J-S01001-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: P.T.M. AND K.L.M., MINORS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.H. AND C.N.M., :
FATHER AND MOTHER :
: No. 1539 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 5, 2017
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 0287-2017
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 21, 2018
J.H. (“Father”) and C.N.M. (“Mother”) appeal from the Decree entered
on September 5, 2017, granting the Petition filed by the Lancaster County
Children and Youth Social Service Agency (“Agency”) to terminate their
parental rights to their minor, female child, K.L.M. (“K”) (born in April of
2015). Mother additionally challenges the termination of her parental rights
her minor, male child, P.T.M. (“P”) (born in June of 2009).1 After careful
review, we vacate and remand for additional proceedings in the trial court.
____________________________________________
1 P’s father is R.F.M., whose paternal rights to P were voluntarily terminated
by a Decree entered on June 5, 2017. Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/17, at 1 n.1.
R.F.M. has not filed an appeal from the termination of his parental rights, nor
is he a party to the instant appeal.
J-S01001-18
In its Opinion, the trial court summarized the factual and procedural
history underlying the instant appeal, which we adopt as though fully restated
herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/17, at 1-14.
On September 5, 2017, the trial court entered its Decree terminating
the parental rights of Mother to P, and of Mother and Father to K. On October
3, 2017, both parents filed a joint, single Notice of appeal from the Decree,
along with a Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal, pursuant
to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).2
Father and Mother argue that the Agency did not establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, the grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and/or (8). Brief for Appellants at 15-57. Father and
Mother further contend that, even if the Agency established by clear and
convincing evidence grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
____________________________________________
2 On April 16, 2013, the Note to Pa.R.A.P. 341 was amended to state that,
where one or more orders resolves issues arising on more than one docket or
relating to more than one judgment, an appellant must file separate notices
of appeal from each order or judgment. See Pa.R.A.P. 341, Note. In General
Electric Credit Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 263 A.2d 448,
452 (Pa. 1970), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that “taking one
appeal from several judgments is not acceptable practice and is discouraged.”
In Commonwealth v. C.M.K., 932 A.2d 111, 113 (Pa. Super. 2007), this
Court quashed a joint notice of appeal filed by co-defendants from separate
judgments of sentence, citing General Electric, supra and Pa.R.A.P. 512,
Note. Father and Mother should have filed a separate notice of appeal from
the termination Decrees as to each child, and had the appeals entered on
separate dockets. If they had done so, the appeals would have been
consolidated for the convenience of the panel and the parties, in any event.
See Pa.R.A.P. 513. We, therefore, do not find the appeals defective, and will
address them.
-2-
J-S01001-18
§ 2511(a), the Agency did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence,
the 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) requirement, i.e., that the developmental, physical
and emotional needs and welfare of the children would not be harmed by
termination of parental rights. Brief for Appellants at 52. Father and Mother
assert that the case should be remanded for a proper subsection (b) analysis.
In reviewing an appeal from the termination of parental rights, we
adhere to 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. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9
A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). 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.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d [567,]
572 [(Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been often stated, an
abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing
court might have reached a different conclusion. Id.; see also
Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 613 Pa. 371, 34
A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 575 Pa. 647, 838
A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed
for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
As we discussed in R.J.T., there 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. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190.
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 judges so long as the factual
-3-
J-S01001-18
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 Atencio, 539 Pa. 161, 650 A.2d
1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994).
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012).
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. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). “The
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. (quoting In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
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). Section 2511
provides, in relevant part, 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.
(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
-4-
J-S01001-18
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.
***
(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.A. § 2511.
-5-
J-S01001-18
With respect to subsection 2511(a)(1), our Supreme Court has held as
follows:
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 Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 92 (Pa. 1988).
Further, this Court has directed that
the trial court must consider the whole history of a given case and
not mechanically apply the six-month statutory provision. The
court must examine the individual circumstances of each case and
consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination
of his or her parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light
of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the
involuntary termination.
