz, 284 A.3d 479, 493 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted). -7- J-S32001-25 Here, Mother’s claim that she did not willfully violate the court order because she acted in the best interests of her children has already been rejected by this Court.

2025See A.J.R.-H., 188 A.3d at 1166-67; see G.W., 342 A.3d at 94 n.21.

2025See A.J.R.-H., 188 A.3d at 1170-71; see also Sanders, 312 A.2d at 417.

2021The Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth our standard of review in a dependency case as follows: “[T]he standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law.” In re R.J.T., …, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010).

2016In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 26-27 , 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010) (citations omitted). -5- J-S76031-16 We first address Mother’s challenge to the trial court’s finding of dependency as supported by the record.

2008“Finally, we note that ‘[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, appellate courts must defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and the demeanor of the witnesses.’ ” Dranko v. Dranko, 824 A.2d 1215, 1219 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 5 The central issue in this case concerns Mother’s objection to Father’s pervasive use of pornography, which the parties concede precipitated the demise of their marriage.

2008“Finally, we note that ‘[o]n issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, appellate courts must defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and the demeanor of the witnesses.’ ” Dranko v. Dranko, 824 A.2d 1215, 1219 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 5 The central issue in this case concerns Mother’s objection to Father’s pervasive use of pornography, which the parties concede precipitated the demise of their marriage.

2025See also Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2000) (where appellant fails to properly raise or develop issues on appeal, or where brief is wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, this Court can decline to address appellant’s claims on merits).7 Mother, therefore, has abandoned this claim as well.8 See In re Adoption of R.K.Y., 72 A.3d 669 , 679 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2013) (declining to address subsection 2511(b) where appellant did not make argument concerning that subsection). ____________________________________________ 7 We note that Mother’s brief does not comply with Rule

2015See Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa. Super. 2000) (“When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.”). - 19 - J-S74030-14 Even if Mother had not waived the issue, we would conclude that Mother’s claim is without merit.

2025See E.R., 129 A.3d at 527 ; see also R.L., 209 A.3d at 395 ; M.J.M., 63 A.3d at 336 ; Wilson, 284 A.3d at 520 .

2016Mother’s brief at 1.5 As we stated in E.R. v. J.N.B., 129 A.3d 521, 527 (Pa.Super. 2015), with regard to our review of a custody order: In reviewing a custody order, our scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion.

2020First, the ACLU reiterates that the Section 6381(d) presumption was intended to allow a parent to be held responsible in cases where there is an absence of direct evidence as to the actual perpetrator of the abuse, and that, in the instant case, the presumption does not apply because Stepbrother was identified as the actual perpetrator [J-66-2019] - 19 In response to Mother’s claim that the Superior Court erred in applying the presumption to the instant case, DHS first argues that the Superior Court properly applied the Section 6381(d) presumption because In re L.Z., supra, “compels the conclu

2016Mother’s brief at 6. ____________________________________________ 2 Neither parent appealed from the dependency orders. -3- J-S56001-16 J-S56002-16 We begin by noting that our “standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law.” In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164, 1174 (Pa. 2015).

2023A court cannot “toll the well-being and permanency” of a child indefinitely in the hope that a parent “will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.” In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1007 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc) (citation omitted). - 13 - J-A22011-23 Mother argues that the record was “unclear that termination of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of L.S.” Mother’s brief at 20.

2021It is well-settled that “we will not toll the well- being and permanency of [a child] indefinitely.” In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d at 1007 (citing In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 732 (Pa. Super. 2008) (noting that a child’s life “simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that [a parent] will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.”)). - 12 - J-S20043-21 The trial court addressed Mother’s issue regarding section 2511(b) in its well-reasoned Opinion.