J-A02019-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
In Re: Adoption of: L.T.D., a Minor IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appeal of: C.D., Father No. 1553 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Decree August 10, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
Orphans’ Court Division, at No(s): 4 of 2015
In Re: Adoption of: J.S.D., a Minor IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appeal of: C.D., Father No. 1555 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Decree August 10, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County
Orphans’ Court Division, at No(s): 5 of 2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED APRIL 25, 2016
J-A02019-16
C.D. (“Father”) appeals from the Decrees entered on August 10, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County, which
involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor son, J.S.D., born in
December 2012, and to his minor daughter, L.T.D., born in November 2013
(“Children”). We affirm.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history as
follows. Prior the initial placement of either child, Father had an extensive
history with Children & Youth services (“CYS”) dating from 2010 and
culminating in the involuntary termination of his parental rights of two older
children on August 16, 2012.
J.S.D. was initially placed into foster care on December 20, 2012,
following a referral from the medical staff on the day he was born and
issuance of a verbal order by the court. At the time, the parents’ home was
deemed inappropriate. J.S.D. was adjudicated dependent on March 18,
2013. A finding of aggravated circumstances was also made with respect to
both parents due to the prior involuntary terminations of parental rights.
Following reports of initial progress, J.S.D. was returned to the physical
custody of his parents on May 8, 2014, with CYS retaining legal custody.
L.T.D. was born in November 2013, and was not placed into foster
care, due to the progress on the part of the parents. However, the situation
quickly deteriorated, and seven weeks after the physical custody of J.S.D.
was returned to the parents, foster placement of both Children was
necessary.
- 2 -
J-A02019-16
The CYS caseworker observed bruising on J.S.D.’s body within a week
after he was returned to the parents’ physical custody. The parents claimed
that J.S.D. was pinching himself, but several of the bruises were in locations
inconsistent with self-inflicted injury. Shortly thereafter, CYS received a
General Protective Services (“GPS”) referral. Investigation of the referral
revealed that J.S.D. was covered with bruises on both his face and his body.
Based on the parents’ inability to assure the safety of the Children in
the home, the Children were placed in foster care on July 3, 2014. L.T.D.
was adjudicated dependent on September 17, 2014, and an order finding
aggravated circumstances as to both parents was entered on September 18,
2014. Both Children have remained in the physical and legal custody of CYS
from July 3, 2014 until the present.
On September 17, 2014, the parents were ordered by the court to:
obtain and maintain appropriate housing; obtain and maintain financial
stability; attend anger management, behavioral health services, resource
work, and family center classes (parenting classes); and submit to drug
testing. In addition, the parents were given periods of supervised visitation
weekly.
CYS filed a petition for involuntary termination of parental rights of
Father for both Children on February 2, 2015. The trial court held hearings
on April 29, 2015, May 5, 2015, and August 5, 2015. Following the hearings,
on August 10, 2015, the trial court entered decrees granting CYS’s Petition
for the involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights.
- 3 -
J-A02019-16
Father timely appealed. This Court, sua sponte, consolidated the
appeals.
Father raises the following issue on appeal:
Is the decision of the Orphans’ Court to terminate
Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(1), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(5), and 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) supported by
competent credible evidence, in the best interests of the
children or justified by necessity?
Father’s Brief at 4.
We review the appeal from the termination of parental rights in
accordance with the following standard.
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion
standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a
petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency
cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court 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. As
has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result
merely because the reviewing court might have reached a
different conclusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an
abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
[T]here are clear reasons for applying an abuse of
discretion standard of review in these cases. We observed that,
unlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the
fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where the trial
judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing and
often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child
and parents. Therefore, even where the facts could support an
opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and
termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to
second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility
determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the trial
- 4 -
J-A02019-16
judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the
record and the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an
error of law or an abuse of discretion.
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (internal citations
omitted).
The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental
rights are valid. See In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Moreover, we have explained that
[t]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as
testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to
enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”
Id. (citation omitted).
This court may affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the
termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of section
2511(a). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en
banc). Here, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under, among
other subsections, section 2511(a)(1) and (b), which provide as follows.
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(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:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at
least six months immediately preceding the filing of the
petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or
failed to perform parental duties.
- 5 -
J-A02019-16
***
(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.A. § 2511(a)(1), (b).
We have explained this Court’s review of a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the involuntary termination of a parent’s rights
pursuant to section 2511(a)(1) as follows.
To satisfy the requirements of section 2511(a)(1), the
moving party 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.
***
Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform
parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing
parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of
inquiry: (1) the parent’s explanation for his or her
conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between
parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of
termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to
Section 2511(b).
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted).
- 6 -
J-A02019-16
[T]o be legally significant, the [post-abandonment] contact
must be steady and consistent over a period of time,
contribute to the psychological health of the child, and
must demonstrate a serious intent on the part of the
parent to recultivate a parent-child relationship and must
also demonstrate a willingness and capacity to undertake
the parental role. The parent wishing to reestablish his
parental responsibilities bears the burden of proof on this
question.
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1119 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). See
also In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1006 (Pa. Super 2008) (en
banc).
Section 2511 does not require that the parent demonstrate both a
settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child and refusal or
failure to perform parental duties, as the word or joins the two portions of
the statute. See In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa.
1998).
Further, regarding the definition of “parental duties,” this Court has
stated as follows.
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental
duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child
needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs,
physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive
interest in the development of the child. Thus, this court has
held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires
affirmative performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial
obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a
genuine effort to maintain communication and association with
the child.
- 7 -
J-A02019-16
Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty
requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place
of importance in the child’s life.
Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good
faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order
to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his or her
ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize all
available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and
must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed
in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental
rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or
convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while
others provide the child with . . . her physical and emotional
needs.
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).
After a review of the certified record and the briefs of the parties, we
conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by involuntarily
terminating Father’s parental rights to the Children, and affirm the decrees
of the trial court based on the concise and well-written opinion by the
Honorable Anthony J. Rosini.
Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/25/2016
- 8 -
Circulated 04/14/2016 01:08 PM
INRE: In The Court Of Common Pleas
L.T.D., Northumberland County, Pa
A minor child
Orphan's Court Division
INRE:
~~~----uJB~~--:-~~:-:--~~~~~~i~~A~d~opct=ee~N~o~.~4~of~2~0~15:::_~~~~~~~~~-
A minor child
Adoptee No. 5 of2015
Children's Fast Track Appeal
OPINION
Factual & Procedural Background
Appellants T.D. (Natural Mother) and C.D. (Natural Father) have appealed this
.Court's orders of August 10, 2015, terminating their parental rights. · The order in
!1,.1'..f.
question followed hearings conducted on April 29, 2015, May 5, 2015, and August 5,
2015 on Children & Youth Services (The Agencyr's Petition for Involuntary Termination
of Parental Rights filed February 2, 2015 in the matters of L.T.D. and J.S.D. (Minor
Children), after which the Court entered decrees terminating the parental rights of Natural
Parents with respect to both Minor Children.
Prior to the initial placement of either child, the parties had an extensive history
with The Agency dating from 2010 and culminating in the involuntary termination of
their parental rights to two older children on August 16, 2012.
Minor child J.S.D. was initially placed into foster care on December 20, 2012,
following a referral from medical staff on the day he was born and issuance of a verbal
order from the Court. At that time, the Natural Parents' home was inappropriate, due to
crowded conditions and the presence of some individuals who could not pass clearances.
Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April 29,
2015, at 87-90, 111. Additionally, there were concerns about the ability of the Natural
Parents to provide adequate care for this minor child. Id., at 91. J.S.D. was adjudicated
dependent on March 18, 2013, at which time a finding of aggravated circumstances was
made with respect to both parents due to the prior involuntary terminations of parental
rights. Following encouraging reports of initial progress, the minor child J.S.D. was
returned to the physical custody of the Natural Parents on May 8, 2014, with The Agency
retaining legal custody.
Minor child L.T.D. was born in November of 2013 and was not placed at that
time, due to the aforementioned progress on the part of the Natural Parents. However,
the situation quickly deteriorated, and seven weeks after physical custody of J.S.D. was
returned to the Natural Parents, foster placement of both minor children was necessary.
The Agency's caseworker observed bruising on J.S.D. within about a week after he was
returned to the Natural Parents' physical custody. The Natural Parents claimed that the
child was pinching himself, however several of the bruises were in locations inconsistent
with self-inflicted injury. Id., at 126. Shortly thereafter, The Agency received a General
Protective Services (GPS) referral. Investigation of this referral revealed that J.S.D. was
covered in bruises on both his face and body.
Based upon the inability of the Natural Parents to assure either child's safety in
the home, the children were both placed in foster care on July 3, 2014. Id., at 127.
L.T.D. was adjudicated dependent on September 17, 2014, and an order finding
aggravated circumstances as to both parents was entered on September 18, 2014. Both
minor children have remained in the physical and legal custody of The Agency from July
3, 2014 until the present.
The Natural Parents were court-ordered, as of September 17, 2014, to: obtain and
maintain appropriate housing; obtain and maintain financial stability; attend anger
management, behavioral health services, resource work, and family center classes
(parenting classes); and submit to drug testing. Additionally, the Natural Parents were
given periods of supervised visitation weekly.1
The Agency filed Petitions for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights for
both minor children on February 2, 2015.
Issues Presented
Natural Parents set forth the following in their Concise Statements of Matters
Complained of on Appeal, all filed September 9, 2015:
1) The Court's decision to terminate parental rights was not supported by the
evidence.
2) The Court committed an error of law in determining that the best interest of
the Minor Children would be served by terminating the Natural Parents'
parental rights.
Standard & Scope of Review
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set forth its scope and standard of review as
follows:
I
The Dependency files DP-80-2012 and DP-59-2014 concerning the minor children were incorporated into
the record by-stipulation of counsel during the hearing on April 29, 2015. See Transcript of Proceedings,
Hearing on Termination of Parental Rights, April 29, 2015, at 8.
2
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion
standard when considering a trial court's determination of a
petition for termination of parental rights. As in
dependency cases, our standard of review requires an
---------~appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility
determinations of the trial court if they are supportedbyffi..--e _
record. In re. Adoption of S.P., 616 Pa. 309, 47 A.3d 817
(Pa. 2012), citing In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179,
1190 (Pa.2010).
Legal Reasoning
1) The Agency Presented Clear And Convincing Evidence Of The Existence Of
Grounds For Involuntary Termination
Pursuant to statutory authority governing the involuntary termination of parental rights:
... [the] rights of a parent in regard to a child may be
terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds: ·
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at
least six months immediately preceding the filing of the
petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or
failed to perform parental duties.
(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. .
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent
by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency
for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led
to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist,
the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions
within a reasonable period of time, the services or
assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely
to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or
placement of the child within a reasonable period of time
and termination of the parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child ... 23 Pa.C.S.A.§2511(a).
3
The Appellate Court "need only agree with the trial court's decision as to any one
subsection in order to affirm the termination of parental rights." In re. B.L. W.1 843 A.2d
380, 384 (Pa.Super. 2004).
Here, The Agency established by clear and convincing evidence grounds for the
termination of Natural Parents' parental rights to the minor children as to three of the
subsections of the statute set forth in its petitfon, namely suosecrtons-(-a-)tlt,-(1t}{z-J,antl------
(a)(5)2of 23 Pa.C.S.§2511(a).
Subsection (a)(l) addresses the conduct of the parents and requires the court to
find either a settled purpose of relinquishment of parental claim to the children or a
refusal or failure to perform parental duties in the six months immediately preceding the
filing of the petition;
The Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed on February 2, 2015. A
review of the Permanency Review orders entered during the six months immediately
preceding this date reveals that Natural Parents have failed to perform parental duties, as
they have failed to complete some ordered services and have failed to transfer the lessons
learned in other services to their parenting of the Minor Children.
Both parents were ordered to maintain financial stability. Natural Father receives
SSI and also collects scrap metal. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights, August 5, 2015, at 27. Mother is not employed, but
does receive SSI due to an intellectual disability. Transcript of Proceedings,
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April 29, 2015, at 120~121, Transcript
of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, August 5, 2015, at 66.
Although the parties did obtain stable housing in September of 2013 (see Transcript of
Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April 29, 2015, at 111), the
relationship between them has been unstable and fraught with conflict due to Natural
Father's infidelity, resulting in a disruptive environment. Id., at 41, 116. The parents do
not have independent transportation, and Natural Father rides his bicycle as a means of
transportation. Id., at 120, Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights, August 5, 2015, at 27. Both parents have completed several parenting
courses, some more than once, and they have half-heartedly participated with the two
resource workers assigned to them.
The parents have regularly attended visitation, however they have not been able to
demonstrate a transfer of skills from their class and resource work within the context of
that visitation, and since the second placement of J.S.D. and the initial placement of
L.T.D., the visitation has not progressed to a point where supervision could be lifted. The
parents follow a rather rote schedule during visitation from which they rarely deviate, and
both have trouble consistently engaging the Minor Children. Transcript of
Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April 29, 2015, at 92-93.
2
The Court did not grant the portion of the Agency's Petition concerning subsection (8) of23
Pa.C.S.A.§251 l(a).
4
The progress seen prior to placement gave way to regression in the demonstration of
parenting skills during visits despite suggestions being provided by both a caseworker
and a resource worker for ways to improve the interaction (Id., at 130, 142), and The
Agency was unable to transition the Natural Parents to unsupervised visits. It often took
both parents to diaper L.T.D. Id., at 143. The parents have participated, to the extent
that the childrens' ages allow, in telephone contact with the minor children, but have
never sent any cards or g1:ftsforb1nnctaysorimltday~I~t1-4e 1:-. -------------
Father was ordered to participate in anger management classes, was
unsuccessfully discharged from the same, and did not follow up or attempt to complete
this court-ordered service until well after the termination petition had been filed. Id., at
110, Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, August
S, 2015, at 5-6, 11, 19. He bas continued to exhibit outbursts of anger throughout the life
of the case, most notably in the courthouse on May 8, 2014 and during a supervised visit
on March 11, 2015. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, April 29, 2015, at 205-206.
More recently, Father has also failed several drug tests, testing positive for spice.
Id., at 145, 147, 212-213.
Subsection (a)(2) shifts the focus to the needs of the minor children and requires
the court to find that the parental care, control or subsistence critical to the child's
physical or mental well-being has been compromised by repeated incapacity, neglect,
abuse, or refusal on the part of the parents.
As noted above, the Natural Parents have completed several parenting classes and
have participated somewhat in resource work, but have had difficulty transferring the
information to their visits with the Minor Children. Transcript of Proceedings,
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, May 5, 2015, at 29, 197, 220, 230;
Transcript of Proceedings, Permanency Review Hearing, May 21, 2015, at 5, 7, 10,
13. The Natural Parents have consistently missed and/or misinterpreted verbal and
nonverbal cues from the Minor Children. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights, April 29, 2015, at 168-170, 190; see also Transcript
of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, May 5, 2015, at 191,
201-202, 203.
The extensive bruising on J.S.D.'s face and body led to concerns that parental
frustration may have given rise to inappropriate responses on the part of one or both
Natural Parents. Although there was ultimately no founded report of physical abuse, the
bruising remains unexplained. Despite the Natural Parents' claims that the minor child
injured himself, there has been no additional injury since J.S.D.'s placement into foster
care, Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April
29, 2015, at 189. Additionally, the Natural Parents failed to attend a behavioral
evaluation for J.S.D., despite the appointment having been made at their insistence and
5
despite having been provided transportation (the parents did not answer the door when
the worker tasked with transporting them arrived to do so).3 Id., at 196.
Father's continued outbursts of anger are also of great concern. He threatened
Agency personnel during one notable incident that occurred during a supervised visit,
after a resource worker attempted to redirect him in interpreting cues from one of the
Minor Children. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, May 5, 2015, at 5-11. Natural Father's recent claims that he has seen the light,
so to speak, and his recent attempts at participating in anger management ( after the filing
of the Termination Petition), as well as the testimony of Natural Father's character
witnesses regarding the changes they have observed in Father's behavior (see Id., at 48,
54, 93, 241 and Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, August 5, 2015, at 5, 11.) are belied by his actions, which are indicative of his
inability to control his temper.
Natural parents have been assigned two resource workers, and have commented
that neither resource worker was of any help to them. Id., at 37, 38, 42, 47-51. This is
because the Natural Parents have consistently refused or ignored the suggestions and
advice of these workers. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights, May 5, 2015, at 15, 21, 29, 161-166.
In fact, Natural Parents have consistently blamed their circumstances on everyone
but themselves, and have refused to recognize their own roles in the situation as it exists
today. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April 29,
2015, at 40, 42, Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, August 5, 2015, at 37, 38, 42. As Dr. Shienvold aptly observed, "Until you are
willing to take responsibility for your issues, you can't improve them." Transcript of
Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, April 29, 2015, at 75.
Where parents do not exercise reasonable firmness in ''declining to yield to
obstacles" parental rights may be forfeited. In re A.L.D. 797 A.2d 326, 2002 Pa. Super.
104 (Pa. Super. 2002). Parents are expected to be steadfast in overcoming obstacles to
maintaining the parent-child relationship. In re Burns, 379 A.2d 535, 474 Pa. 615 (Pa.
1977). Moreover, Natural Parents have had ample time prior to the termination to
alleviate the conditions which originally necessitated placement. They simply failed to
do so, and that failure was not a result of factors beyond their control. Natural Parents
have demonstrated that they are unable to provide parental care, control, and subsistence
critical to the Minor Childrens' physical and mental well-being due to repeated
incapacity, abuse, and refusal of Natural Parents.
A finding under subsection (a)(5) requires that the child be removed from the care
and control of the parent, either by the court or pursuant to a voluntary agreement, for a
period of at least six months. Additionally, the-conditions leading to such removal must
continue to exist, it must be found that even given a reasonable amount of time the parent
3
The behavioral evaluation yielded no concerns requiring follow up care.
6
would be unable to remedy these conditions, services available are not likely to remedy
the conditions, and that termination would best serve the needs and welfare of the minor
child.
More than six months had elapsed prior to the filing of the Petition for
Termination of Parental Rights. The Minor Children were removed from the care and
control of the parents pursuant to a verbal order on July 3, 2014.Tlie termmation petttario=n.-------
was filed on February 2, 2015.
The conditions leading to removal continue to exist, in that Natural Parents'
relationship remains unstable, their economic situation remains unchanged, and they are
unable to demonstrate, when provided with the opportunity, their ability to provide for
the needs and safety of the Minor Children. Furthermore, Natural Father's drug and
anger issues remain unresolved. Although Natural Parents have made some recent
attempts to address these issues, they did not do so until forced by circumstance of the
filing of the Termination Petition, as outlined above.
Natural Parents do not possess the ability to remedy the conditions that led to
placement within a reasonable amount of time, as evidenced by their inability to transfer
skills taught in parenting classes and by resource workers and apply them to the parenting
of their minor children. Natural Parents have not progressed beyond supervised visitation
because they cannot demonstrate that they can provide for the needs and safety of the
Minor Children when not supervised by Agency personnel.
Ultimately, the Natural Parents are utterly incapable of providing for the needs
and safety of the Minor Children due to their lack of insight, their refusal to accept and/or
meaningfully participate in services, and their insistence that this situation is everyone's
fault but their own. The safety of the Minor Children simply could not be ensured if they
were placed in the care of .Natural Parents, and there is no indication that this state of
affairs could change within a reasonable period of time.
Further, termination here most certainly would best serve the needs and welfare of
the Minor Children. These Minor Children need permanency. As detailed above, that
permanency has not been provided by Natural Parents for some time, and they are unable
to currently provide it. The Minor Children have adjusted well to their foster placement,
a placement which provides not only basic needs such as safety, food and shelter but also
crucial higher level needs, such as emotional and learning support. The minor children
have settled in as though they were already members of the family, and they feel safe and
secure in this placement. Transcript of Proceedings, Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights, May 5, 2015, at 118, 120~121, 131. Marked differences are plainly
observable in their behavior during their supervised visits with Natural Mother versus
their behavior in the placement setting. Id., at 212. These differences strongly suggest
that the needs and welfare of the Minor Children would be best served by termination of
Natural Parents' parental rights.
7
For these reasons, it is clear that the Court did not err in finding that The Agency
established by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted pursuant to
atleast one of the grounds set forth in its petition. Again, the Appellate Court "need only
agree with the trial court's decision as to any one subsection in order to affirm the
termination of parental rights." In re. B.L. W, 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super. 2004).
~red-by our Supreme Coo.rt,a-decision-t