August 1, 2013
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.B.A.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.A.S., FATHERIN THE INTEREST OF: A.B.A.R.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.A.S., FATHERIN THE INTEREST OF: A.I.A.R.S., A MINORAPPEAL OF: A.A.S., FATHER
Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at Nos. CP-51-AP-0000249-2012 CP-51-DP-0000168-2010, CP-51-AR-0000251-2012 CP-51-DP-0000170-2010, CP-51-AP-0000250-2012 CP-51-DP-0000169-2010.
BEFORE: BENDER, J., BOWES, J. AND STRASSBURGER [*] , J.
A.A.S. ("Father") appeals from the decrees entered on February 11, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, terminating his parental rights to his daughter, A.B.A.S. (also known as A.A.R.S.), born in January of 2007, his son, A.I.A.R.S., born in November of 2007, and his daughter, A.B.A.R.S., born in November of 2008 ("the Children"), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). After review, we affirm the order of termination.
On May 24, 2012, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services ("DHS") filed petitions for the involuntary termination of Father's parental rights to the Children. On February 11, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the petition, and, on that same date, entered decrees terminating Father's parental rights to the Children. On March 7, 2013, Father simultaneously filed his notices of appeal and concise statements of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).
In his brief on appeal, Father does not contest the trial court's ultimate determination, i.e., the termination of his parental rights to the Children, but, instead, raises a single issue for our review:
Did the trial court deny Father a fair hearing and committed [sic] an error of law and abuse of discretion by unduly protracted questioning of the defendants?
Father's Brief at 3.
Relevant to this case, our Rules of Appellate Procedure provide, in pertinent part:
Rule 302. Requisites for Reviewable Issue
(a) General rule. Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Appellee, A.B.A.S., ("Appellee Child") argues, in her brief on appeal, that Father made no objection to the trial court's questioning of the witnesses, failed to raise the issue in his oral argument before the trial court, and, in sum, waived the issue by failure to raise it in the lower court. Appellee Child's Brief at 11-12 (citing Pa. R.A.P. 302(a); In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 522 (Pa. Super. 2006)). Additionally, Appellee Child argues that, if this Court were to address the issue, it should find no merit in it. Appellee Child's Brief at 26-30. Appellee Child argues that Father's argument is specious, and notes that the record demonstrates that the trial court's limited questioning of witnesses fell within the type of questioning that is permitted, and, in fact, encouraged. Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Seabrook, 379 A.2d 564, 568 (Pa. 1977); N.T., 2/11/13, at 68-81).
We agree that Father did not raise the issue in the trial court. Pursuant to our rules of appellate procedure and established case law, Father waived the issue. See In re C.P., 901 A.2d at 522. Accordingly, as this is Father's sole issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights to the Children.