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 854-55 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).
To satisfy the requirements of subsection 2511(a)(2), the moving party
must produce clear and convincing evidence regarding the following elements:
(1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) such
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential
parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-
being; and (3) the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot
or will not be remedied. See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272
(Pa. Super. 2003). The grounds for termination of parental rights under
subsection 2511(a)(2), due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied,
are not limited to affirmative misconduct; to the contrary, those grounds may
-6-
J-S01001-18
include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties. In re
A.L.D. 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002).
When we review the trial court’s analysis of subsection 2511(a)(5), we
consider the following:
Under [subsection] 2511(a)(5), we, thus, review the record to
determine whether [a child has] been removed from [the parent]
for six months and whether [the parent] can remedy the
conditions leading to the removal of [the child]. See[] In the
Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327, 334 (Pa. Super. 1998) (the
child has been removed from the parents by the court and the
conditions which led to placement of the child continue to exist
and have not been remedied within a reasonable time and
termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child). We also note that in considering the
importance of stability to a child’s welfare, the reasons why the
child has been with the third party for so long must be taken into
account. In Re: Adoption of Steven S., 417 Pa. Super. 247,
612 A.2d 465, 471 (1992), appeal denied, 533 Pa. 661, 625 A.2d
1194 (1993).
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 395 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Further, to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(a)(8), it must be demonstrated that “(1) [t]he child has been removed
from parental care for 12 months or more from the date of removal; (2) the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist;
and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare
of the child.” In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d at 1275-76. “Section
2511(a)(8) sets a 12-month time frame for a parent to remedy the conditions
that led to the children’s removal by the court.” In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560,
564 (Pa. Super. 2003). Once the 12-month period has been established, the
-7-
J-S01001-18
trial court must next determine whether the conditions necessitating
placement persist, despite the reasonable good faith efforts Agency supplied
over a realistic period of time. Id. Terminating parental rights under
subsection (a)(8) does not require the trial court to evaluate a parent’s current
“willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused
placement.” T.B.B., 835 A.2d at 396 (citation omitted).
In its Opinion, the trial court provided a comprehensive summary and
analysis of the evidence supporting termination pursuant to subsections
(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8). See Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/17, at 2-14, 15-19.
Our review discloses that the trial court’s decision to terminate the parental
rights of Father and Mother under subsections (a)(1), (2), (5), and (8), is
supported by competent, clear and convincing evidence in the record, and we
discern no abuse of discretion in this regard. We therefore adopt the trial
court’s Opinion as to termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to subsections (a)(1), (2), (5) and (8). See Trial Court Opinion,
11/2/17, at 15-19.
Next, we address Father’s and Mother’s claim that the trial court abused
its discretion in terminating their parental rights to their children pursuant to
section 2511(b). See Brief for Appellants at 50-55. Father and Mother assert
that the trial court improperly failed to conduct a separate analysis pursuant
to subsection (b), requiring remand to the trial court for a full analysis
pursuant to that subsection. See id. at 55.
-8-
J-S01001-18
The focus in terminating parental rights under subsection 2511(a) is on
the parent, but it is on the child pursuant to subsection 2511(b). See In re
Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). In
reviewing the evidence in support of termination under section 2511(b), our
Supreme Court has stated the following:
[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
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.
In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
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) (internal
citations omitted). Although it is often wise to have a bonding evaluation and
make it part of the certified record, “[t]here are some instances … where direct
observation of the interaction between the parent and the child is not
necessary and may even be detrimental to the child.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d
753, 762 (Pa. Super. 2008).
