IN RE: K.S.J., MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: G.S., FATHER IN RE: S.R.J., MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: G.S., FATHER IN RE: D.I.J., MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: G.S., FATHER IN RE: C.M.M.J., MINOR CHILD APPEAL OF: G.S., FATHER
Appeal from the Decree May 10, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Civil Division at No(s): 4-AD-2012, 5-AD-2012, 6-AD-2012, 8-AD-2012
BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., DONOHUE, J., AND OLSON, J.
Appellant, G.S. ("Father"), appeals from the decree entered in the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated Father's parental rights to his four minor children, K.S.J., S.R.J., D.I.J., and C.M.M.J. ("Children"). We affirm.
In it opinions, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Procedurally, on August 27, 2012, Wayne County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") filed petitions for involuntary termination of Mother and Father's parental rights as to four of their minor children. The court held hearings on the petitions on March 5, 2013 and March 19, 2013. On May 10, 2013, the court entered an order involuntarily terminating Mother and Father's parental rights to K.S.J., S.R.J., D.I.J., and C.M.M.J. On June 3, 2013, Father timely filed a notice of appeal, along with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Father raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPOINTING COUNSEL FOR CHILDREN DURING THE DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS AND AGAIN IN NOT APPOINTING COUNSEL [FOR] CHILDREN PRIOR TO [THE] BEGINNING OF THE TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT [CYS] INTERFERED WITH THE PLACEMENT OF [CHILDREN] WITH A…RELATIVE.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING CYS PROVED THE ELEMENTS OF TERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. [§§] 2511(A)[(1)], 2511(A)(5) AND/OR 2511(A)(8) BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACT [WHICH] WERE NOT SUPPORT[ED] BY THE WEIGHT OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACT [WHICH] WERE AGAINST THE ...