J-A13014-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: R.H., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: L.H., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1903 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court, at No(s): TPR 017-14
IN RE: K.B., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: L.H., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1904 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court, at No(s): TPR 018-14
IN RE: L.H., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: L.H., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1905 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court, at No(s): TPR 019-14
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 27, 2015
L.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the orders entered on October 21, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, involuntarily terminating
her parental rights to her female child, L.H., born in April 2006, to her
female child, R.H., born in September 2007, and to her female child, K.B.,
J-A13014-15
born in August 2009, (collectively “the Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b).1 We affirm.
The record reveals the relevant factual and procedural history, as
follows. Mother is the natural mother of L.H., R.H., and K.B. The Allegheny
County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“CYF”) became familiar with
the family in 2011, when Mother was involved in an accident and became
homeless. Mother spent time in the hospital as well as with the Children in
hotels and in the home of her mother. At the time, Mother admitted to a
history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues. CYF assisted
the family with intervention and services, and the case was closed on
October 19, 2011.
CYF became involved again with the family on January 2, 2012.
Mother once again admitted to her history of drug and alcohol abuse and
mental health concerns, and Mother reported that she had been charged
with vehicular homicide because of a car accident in 2011. Mother offered a
friend, L.P., as a potential placement resource for the Children. As the case
against Mother was screened out, no action was taken by CYF.
1
J.H., who was married to Mother from July 14, 2002 to September 7, 2010,
is the father of L.H. and R.H. J.B., who signed an acknowledgment of
paternity on September 23, 2009, is the father of K.B. J.H. filed
consolidated concurrent appeals at 1922 WDA 2014 and 1923 WDA 2014 in
regard to the involuntary termination of his parental rights to L.H. and R.H.,
of which we dispose in a separate memorandum. J.B. did not file an appeal
in regard to the termination of his parental rights to K.B.
-2-
J-A13014-15
In March 27, 2012, CYF again became involved with the family due to
concerns regarding the placement of the Children with Maternal
Grandmother. Mother had previously alleged that Maternal Grandmother
had been abusive to Mother as a child, and Mother was struggling with her
ongoing drug and alcohol addiction and her mental health issues. CYF was
unable to reach Mother for eleven days, and, on March 30, 2012, CYF
removed the Children from Maternal Grandmother’s home by CYF and placed
them in foster care.
Mother was incarcerated at the Allegheny County Jail from April 8,
2012 until April 17, 2012, due to a domestic dispute with her paramour.
Following her release, Mother was hospitalized due to injuries she received
during the altercation with her paramour. The Children’s fathers were not
located at the time, and thus were not considered as placement options.
CYF filed Petitions for Dependency and the orphans’ court adjudicated the
Children dependent on May 24, 2012. The Children were placed in the care
of L.P., (“Foster Mother”) where they remain to date.
A Family Service Plan (“FSP”) was developed for Mother. Mother’s
goals were to achieve and maintain recovery from drug and alcohol
problems; stabilize her mental health; complete a domestic violence
prevention program; supervise the Children at all times; maintain contact
and cooperate with CYF and service providers; maintain visitation with the
Children; obtain and maintain housing and ensure supervision of the
Children; and refrain from criminal activity; and address legal obligations.
-3-
J-A13014-15
Mother pled guilty to vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter,
DUI, and four related traffic violations because of the car accident in January
2011. On June 15, 2013, Mother was incarcerated to serve her sentence at
SCI-Muncy. Mother was granted parole on September 15, 2014, with an
effective date of on or after November 11, 2014. Prior to her incarceration
at SCI Muncy, Mother had been arrested and incarcerated five times.
At the termination hearing, the orphans’ court heard testimony from
CYF Adoption/Direct Service Caseworker, Wendy Lyons, Neil Rosenblum,
Ph.D., J.H., Mother, J.B., and Catholic Charities Worker, Mary Beth Paterno.
Ms. Lyons testified concerning Mother’s use of cocaine, addiction to pain
medication, and Mother’s alcohol-related vehicular homicide case. Mother
had participated in a number of drug and alcohol treatment programs prior
to her incarceration. These programs included Crisis, Gateway, Power, Holy
Family Services, Cove Forge, and Turning Point. None worked.
It was not until Mother entered a drug and alcohol treatment program
at SCI-Muncy that she was able to achieve sobriety. Mother had never
demonstrated any sustained period of sobriety outside this type of
structured residential setting.
Mother was also ordered to stabilize her mental health. She admitted
that she had a history of mental health issues dating back to her teens and
had been more recently diagnosed with severe depression and post-
traumatic stress disorder. Mother attended counseling at the Irene Stacey
Treatment Clinic from 2008 until 2011 inconsistently. Mother was asked to
-4-
J-A13014-15
reconnect with the agency, but did not do so. Mother was also an inpatient
at the Irene Stacey Treatment Center in Butler from December 16, 2012
until December 18, 2012.
The CYF record reflected that there has been domestic violence
throughout the history of the case. Mother had a PFA against J.H. in August
2007, and Mother went to jail in 2012, due to a domestic violence dispute.
Under her FSP, Mother was mandated to enroll and complete a domestic
violence prevention program, a task she did not complete until June 2, 2014,
while in prison.