A parent’s abuse and neglect are likewise a relevant part of this analysis:
-9-
J-S01001-18
A child’s feelings toward a parent are relevant to the section
2511(b) analysis. Nonetheless, concluding a child has a beneficial
bond with a parent simply because the child harbors affection for
the parent is not only dangerous, it is logically unsound. If a
child’s feelings were the dispositive factor in the bonding analysis,
the analysis would be reduced to an exercise in semantics as it is
the rare child who, after being subject to neglect and abuse, is
able to sift through the emotional wreckage and completely
disavow a parent …. Nor are we of the opinion that the biological
connection between [the parent] and the children is sufficient in
of itself, or when considered in connection with a child’s feeling
toward a parent, to establish a de facto beneficial bond exists.
The psychological aspect of parenthood is more important in terms
of the development of the child and [his or her] mental and
emotional health than the coincidence of biological or natural
parenthood.
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted). “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the
custody and rearing of … her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill … her
parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of
[the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” In re
B.,N.M., 856 A.2d at 856 (internal citations omitted).
With regard to section 2511(b), the trial court stated the following:
When the Agency has met its burden under [s]ection
2511(a), the [c]ourt must also look to the requirements of
[s]ection 2511(b) before terminating any parental rights. “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
- 10 -
J-S01001-18
to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.”[FN] 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(b). Section 2511(b) centers judicial inquiry upon the
welfare of the child rather than the fault of the parent. In re A.R.,
837 A.2d [at 565]. “Considering what situation would best serve
the child’s needs and welfare, the court must examine the status
of the bond between the natural parent and the child to consider
whether terminating the parent’s rights would destroy an existing,
necessary and beneficial relationship.” [T.B.B., 835 A.2d at 396].
On appeal, the parents assert that the [c]ourt’s Order is not
supported by evidence, and not in the best interests of the
children. A review of the record, however, indicates otherwise.
___________________________________________________
[FN]The parents’ Concise Statement asserts that this final sentence
of section 2511(b) violates their due process and equal protection
rights because the Agency can still use the setbacks and failures,
occurring after the Petition is filed, against the parents. The
[c]ourt notes that, in this matter, both the progress and setbacks
or failures of these parents occurred before the February 2017
Petition was filed; that the setbacks or failures continued
afterwards did not alter the [c]ourt’s decision.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/17, at 15-16 (footnote in original).
Although the trial court stated that the termination of Father’s and
Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children, it failed to
discuss subsection (b) with regard to the evidence of record. Rather, the trial
court focused its analysis of the evidence strictly on subsection (a). A
consideration of both subsections (a) and (b) is necessary for the involuntary
termination of parental rights. Therefore, we are constrained to vacate the
Decree, and remand the matter to the trial court for a full section 2511(b)
analysis. See T.S.M., supra; In re K.Z.S., supra.
On remand, the trial court has the discretion to take additional
testimony and receive more evidence to complete the section 2511(b) best
- 11 -
J-S01001-18
interests analysis. Accordingly, although we discern no abuse of the trial
court’s discretion with regard to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a), we vacate the Decree
and remand the case for the trial court’s consideration and analysis under 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). The trial court shall hold further evidentiary
proceedings, if necessary, and then enter a new decree.3
Decree vacated. Case remanded with instructions. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 03/21/2018
____________________________________________
3 Because of our disposition, we do not reach the parents’ argument
concerning whether the second portion of section (b) is unconstititutional as
violative of the guarantee to due process, and the trial court’s reasoning for
rejecting that argument. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/2/17, at 15 n.5, supra.
- 12 -
Circulated 02/28/2018 05:06 PM
IN THE cousr OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN RE: IN THiE INTEREST OF Docket No: 287 OF 2017
\P.T.M. SUPERIOR CT NO: 1539 MDA 2017
IN RE: IN THIE INTEREST OF Docket No: 288 OF 2017
iK.L.M. SUPERIOR CT NO: 1539 MDA 2017
BY GORBEY, J.
OPINION SUR APPEAL
Procedural History
This matter came before this Court on the Petition filed on February 8, 2017 by
i
the Lancaster County Children and Youth Social Service Agency ("Agency") to
terminate th�, parental rights C.N.M.("Mother") and J.H.,("Father") the birth parents of
K.L.M. ("K"), born April 14, 2015, and to terminate the parental rights of Mother to
P.T.M. ("P"), born June 13, 2009.1
This family's contact with the Court in the dependency matter began with the
Agency's filing for custody of P and his older sister K.M. (Mother's oldest child, born
March 5, 2oqo), granted by the Court on November 10, 2014.2 The Agency filed for
1P'sfather is R.F.M., and his paternal rights to P were voluntarily terminated by Decree on June 5,
2017; as such, �is rights are not at issue in the matter at hand.
2Theseicases are docketed to CP-36-DP-0280-2014 (P), and CP-36-DP-152-2014 (K). These
cases were incorporated into the instant Orphans' Court matter by Orders dated October 17, 2016, March
13, 2017 and May 1, 2017. For clarity's sake, we refer to either the QC-docket or the DP-docket, and the
date and title otlthe document cited.
1
i
custody of K and that request was granted by the Court on April 28, 2015. The Agency
i
then filed an February 8, 2017 Petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and
I
Father. Hea�jings were held on May 1, June 5 and September 5, 2017; Mother and
Father were present with counsel. On September 5, 2017, a Decree was issued to
I
I
terminate the\ parental rights of Mother to P and of both parents to K. On October 3,
I
2017, both parents appealed that Decree to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
I
I Factual History
I
Mother has four children, including the two at issue herein. The Agency became
I
I
involved in 2�12, with concerns for K.M.'s neglect, truancy and mental health; concerns
I
�as
that Mother not following up with K.M.'s mental health needs resulted in a January
I
9, 2013 Fam\ly Service Plan ("FSP") to address these concerns, as well as concerns
1
with income and housing stability and parenting skills. DP-docket 1117/2014 Petition,
I
QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 20. A report in August of 2013 raised concerns with
I
I
ongoing sexual abuse of K.M. by P's father, R.F.M.; he was subsequently indicated as
!
i
the perpetrator of sexual abuse and pied guilty to related charges in March of 2014.
I
DP-docket 1117/2014 Petition, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 20, 21. Since 2013, there
i
have been o�going concerns with Mother neglecting K.M.'s mental health and abuse
!
recovery needs and P's needs for speech therapy, concerns with truancy for both K.M.
I
and P, and onqolnq unstable income and housing. DP-docket 1117/2014 Petition, OC-
i
I •
docket 5/1/2@17 N. T. at 20. The Court approved a child permanency plan (CPP) and
i
I
Mother had reunification goals including work on mental health, parenting skills,
!I
financial and I housing stability, demonstrating commitment to her children, and
!
2
understanding sexual victimization. DP-docket 1218/2014 Ex. 1, QC-docket 511/2017
N. T. at 21. P was placed in a resource home in December of 2014. DP-docket
11/15/2014 Order.
K was born on April 14, 2015 and the Agency petitioned for custody of K, noting
that Mother's other children were in Agency care and that her progress on her CPP
goals was minimal; Mother had taken no steps towards her mental health goals, and
not attended any classes regarding sexual victimization, and was not employed. DP-
docket 3/31/2015 Petition, 4/16/2015 Petition, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 21.
Additionally, Mother was not sure who K's father was, and as such, the Agency could
not identify any paternal kinship resources. DP-docket 4/16/2015 Petition. The Court
approved a CPP for Mother which matched the CPP already in place regarding P. DP-
docket 6/15/2015 Ex. 1, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 21. K was placed with her brother
Pin a resource home in April of 2015. DP-docket 4/27/2015 Order.
A permanency review hearing was held in September of 2015. DP-docket
817/2015 Petition. By this time, Father had been confirmed as the biological father of K.
DP-docket 817/2015 Petition, 9/3/2015 Order, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 41. The
Court approved a CPP and Father had reunification goals including cooperating with
the Agency, work on mental health, parenting skills, financial and housing stability, and
demonstrating commitment to K. DP-docket 9/212015 Ex. 1, 9/3/2015 Order, OC-
docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 41. Both parents' compliance was moderate and progress
minimal. DP-docket 817/2015 Petition, 9/3/2015 Order. Regarding their mental health
goals, Mother had received an evaluation and recommendations, but had not followed
3
through yet, due to insurance issues, and Father had been referred and scheduled for
an evaluation. DP-docket 817/2015 Petition, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 22.
Regarding parenting skills, Mother had not yet been referred for such classes from her
mental health provider. DP-docket 817/2015 Petition, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 24.
Regarding financial stability, Mother was working part-time but was looking for other,
more consistent employment and Father continued to work at just-less-than-full-time
hours; both parents were reminded to submit pay stubs. DP-docket 817/2015 Petition.
Regarding housing, the parents were looking for suitable housing to accommodate both
Kand P. DP-docket 817/2015 Petition. Regarding their commitment to the children, the
parents were visiting regularly with both children, as they intended to parent the children
together.3 DP-docket 817/2015 Petition, DP-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 61-62. Regarding
her sexual victimization education goal, Mother was attending and participating. DP-
docket 817/2015 Petition.
A permanency review hearing was held in February of 2016. DP-docket
1/21/2016 Petition. Both parents' compliance was substantial and progress moderate;
Mother's progress was a compelling reason for the Agency to not pursue termination of
parental rights at that time. DP-docket 1/21/2016 Petitions, 2116/2016 Orders.
Regarding their mental health goals, Mother was attending counseling regularly and
making progress, and after some miscommunication about his provider selection,
Father had been referred for counseling. DP-docket 1/21/2016 Petitions, QC-docket
3The
parents' Concise Statement alleges error by the Court in failing to evaluate Father's
parenting separately from that of Mother; however, because the parents were steadfast in their
commitment to parent together, including having another child and marrying during the pendency of this
matter, their parenting abilities must be evaluated together because they both contribute to the family's
welfare.
4
5/1/2017 N. T. at 22-23, 41. Regarding parenting skills, Mother completed a parenting
capacity evaluation and was referred to work with a Personalized Parent Trainer (PPT)
and Father had not yet been referred by his mental health provider. DP-docket
1/21/2016 Petitions, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 23, 24. Mother had also been referred
to a pain management clinic. DP-docket 1/21/2016 Petitions, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T.
at 23. Regarding financial stability, Mother was working full-time but far from home and
was looking for employment closer to home, and Father had started new full-time
employment; both parents were reminded to submit pay stubs. DP-docket 1/21/2016
Petitions. Regarding housing, the parents had moved into a three-bedroom home with
room for the parents, K, P and K.M; both parents were reminded to submit utility
payment documentation. DP-docket 1/21/2016 Petitions. Regarding their commitment
to the children, the parents were visiting regularly with both children, as well as K.M., as
they intended to parent the children together, although Father's work schedule
sometimes required him to miss the group visits and to meet separately with his
daughter K. DP-docket 1/21/2016 Petitions. Regarding her sexual victimization
education goal, Mother had successfully completed her goal. DP-docket 1/21/2016
Petition. At this time, P had been in placement for 15 months and K for nine months.
DP-docket 1/21/2016 Petitions.
A permanency review hearing was held in July of 2016. DP-docket 6/21/2016
Petitions, 7/25/2016 Orders. Both parents' compliance and progress were moderate.
DP-docket 6/21/2016 Petitions, 7/25/2016 Orders. Regarding their mental health goals,
Mother was attending counseling regularly and making progress and Father had
5
successfully completed counseling. DP-docket 6/21/2016 Petitions, QC-docket
5/1/2017 N. T. at 23, 42. Mother had not met with anyone at the pain management
clinic. DP-docket 6/2112016 Petitions, QC-docket 511/2017 N. T. at 23. Regarding
parenting skills, Mother and Father began work with the PPT, although the PPT had
trouble meeting with Father due to his work schedule. DP-docket 6/2112016 Petitions,
QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 23, 24, QC-docket 9/112017 at 17. The PPT expressed
concerns with Mother's ability to manage three children at the same time, as Mother
spent time talking with K.M. but was not ensuring the safety of K. DP-docket 6/2112016
Petitions, PPT Court Report 5/212016, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 24, 33, QC-docket
9/112017 N. T. at 71. Mother struggled to interact with P, instead offering him her phone
for video games. QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 36, 70-71. Specifically, visits between
Mother and the three children indicated that Mother left Kin a safety seat alone on the
sofa, Mother was pushing Kin a swing with her back to the other children, Mother
showed flowers to K while P was walking towards traffic, and Mother took K.M. to the
bathroom while leaving the younger two children alone and out of sight in a pizza shop
booth. DP-docket PPT Court Report 5/212016. The PPT did not recommend that the
Agency begin transition-home visits at that time. DP-docket 6/21/2016 Petitions.
Regarding financial stability, Mother was working full-time closer to home, but her
income, alone, was insufficient to provide for all three children; Father's income was
sufficient to cover the family's basic needs. DP-docket 6/2112016 Petitions. Regarding
housing, the parents had moved into a three-bedroom home with room for the parents,
K, P and K.M; the parents appeared to be struggling with utility payments. DP-docket
6
6/21/2016 Petitions. Regarding their commitment to the children, Mother visited
regularly with the children, although P spent much of the time playing with Mother's
telephone, and Father's visits with K had been less consistent due to a shift change.
DP-docket 6/21/2016 Petitions, PPT Court Reports 7/25/2016, QC-docket 5/1/2017
N. T. at 70-71. Mother had missed a meeting regarding the children with the COBYS
Agency. DP-docket CASA Reports 4120/2016, QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 76. At this
time, P had been in placement for 20 months and K for 15 months. DP-docket
6/21/2016 Petitions, 7/25/2016 Orders.
A permanency review hearing was held in December of 2016. DP-docket
1117/2016 Petitions, 12/12/2016 Orders. Both parents' compliance and progress were
substantial. DP-docket 1117/2016 Petition, 12/12/2016 Order. The Agency had not
moved forward with a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, at this time, because of the
progress made by the parents. DP-docket 12/12/2016 Orders. Regarding their mental
health goals, Mother was attending counseling regularly and making progress and
Father had successfully completed counseling. DP-docket 1117/2016 Petitions, OC-
docket 5/112017 N. T. at 23, 42. Mother had still not met with anyone at the pain
management clinic. DP-docket 1117/2016 Petitions, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 23.
Regarding parenting skills, Mother and Father had begun work with the PPT, but
attendance had been inconsistent. DP-docket 1117/2016 Petitions, DP-docket 6/512017
N. T. at 91-92, 97. The PPT expressed concerns with the home's sanitation and clutter
in light of young children; in-home visits were set to begin soon. DP-docket 1117/2016
Petitions, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 24-25, 28-31, 68-69, OC-docket 9/112017 at 20,
7
32-34. In November of 2016, Mother had admitted to needing more visits to allow her
to adjust, before P and K were returned to her care. DP-docket CASA Reports
11/27/2016.
Regarding financial stability, Mother was working full-time but her income, alone,
was insufficient to provide for all three children; Father's income was sufficient to cover
the family's basic needs. DP-docket 1117/2016 Petitions. Regarding housing, the
parents had moved into a three-bedroom home with room for the parents, K, P and
K.M; the parents continued to struggle wit� utility payments. DP-docket 1117/2016
Petitions. Regarding their commitment to the children, Mother visited regularly the
children, and Father's visits with K had been less consistent due to a shift change. DP-
docket 1117/2016 Petitions. The parents had been instructed, in anticipation of the
children being returned to their care, to enroll P in school and Kin daycare, but those
steps were never fully completed. QC-docket 511/2017 N. T. at 37-38, 57-59, DP-docket
6/512017 N. T. at 55-59. Transition visits, which began in December 2016, had been
halted by February of 2017, out of concerns for the parents' ability to keep the children
safe and to provide for their well-being. DP-docket 1117/2016 Petitions, DP-docket
6/512017 N. T. at 89-90, 93-96, QC-docket 9/112017 N. T. at 58, 60. After a weekend
visit in January of 2017, P told his resource mother that he had not eaten that day until
Mother finished work and returned home at 2:30pm; Mother later informed the PPT that
the family was low on food because a car accident limited her ability to work and earn
money. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, QC-docket 511/2017 N. T. at 33-34, DP-docket
6/512017 N. T. at 66-68, QC-docket 9/112017 N. T. at 34-35. Father's CPP had been
8
amended to include a goal regarding sexual victimization education, because Mother's
oldest child K.M. had been victimized by P's father; Father had begun classes and
progress was needed. DP-docket 11!112016 Petition. At this time, P had been in
placement for 25 months and K for 20 months. DP-docket 11!1/2016 Petitions,
12/12/2016 Orders.
On February 8, 2017, the Agency filed a Petition to Terminate the Parental
Rights of Mother and Father, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §2511 (a)(1 ), (2), (5) and (8).4
Permanency review and termination of parental rights hearings were held in
May, June and September of 2017. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, 5/212017 Orders,
8/8/2017 Orders, 6/5/2017 Orders. Regarding D, Mother's progress was minimal. OP-
docket 4/11/2017 Petition, 6/5/2017 Order. Regarding K, Mother's progress was
moderate, and Father's was minimal. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petition, 615/2017 Order.
Neither parent had completed the goals on their CPPs. OC-docket Ex. 2 5/1/2017, OC-
docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 22. Regarding her mental health goals, Mother had lost her
medical assistance for a period of time, and as such, had not received or taken her
medications; by the time of the hearing, Mother reapplied and refilled her prescriptions;
Mother continued with therapy and medication compliance. DP-docket 4/11/2017
Petitions, 8/8/2017 Petitions, QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 23, 78, DP-docket 6/5/2017
N. T. at 13-14.
4
The Agency had previously filed a similar petition on August 3, 2016, docketed as OC-1690-
2016 and 1691-2016. That Petition was withdrawn in December of 2016 because the parents were
making substantial progress on their CPPs at that time. QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 18-19.
9
Regarding parenting skills, the PPT expressed concerns with clutter and
cleanliness, with Mother's time management, supervision of the children, ability to
interact one-on-one with the children, and lack of structure or discipline that left P's
acting-out unchecked. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, 6/5/2017 Orders, QC-docket
5/112017 N. T. at 24-25, 32-33, 40, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 14-15, 17, 26-27, 46-47,
68-71. An August 4, 2017 visit noted three medication bottles on the high chair and
coffee table, nail polish and remover, cigarettes and empty drink cans within reach of
the children, and a cat urine and/or mold smell at D's bed. DP-docket 8/8/2017
Petitions, QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 28-31, QC-docket 9/1/2017 N. T. at 50-553. At
another visit, K was allowed to chew on a glow stick. DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 17,
35-36. The PPT observed that Mother appeared overwhelmed and was not using the
skills learned through the PPT work. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, 6/5/2017 Orders,
DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 16-17, QC-docket 9/1/2017 N. T. at 23, 25-26, 29-32, 64-66.
This was a concern because the parents worked opposite schedules and were regularly
alone in care of the children. DP-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 44, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T.
at 20-21. Mother told the PPT trainer that she did not believe there was any more
benefit to gain by working with the PPT; Father agreed. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions,
6/5/2017 Orders, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 24-25, 42, 45, QC-docket 9/1/2017 at 20-
21. PPT services were suspended thereafter. DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 14.
Regarding financial stability, Mother was working full-time but her income, alone,
was insufficient to provide for all three children; