J. S31044/17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINORS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: C.W., BIOLOGICAL : No. 241 WDA 2017
FATHER :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000070-2016
IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINORS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: C.W., BIOLOGICAL : No. 242 WDA 2017
FATHER :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000070-2016
IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINORS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: C.W., BIOLOGICAL : No. 243 WDA 2017
FATHER :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000070-2016
J. S31044/17
IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINORS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: C.W., BIOLOGICAL : No. 244 WDA 2017
FATHER :
Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2017,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,
CP-02-AP-0000070-2016
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J. AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 15, 2017
C.W. (“Father”) appeals from the January 25, 2017 order entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division,
granting the petition of the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and
Families (“CYF”) and involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his
dependent children, C.P.W., female child, born in July of 2010 (“C.P.W.”);
C.W., male child, born in October of 2011 (“C.W.”); G.W., male child, born
in September of 2012 (“G.W.”), and J.W., male child, born in May of 2014
(“J.W.”) (collectively, the “Children”), pursuant to the Adoption Act,
23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).1 After review, we affirm.
1
In the same order, the trial court terminated the parental rights of the
Children’s mother, C.C. (“Mother”), also pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2),
(5), (8), and (b). Mother has filed an appeal at Superior Court Docket
No. 276 WDA 2017.
-2-
J. S31044/17
The trial court summarized the relevant procedural and factual history
as follows:
The family has had a lengthy history of
involvement with [CYF]. Mother, C.C., has a total of
eight children ranging in age from 14 to 2 years
old[Footnote 1]. [CYF] received its first referral in
2002. Numerous other referrals have been made
and services have been offered to the family
throughout the years. Mother gave birth to C.P.W.
[in July of 2010], C.D.W. [in October of
2011][Footnote 2], and G.W. [in September of
2012][Footnote 3]. However, all of the referrals
were closed and further Court intervention was not
required.
[Footnote 1] There are three children not
subject to the termination proceedings,
Z.L., T.J. and J.R.
[Footnote 2] [CYF] became involved with
the family briefly after C.D.W.’s birth in
2011 after Mother testified positive for
THC.
[Footnote 3] [CYF] became involved
again with the family after G.W.’s birth in
2012 after receiving reports about
Mother’s alleged substance abuse.
[CYF] received its most recent referral in 2013
and a Petition for Dependency was filed on
February 7th, 2013. The bases for alleging
dependency were Mother’s substance abuse issues,
truancy concerns for the older children, and concerns
about the lack of developmental and medical
services that the younger children were receiving.
Prior to the Adjudicatory Hearing, [CYF]
implemented services to work with the family to
address their concerns. The agency was able to
ascertain the identity of the Father, C.W. (hereinafter
Father), of C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. Although
Father had knowledge of [CYF]’s involvement with
-3-
J. S31044/17
the family, he did not engage with any services prior
to the Adjudicatory Hearing. After further
investigation, [CYF] discovered that the parents had
filed numerous Protection From Abuse Petitions
(hereinafter PFA Petitions) against one another.
Domestic violence therapy was added as a goal for
the family based upon the allegations contained
within the PFA Petitions. Father had been present in
Mother’s home a number of times that various
service providers appeared, which contributed to the
concerns that the [C]hildren may have witnessed
incidents of domestic violence.
The parties appeared for an Adjudicatory
Hearing on February 26th, 2013 and the case was
continued so that Father could obtain counsel.
Mother obtained counsel prior to the hearing and the
Court appointed KidsVoice to represent the
[C]hildren. Father refused to take a drug test on the
date of the hearing. The parties next appeared on
April 2nd, 2013 for an Adjudicatory Hearing but it was
continued because it conflicted with one of Mother’s
Criminal Court proceedings[Footnote 4]. The parties
appeared on May 14th, 2013 and the [C]hildren were
adjudicated dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6302(1)[Footnote 5]. The Court ordered that the
[C]hildren remain in Mother’s care and that she
attend and cooperate with parenting classes as well
as comply with all of her other Family Service Plan
goals. Father did not appear but the Court was
informed that he had been arrested the month
before and charged with two counts of Possession.
The Court ordered that he was to comply with his
goals and attend to his criminal matters. The Court
Appointed Special Advocates (hereinafter CASA)
were appointed by separate order for each of the
[C]hildren on May 14th, 2013.
[Footnote 4] Mother was arrested for
allegedly selling a brick of heroin out of
her home and was facing felony drug
charges.
-4-
J. S31044/17
[Footnote 5] Mother stipulated that she
was in need of assistance in obtaining
drug and alcohol treatment and with
childcare.
A Permanency Hearing was held on
August 28th, 2013. Father was incarcerated at the
time of this hearing but Mother appeared. It was
reported that Mother had lost her housing and the
family was living with a relative. Mother had
continuously tested positive for THC at her random
drug screens. Additionally, [CYF] was unable to
verify that Mother was engaged in mental health
treatment. The Court allowed the [C]hildren to
remain in Mother’s care but ordered that In-Home
Services be increased to “crisis” level to alleviate the
Court’s concerns. Mother was ordered to ensure that
all of the [C]hildren’s medical needs were being met
and that the youngest children, C.D.W. and G.W. be
enrolled at Matilda Theiss Therapeutic Nursery and
Preschool. The Court ordered both Mother and
Father to complete domestic violence treatment as
part of their Family Service Plan goals. The parent’s
[sic] compliance and progress were deemed to be
minimal. The Court found that [CYF] had made
reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan to
prevent and eliminate removal from the home.
In September of 2013, Mother failed to allow
the In-Home Service workers to enter the home.
She had completed an intake assessment at Mercy
Behavioral Health in mid-September of 2013 but it
was unclear from the record whether Mother actually
began treatment at the time of the assessment. In
early October of 2013, [CYF] received reports that
G.W. had two black eyes and that Mother provided
conflicting stories about the cause of those injuries.
As a result of these concerns, [CYF] sought and
obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization on
October 3rd, 2013 for all of the [C]hildren. All of the
[C]hildren were removed with the exception of G.W.,
as he could not be located. A Shelter Hearing was
held on October 4th, 2013 before Hearing Officer
Mark Cancilla. Mother appeared but did not bring
-5-
J. S31044/17
G.W..[sic] The Court ordered continued placement
of the [C]hildren based upon Mother’s lack of
cooperation with In-Home Services, her lack of
cooperation in providing verification of mental health
and drug and alcohol treatment, and because she
had not enrolled G.W. in therapeutic preschool at
Matilda Theiss. Mother had also missed a number of
medical appointments for the [C]hildren. This was of
particular concern because C.P.W. had been
diagnosed with a genetic disorder which affected
both her physical and developmental health. Father
remained incarcerated at the time of the hearing.
The parent’s [sic] progress was deemed to be
minimal. The Court made a finding that reasonable
efforts were made to prevent removal from the
home and that allowing the [C]hildren to return to
the care of Mother would be contrary to their
welfare. The whereabouts of G.W. were discovered
and he was removed from his Mother’s care on
October 5th, 2013. A few days after the hearing,
Father was transferred to an in-patient drug and
alcohol facility, Cove Forge, from October 8th, 2013
until October 23, 2013. Upon his discharge from
Cove Forge, it was recommended that he participate
in intensive outpatient therapy. Father did not
maintain any meaningful contact with [CYF] during
this time. The Court ordered [CYF] to make a
referral for the family to participate in individual and
interactional evaluations. Dr. Terry O’Hara, a Court
appointed psychologist from Allegheny Forensic
Associates, was assigned to conduct evaluations of
the family. He conducted an individual evaluation of
Mother on November 11, 2013. Mother denied any
incidents of domestic violence and minimized the
allegations contained within the numerous Protection
From Abuse petitions. Dr. O’Hara reported a number
of concerns as Mother admitted to a history of
domestic violence and substance abuse. Mother
displayed a great deal of irritability and frustration
during the evaluation and did not accept any
responsibility for her current circumstances. She
blamed the “system” for her frustration and lack of
cooperation with service providers. Dr. O’Hara
recommended that Mother seek mental health, drug
-6-
J. S31044/17
and alcohol and domestic violence therapy.
Dr. O’Hara opined that Mother needed to attain some
level of stability through working with services and
attending anger management counseling before the
[C]hildren could be returned to her care.
Parties appeared on November 20th, 2013 for a
Shelter Review Hearing. Mother appeared but Father
did not. The Court ordered all of the [C]hildren to
remain in their various foster homes and converted
them from Shelter Care to regular Foster Care
placements. The Court further ordered Mother to
comply with her Family Service Plan goals
(specifically anger management), to attend visits,
and comply with enrolling the three youngest
[C]hildren in Matilda Theiss Preschool. The Court
made a finding that reasonable efforts were made by
[CYF] to prevent or eliminate the need for continued
placement of the [C]hildren. Ultimately, the case
was continued to another day to obtain reports and
testimony from Dr. Terry O’Hara.
A continued Shelter hearing was held on
December 10th, 2013 and the Court took all of the
testimony under advisement. Father failed to appear
but Mother did and was represented by counsel. The
Court issued an order on December 17th, 2013 that
the [C]hildren were to remain in placement, that
Mother’s visits were to remain status quo, that she
was to comply with all of her goals, and that she sign
releases and provide [CYF] with documentation that
she was in compliance with her dual diagnosis
treatment. The Court made a finding that
reasonable efforts were made by [CYF] to prevent or
eliminate the need for continued placement of the
[C]hildren. Mother began treatment at Mercy
Behavioral Health in December of 2013 and began
cooperating with services.
The case was assigned to this Court on
January 13th, 2014. It was reported that Mother had
threatened the previous caseworker during the
transition, thus necessitating the need to assign a
new caseworker. [CYF] assigned caseworker
-7-
J. S31044/17
Renee Taddy to the case. Ms. Taddy began working
with the family in January of 2014. Initially,
Caseworker Taddy had a cordial relationship with
Mother and was able to institute In-Home Services
for her in the first month that she was assigned to
the case. It was also discovered that Mother was
pregnant again. Mother was fairly cooperative
during this time and as such, the Court granted
Mother’s request to move visits into her home on
February 25th, 2014. The parties appeared on
th
March 12 , 2014 for a Permanency Review Hearing.
Father failed to appear but Mother did and was
represented by counsel. The Court ordered that the
[C]hildren remain in placement and that Mother’s
visits could be increased at the discretion of [CYF].
The Court further ordered Mother to continue to
work with In-Home Services, sign releases for her
dual diagnosis treatment, comply with all other
Family Service Plan goals, and cooperate with [CYF].
The Court made a finding that Mother was in
moderate compliance. Mother’s counsel filed a
th
Motion on April 10 , 2014 requesting overnight visits
with some of the [C]hildren. The Court granted the
request and ordered that Mother could have one
overnight visit with three of her older
children[Footnote 6]. The Court agreed to hear
argument on whether Mother could have one
overnight visit on Mother’s Day on May 7th, 2014
with all of the [C]hildren. At that hearing on May 7th,
2014, the Court ordered that Mother could have
extended visits with C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. on a
Saturday and an additional visit on Mother’s Day.
However, shortly after leaving the Court hearing,
Mother went into labor with J.W. and delivered him
that evening. J.W. was permitted to remain in his
Mother’s care after his birth. Mother identified the
father of this child to be C.W., the father of G.W.,
C.D.W., and C.P.W. Almost immediately after his
birth, [CYF] began to have concerns about Mother’s
care of the child. Mother discussed with Caseworker
Taddy the possibility of placing the baby in foster
care for a few days so that she could take a
“booze cruise” with her friends. Additionally, the
child was not in the home during many of the times
-8-
J. S31044/17
that the caseworker attempted to do random safety
checks throughout the week.
[Footnote 6] Two of these children are
not part of the TPR proceedings.
Dr. O’Hara conducted an individual evaluation
of Mother on June 24, 2014. The examiner had
similar concerns as in the 2013 evaluation. Mother
continued to engage in a romantic relationship with
Father, despite ongoing incidents of domestic
violence and continued emotional and mental
instability. Mother continued to externalize blame
for the removal of her [C]hildren. Additionally, she
reported that she was no longer willing to work with
services. Dr. O’Hara opined that Mother needed to
obtain housing and re-engage with In-Home Services
and anger management in order to provide the
stability required for reunification.
During this time, Caseworker Taddy received
reports from Mother’s neighbors that Mother was
partying frequently and that people were coming in
and out of the residence numerous times a day.
Mother confirmed that there was a great deal of foot
traffic at her house but always had an excuse [as] to
why this was occurring so frequently. The
caseworker also had concerns that J.W. was being
cared for by individuals not known to the agency.
She continued to have limited access to the child in
Mother’s home. Additionally, Mother was attending
medical and educational appointments sporadically
during this time. Due to the great number of missed
appointments, many important services for the
[C]hildren were delayed. Often times [sic], the
caseworker had to physically deliver releases and
other documents to Mother or her counsel for
signature as neither parent made themselves
available to attend these appointments. Father did
not attempt to contact Caseworker Taddy until June
of 2014. When he did make contact with her, he
advised her that he was not in [a] position to care
for J.W. or any of his other children. During one of
the home visits with the [C]hildren in June, Mother
-9-
J. S31044/17
was physically evicted from her residence. Based
upon her lack of housing and various other concerns,
the visits were changed back to supervised.
The parties appeared on July 2nd, 2014 for a
Permanency Hearing. Mother appeared and was
represented by counsel. Father failed to appear.
The Court ordered that all of the [C]hildren remain in
placement, that Mother receive anger management
therapy, attend a domestic violence support group,
cooperate with In-Home Services, find appropriate
housing, and sign treatment releases[Footnote 7].
Mother’s compliance was deemed to be minimal at
this hearing and the agency was found to have
provided reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate
the need for continued placement of the [C]hildren.
The Court found Father to not be in compliance at
all.
[Footnote 7] With the exception of J.W.,
whom the Court allowed to remain in the
care of Mother.
During the remaining summer months and
during early fall, [CYF] received a number of reports
that Mother was leaving J.W. with individuals not
known to the agency and that there may not have
been working utilities in her home. In addition, the
police had been called to Mother’s home a number of
times for disputes amongst neighbors. It was also
reported that Mother had become engaged in a
physical altercation while she was holding J.W. and
had handed him off to a bystander so that she could
engage another woman in a fist fight. Mother had
not been attending dual diagnosis treatment
consistently and was not appearing for random drug
screens called in by [CYF]. On October 10th, 2014,
[CYF] requested and was granted an Emergency
Custody Authorization order for J.W. based upon
these concerns. Father advised the caseworker that
he was unable to care for J.W. at that time but
offered his Mother as a possible placement option.
He had little to no contact with the caseworker prior
to this discussion in October. Father reported living
- 10 -
J. S31044/17
with his paramour, who was the Mother of his two
oldest children. However, Father refused to make
her available to be assessed by Caseworker Taddy.
Father had been more cooperative in signing
releases and attending to the [C]hildren’s
educational and medical needs during this reporting
period. Caseworker Taddy offered Father In-Home
Services, a referral for The Coalition for Fathers and
Families, an Urban League referral, and offered to
set up supervised visitation. Father declined the
In-Home Services but did agree to attend the
Coalition for Fathers and Families.
A Shelter Hearing was held on October 14th,
2014. Mother appeared represented and Father
failed to appear. The Court granted KidsVoice
temporary Educational/Medical decision making [sic]
rights until all of the [C]hildren could appear for a
Permanency Hearing on October 28th, 2014. The
Court also appointed KidsVoice for J.W. and placed
him in the care of paternal grandmother, T.W. The
Court made a finding that [CYF] made reasonable
efforts to prevent removal of J.W. from the home
and ordered them to file a Petition for Dependency.
After the hearing that day, [CYF] filed a petition for
Dependency for J.W.
The parties returned for a Permanency Hearing
on October 28th, 2014. Mother appeared
represented and Father appeared. The Court found
Mother to be in minimal compliance and Father to
have not complied at all. While Mother had made
some initial progress with In-Home Services, her
participation had gradually decreased throughout the
year. As such, the Court ordered all In-Home
Services to cease. The Court ordered that the
[C]hildren remain in placement. The Court further
ordered that Mother provide documentation that she
had been engaging in dual diagnosis for treatment,
domestic violence therapy, and to provide [CYF] with
updated contact information. The Court ordered
Father to contact [CYF]. The Adjudicatory hearing
for J.W. was continued. The Court found that the
agency had made reasonable efforts to prevent or
- 11 -
J. S31044/17
eliminate the need for continued placement of the
[C]hildren.
An Adjudicatory Hearing was held for J.W. on
December 17th, 2014. Both Mother and Father
appeared and were represented by counsel. After
hearing the evidence, the Court adjudicated J.W.
dependent under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1) as to both
Mother and Father. The Court ordered Mother to
attend random urine screens, attend parenting
classes through Arsenal[Footnote 8], attend AFA
evaluations and follow all recommendations,
cooperate with her goals and attend and participate
in domestic violence therapy. [CYF] was ordered to
assist Mother with housing and transportation
assistance. Father was ordered to undergo a drug
and alcohol evaluation, submit to random urine
screens, and attend the AFA evaluations and follow
the recommendations. CASA was appointed to
th
J.W.’s case on October 17 , 2014 by separate order.
[Footnote 8] [CYF] had concerns that
Mother was not providing adequate
supervision during visits.
A Permanency/Goal Change hearing was
scheduled for January 30th, 2015 for all of the
[C]hildren[Footnote 9]. Mother appeared and was
represented by counsel. Father did not appear but
was represented by counsel. The Court ordered that
the [C]hildren remain in placement, that Mother
begin the parenting program at Arsenal, attend AFA
evaluations and follow recommendations, continue
dual diagnosis treatment and domestic violence
therapy, and maintain suitable housing. Father[]
was ordered to continue his involvement with
Coalition for Fathers, attend dual diagnosis
treatment, attend AFA evaluations and follow all
recommendations. The Court found that both
Mother and Father were in minimal compliance with
their goals. Petitions for the Involuntary Termination
of Parental Rights for C.P.W., C.D.W. and G.W., were
filed on January 30th, 2015.
- 12 -
J. S31044/17
[Footnote 9] J.W.’s case was not
scheduled for a goal change as he had
only be[en] adjudicated dependent in
December of 2014.
[CYF] filed a Motion to Ratify Placement of
C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. and the Court granted the
Motion on March 17th, 2015. All three children were
placed into a new foster home. The Petitions for
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights were
withdrawn on April 16th, 2015. Dr. O’Hara conducted
individual and interactional evaluations with Mother
and some of the [C]hildren in April of 2015.
Dr. O’Hara had similar concerns as in the prior
evaluations. Mother admitted to engaging in two
incidents of domestic violence with Father, one of
which resulted in her arrest. Dr. O’Hara noted that
she accepted some responsibility for “letting her kids
down” and did show some insight into the dynamics
of the volatile relationship between herself and
Father. However, Mother still continued to make
excuses as to her lack of attendance at medical and
educational appointments for the [C]hildren. She
blamed the alleged victims in her criminal matters as
well as the landlords in her eviction matters. Similar
services were recommended as in the prior
evaluations. Dr. O’Hara conducted an interactional
evaluation of Mother and the [C]hildren on May 18th,
2015. He opined that Mother exhibited positive
parenting skills throughout the evaluation but that
she had difficulty in getting the [C]hildren to comply
with her directives. While Dr. O’Hara did not believe
that termination of Mother’s parental rights was
appropriate at that time, he believed that return of
the [C]hildren would expose them to psychological
instability, homelessness, and violence. Additionally,
none of the [C]hildren were in long term placements
at that time.
Dr. O’Hara conducted an individual and
interactional evaluation of Father on June 8th,
2015[Footnote 10], where Father reported to
Dr. O’Hara that he had suffered multiple “nervous
- 13 -
J. S31044/17
breakdowns”. [sic] He had admitted to a history of
mental health issues even prior to meeting Mother.
He also admitted to a history of abusing alcohol and
marijuana and that he had used marijuana a few
weeks prior to the evaluation. Father reported being
arrested and jailed on 13 separate occasions based
upon false allegations made by Mother. Father was
unwilling to discuss many details about his
relationship with Mother but alleged numerous
threats made towards him by her. Additionally,
Father revealed that Mother allegedly set his
paramour’s home on fire in 2010. Father showed
poor insight into Mother’s progress and told
Dr. O’Hara that he believed that she was doing
everything that she was supposed to do. At that
time, Dr. O’Hara recommended that Father
participate in dual diagnosis intensive outpatient
treatment, obtain appropriate housing, undergo a
psychiatric consultation, and attend parenting
classes. Dr. O’Hara also conducted an interactional
evaluation with Father and the [C]hildren on the
same date. Dr. O’Hara noted that Father was
appropriate and played well with the [C]hildren.
C.P.W. often overly directed herself towards Father
while J.W. and G.W. did not, which caused the
Doctor to opine that the [C]hildren had an insecure
attachment to Father.
[Footnote 10] Father had previously
been scheduled to attend AFA
evaluations five times but failed to
appear.
The parties appeared on June 12th, 2015 and
the hearing was continued so that the parties could
review the aforementioned recommendations made
by Dr. O’Hara.
In between hearings, a number of important
medical and educational appointments were
scheduled for the [C]hildren. A meeting for C.P.W.,
C.D.W., and G.W. was held at Matilda Theiss and
Mother did not attend. As a result of Mother missing
the meeting and not completing the paperwork,
- 14 -
J. S31044/17
C.D.W. did not receive vital services. Father was
cooperative during this time in signing paperwork for
the [C]hildren’s educational needs. It was also
reported to [CYF] during this time frame that Mother
had come to Father’s place of employment and
struck him in the head with a glass bottle. Father
had to be hospitalized due to the seriousness of the
injury. Mother was criminally charged for this
assault but the charges were later dismissed because
Father failed to appear at the Preliminary Hearing. A
few weeks later, Father was also alleged to have
threatened Mother with a gun. He was arrested and
charged as a result of this incident. His charges
were also dismissed after Mother failed to appear at
his Preliminary Hearing. Mother was arrested and
charged with Retail Theft on May 18th and May 22nd,
2015. A Permanency Planning meeting was held in
mid-July and Mother did attend. At this meeting,
Mother threatened caseworker Taddy in front of
several people. While discussing a goal change for
the [C]hildren, Mother said “If you try to adopt my
kids out, you will be sorry”. [sic] Mother alleged that
the caseworker had informed the [Allegheny County]
Housing Authority of the pending termination
proceedings and that they had denied Mother the
chance to obtain a suitable home for the [C]hildren.
As a result of this particular incident, Ms. Taddy
asked to be removed as the caseworker for the
family. A new caseworker, Richard Mudd[,] was
assigned to the case[Footnote 11].
[Footnote 11] Ms. Taddy remained on
the case until October of 2015.
Parties appeared on July 24th, 2015 for a
Permanency Review Hearing. Mother and Father
attended and were represented by counsel. Mother’s
progress was determined to be minimal as she only
attended 60% or 70% of her scheduled mental
health treatment appointments and anger
management treatment. She missed a number of
random urine screens during this time. She had also
not been consistent with visits that occurred at the
Arsenal Parenting Program with J.W..[sic] Mother
- 15 -
J. S31044/17
attended approximately half of her visits with J.W.,
and as a result, her visits were reduced to once a
week with him. She was more consistent with the
visits for C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. which occurred
twice a month. At the time of the hearing, Mother
was in the process of being evicted again. The Court
ordered Mother to continue domestic violence
treatment, anger management classes, trauma
therapy, mental health treatment, to obtain suitable
housing, and to take random urine screes.[sic]
Father was ordered to engage in dual diagnosis
treatment[Footnote 12], attend parenting classes at
Arsenal, attend domestic violence therapy, obtain
housing, and comply with the AFA recommendations.
Father’s progress was deemed to be minimal as he
had not attended visits regularly and had not sought
dual diagnosis treatment. Father was also in need of
appropriate housing and requested assistance from
the agency despite refusing to provide [CYF] with a
current address. [CYF] was ordered to make an
Urban League referral to assist Father in obtaining
housing, provide transportation assistance for the
parents, and to provide Father with notice of all
upcoming medical appointments for his [C]hildren.
The Court held that [CYF] made reasonable efforts to
prevent or eliminate the need for removal or
continued placement of the [C]hildren. The Court
ordered that the [C]hildren remain in placement with
continued permission to place. All of the foster
parents were given secondary educational and
medical decision making [sic] rights.
[Footnote 12] Father tested positive for
THC at his screen on the day of this
hearing.
The parties appeared on the 9th of October,
2015 for a Permanency Review Hearing. The new
[CYF] caseworker, Richard Mudd, began working
exclusively with the family in October. Mother and
Father both appeared and were represented by
counsel. The Court ordered that the [C]hildren
remain in placement and that all previously ordered
services remain in effect. Mother and Father were
- 16 -
J. S31044/17
ordered to continue to comply with their goals. The
Court determined that Mother made minimal
progress based upon her poor visitation, missed
screens, lack of consistency with mental health
treatment along with another pending eviction.
During this period, Mother was arrested and charged
with Retail Theft. Mother was also arrested and
charged with Defiant Trespass, False Identification to
Law Enforcement, and Disorderly Conduct. The
more serious charges were withdrawn and Mother
pled guilty to two counts [sic] Disorderly Conduct.
The Court deemed Father’s progress to be minimal
as he consistently failed to appear for drug screens
and had not engaged in dual diagnosis
treatment[Footnote 13]. Father had not been in
contact with the caseworker during this reporting
period but had been attending visits with the older
children more regularly. Father was residing with his
grandmother at the time of the hearing and was
unable to care for the [C]hildren in that home. The
Court found that [CYF] made reasonable efforts to
prevent or eliminate the need for removal or
continued placement of the [C]hildren. C.P.W.,
C.D.W., and G.W. were moved to a pre-adoptive
foster home and their caregivers were given
secondary Educational and Medical Decision-Making
Rights. The CASA worker assigned to the case
resigned, and the Program Supervisor,
Danielle Morrison, assumed the case at the end of
2015[Footnote 14].
[Footnote 13] Father reported that he
continued to smoke marijuana.
[Footnote 14] CASA’s recommendations
for the family remained fairly the same
throughout the history of the case.
Namely that parents comply with their
goals and ensure that the [C]hildren’s
medical and educational needs were
being met.
A Permanency/Goal Change Hearing was held
on January 5th, 2016. Mother and Father appeared
- 17 -
J. S31044/17
and were represented by counsel. The Court
ordered that all [C]hildren remain in their current
placements. Mother was ordered to continue mental
health treatment, obtain suitable housing, attend
regular urine screens, attend visits, sign releases,
finish parenting classes, and maintain contact with
the domestic violence therapist. Father was ordered
to undergo dual diagnosis treatment, obtain
appropriate housing, and attend regular drug
screens. Visits were to remain status quo. [CYF]
was ordered to investigate Mother’s new residence.
Both Mother and Father were deemed to be in
minimal compliance. The Court found that [CYF]
made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the
need for removal or continued placement of the
[C]hildren. The Goal Change Hearing was continued
to coincide with the Termination Hearing.
A Permanency Hearing was held on April 6th,
2016. Mother and Father both attended and were
represented by counsel. Mother’s health insurance
lapsed in January of 2016 and she did not rectify the
situation until shortly before this hearing. As such,
she did not engage in mental health treatment
during this period. At the time of the hearing, it was
reported to the Court that the younger children,
particularly C.D.W. and G.W., were acting out
sexually. The Court ordered that foster parents seek
out an appropriate mental health service to address
these concerns. The Court ordered that the
[C]hildren remain in placement. Mother was ordered
to maintain stable housing, undergo a POWER
evaluation and follow any of their recommendations,
continue treatment at Mercy, sign medical releases,
and attend the [C]hildren’s medical appointments
and AFA evaluations. Father was ordered to undergo
a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow all
recommendations, attend regular urine screens, sign
releases, and attend the [C]hildren’s medical
appointments. There was an ongoing need for both
Mother and Father to receive sign language
training[Footnote15]. The Court found both parents
to be minimally complaint [sic] with their goals and
that [CYF] had made reasonable efforts to prevent or
- 18 -
J. S31044/17
eliminate the need for removal or continued
placement of the [C]hildren.
[Footnote 15] C.P.W. was largely
non-verbal at the time of the hearing.
Foster parents had received training and
were able to effectively communicate
with her by using American Sign
Language.
Petitions for Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights were again filed on behalf of C.P.W.,
C.D.W., G.W., and J.W. on April 13th, 2016.
Dr. O’Hara conducted his final individual
evaluation of both Mother and Father in June of 2016
as well as interactional evaluations with the parents
and [C]hildren. Dr. O’Hara noted that Father
externalized responsibility for the [C]hildren
remaining in care. Dr. O’Hara was unable to
evaluate Father’s paramour and had no information
that Father’s household could appropriately meet the
needs of the [C]hildren. Dr. O’Hara continued to
have significant concerns about Father’s history of
drug and alcohol abuse coupled with significant
mental health concerns which had previously
warranted a psychiatric hospitalization. In both
evaluations, Father reported using marijuana when
he felt overwhelmed. Dr. O’Hara reported that
Father blamed his use on [CYF] and stated that “CYF
was not doing what they were supposed to be
doing....lt was so overwhelming...They want to
overwhelm me”. [sic] It was his opinion that even if
Father and his paramour had a safe and stable home
with no history of domestic violence, he still could
not recommend placing four young children into their
care. It was Dr. O’Hara’s opinion that he could not
recommend returning the [C]hildren to Father’s care
as he had no evidence to demonstrate that Father
would be able to handle such a huge commitment.
Dr. O’Hara supported his claim by referencing
Father’s lack of follow through with dual diagnosis
treatment along with his paramour’s lack of
participation in an evaluation. It was Dr. O’Hara’s
- 19 -
J. S31044/17
belief that any parent caring for four young children,
3 with special needs, would feel overwhelmed at
times. More specifically, a parent who suffered from
mental health issues would certainly be more
inclined to feel overwhelmed.
In his evaluation of Mother, Dr. O’Hara
reported that Mother appeared uncharacteristically
lethargic. Mother denied being under the influence
but her behavior was concerning enough that it was
noted in Dr. O’Hara’s report. During the evaluation,
Mother continued to externalized [sic] responsibility
for the circumstances that caused the [C]hildren’s
continued placement. Dr. O’Hara opined that return
of the [C]hildren to Mother would place them at risk
for exposure to substantial anger issues, criminal
activity, homelessness, substance abuse, and
aggression based upon her lack of progress in
addressing her mental health and drug and alcohol
goals.
Dr. O’Hara also conducted interactional and
individual evaluations of the foster parents of C.P.W,
C.D.W., and G.W. in which he concluded that they
exhibited several positive parenting skills. The
[C]hildren displayed several components of a secure
attachment with their foster parents. Specifically,
they “showed autonomy, spontaneously and
frequently directed themselves to the [foster
parents.”] These individual evaluations were
conducted based upon concerns expressed by CASA
Supervisor Danielle Morrison regarding the care of
the [C]hildren. However, Dr. O’Hara had no
concerns about the foster parent’s [sic] care of the
[C]hildren. Additionally, he noted that “virtually all
of the collateral resources that have worked with the
[foster parents] have had no concerns about [their]
care of the [C]hildren.”
Dr. O’Hara conducted an individual and
interactional evaluation of J.W.’s foster Mother and
observed her to display a number of positive
parenting skills. J.W. displayed several components
of secure attachment with his foster Mother as well.
- 20 -
J. S31044/17
Trial court opinion, 2/17/17 at 4-20 (some brackets in original).
On January 25, 2017, the trial court entered an order that involuntarily
terminated Father’s parental rights to the Children. On February 7, 2017,
Father filed a timely notice of appeal to this court and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. On February 17,
2017, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.
On appeal, Father raises the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a
matter of law in concluding that [CYF] met its burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of [Father’s] parental rights would best
serve the needs and welfare of the [C]hildren
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b)?
Father’s brief at 14.
In matters involving involuntary termination of parental rights, 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). “If the factual findings are supported,
appellate courts review to determine if the trial court
made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id.
“[A] decision may be reversed for an abuse of
discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or
ill-will.” Id. The trial court’s decision, however,
should not be reversed merely because the record
would support a different result. Id. at 827. We
have previously emphasized our deference to trial
courts that often have first-hand observations of the
- 21 -
J. S31044/17
parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re
R.J.T., 9 A.3d [1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)].
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). “The trial court is free to
believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to
make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence.”
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). “[I]f
competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if
the record could also support the opposite result.” In re Adoption of
T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
The termination of parental rights is guided by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated
analysis of the grounds for termination followed by the needs and welfare of
the child.
Our case law has made clear that under
Section 2511, the court must engage in a bifurcated
process prior to terminating parental rights. 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.
- 22 -
J. S31044/17
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citations omitted). We
have defined clear and convincing evidence as that which 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.”
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc), quoting
Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998).
In this case, the trial court terminated Father’s parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8), as well as (b). We
have long held that, in order to affirm a termination of parental rights, we
need only agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of
Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b). In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380,
384 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc). As Father does not raise a challenge to
the trial court’s finding of grounds for termination under Section 2511(a) in
the statement of questions involved section of his brief, Father waives the
issue on appeal. Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776, 797
(Pa.Super. 2006) (reiterating 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). We, therefore, analyze the court’s termination
pursuant to Section 2511(b) only, which provides as follows:
(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
- 23 -
J. S31044/17
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(b).
With regard to Section 2511(b), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has
stated as follows:
[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a)
are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to
the developmental, physical and emotional needs
and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b).
The emotional needs and welfare of the child have
been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles
such as love, comfort, security, and stability.” In re
K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa.Super. 2012). In In re
E.M., 620 A.2d [481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], this Court
held that the determination of the child’s “needs and
welfare” requires consideration of the emotional
bonds between the parent and child. The “utmost
attention” should be paid to discerning the effect on
the child of permanently severing the parental bond.
In re K.M., 53 A.3d at 791. However, as discussed
below, evaluation of a child’s bonds is not always an
easy task.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[I]n cases where there is no evidence of a
bond between a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond
exists. Accordingly, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily
depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re Adoption of
- 24 -
J. S31044/17
J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citations omitted). Additionally,
when evaluating a parental bond, “the court is not required to use expert
testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well.
Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation.”
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super. 2010), citing In re K.K.R.-S.,
958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Father contends that “[i]f the trial court had given serious
consideration of the strong attachment, bond and love between Father and
[C]hidren that the law mandates,” it should have found that termination did
not best serve the needs and welfare of the Children. (Father’s brief at 24.)
Father further claims that the evidence demonstrated that “termination of
Father’s parental rights will deprive the [C]hildren of the love and affection
of their Father.” (Id.)
We decline Father’s invitation to reweigh the evidence and reassess
witness credibility. Our standard of review requires to us to accept the trial
court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations where, as here, they
are supported by the record. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. Therefore,
because the record supports the trial court’s factual findings, and the trial
court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of
discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order with regard to Subsection (b).
Order affirmed.
- 25 -
J. S31044/17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/15/2017
- 26 -