On January 8, 2013, Dr. Rosenblum evaluated Mother. He found that
she had started abusing drugs at the age of thirteen and continued into her
adulthood. Dr. Rosenblum became aware of Mother’s long history of mental
health problems, arrests and incarcerations, dysfunctional relationships with
men and personality disorders. Dr. Rosenblum’s prognosis for Mother being
able to alter her lifestyle and to improve in the areas of her adjustment is
very guarded at best. Dr. Rosenblum’s prognosis for reunification is
guarded.
On January 8, 2013, Dr. Rosenblum also completed an evaluation of
Foster Mother and the Children. In Dr. Rosenblum’s opinion, Foster Mother
has done an outstanding job. He found that a strong bond exists between
the Children and Foster Mother. Dr. Rosenblum testified that termination of
Mother’s parental rights will have a positive value in this case. In Dr.
Rosenblum’s opinion, adoption is the permanency goal that will provide the
-5-
J-A13014-15
Children with continuity of care and the opportunity to progress in their
adjustment in the supportive environment provided by Foster Mother.
On February 7, 2014, CYF filed Petitions for Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights of Mother to the Children. Mother was officially served the
petition on February 21, 2014, while incarcerated at SCI-Muncy. The
orphans’ court held hearings on July 11, 2014 and October 10, 2014. On
October 21, 2014, the orphans’ court entered orders terminating Mother’s
parental rights to the Children.
On November 18, 2014, Mother filed timely notices of appeal, along
with concise statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). This Court sua sponte consolidated
Mother’s appeals at 1903 WDA 2014, 1904 WDA 2014, and 1905 WDA 2014.
Mother raises a single claim for our review: “Whether the trial court
abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in concluding that
termination of natural mother’s parental rights would serve the needs and
welfare of the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(b)?” Mother’s Brief
at 9.
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. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an
-6-
J-A13014-15
abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely
because the record would support a different result. We have
previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often
have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple
hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated
analysis.
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 the
emotional 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) (citations omitted).
In this case, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to sections 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b), which provide as follows.
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child
may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
***
-7-
J-A13014-15
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child
to be without essential parental care, control or
subsistence necessary for his physical or mental
well-being and the conditions and causes of the
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will
not be remedied by the parent.
***
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement
with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed
from the date of removal or placement, the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child continue to exist and termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child.
***
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the
child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on
the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing,
furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be
beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition
filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not
consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions
described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the
giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b).
Mother concedes that there is competent, clear and convincing
evidence in the record to support the orphans’ court’s termination of her
parental rights under Sections 2511(a)(2) and (8). On appeal, Mother
presents no argument with respect to Section 2511(a). Thus, she has
waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to
-8-
J-A13014-15
Section 2511(a). See Chapman-Rolle v. Rolle, 893 A.2d 770, 774 (Pa.
Super. 2006).
We next review the termination orders pursuant to Section 2511(b),
which focuses on whether the termination of Mother’s parental rights would
best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of
the Children.
With respect to the bond analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b), our
Supreme Court confirmed that, “the mere existence of a bond or attachment
of a child to a parent will not necessarily result in the denial of a termination
petition.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). The T.S.M. Court
quoted with approval, as follows.
[A]s Judge Tamilia eloquently observed while speaking for the
[Superior] court, it is “an immutable psychological truth” that
“[e]ven the most abused of children will often harbor some
positive emotion towards the abusive parent.” In re K.K.R.-S.,
958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008). Thus, Judge Tamilia
cautioned against denying termination of parental rights based
solely on the fact that a child has an attachment to the parent:
“The continued attachment to the natural parents, despite
serious parental rejection through abuse and neglect, and failure
to correct parenting and behavior disorders which are harming
the children cannot be misconstrued as bonding.” Id. at 535
(quoting In re Involuntary Termination of C.W.S.M., 839
A.2d 410, 418 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Tamilia, J., dissenting)).
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (footnote omitted). Further, the T.S.M. Court
observed “[c]hildren are young for a scant number of years, and we have an
obligation to see to their healthy development quickly. When courts fail . . .
-9-
J-A13014-15
the result, all too often, is catastrophically maladjusted children.” Id. at
269.
In the instant case, the orphans’ court found that the Children have a
strong bond with Mother. However, it noted that its recognition of the bond
between Mother and the Children does not end the court’s inquiry. The
orphans’ court looked to Dr. Rosenblum’s testimony that the Children have
experienced considerable stress, confusion, and trauma stemming from
Mother’s inability to care for them. Evidence showed that Mother had been
incarcerated since 2013 after pleading guilty to vehicular homicide and
numerous other charges related to the 2011 alcohol-related motor vehicle
collision.
In addition, prior to Mother’s incarceration, she failed to follow through
with much needed substance abuse and mental health treatment. The two
older children have also stated that they feel safer with Foster Mother, and
that Foster Mother takes care of them better than anyone else. Dr.
Rosenblum opined in his reports and testimony that the Children need
stability in their lives and that the termination of Mother’s parental rights will
benefit the Children by ensuring that their need for stability, safety,
predictability and security is fulfilled.
We find that there was competent evidence to support the orphans’
court’s decision that termination of Mother’s parental rights best serves the
Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. Thus,
- 10 -
J-A13014-15
we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law as to its termination of
Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the orphans’ court’s orders terminating Mother’s
parental rights to Children.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/27/2015
- 11 -
J-A13014-15
- 12 -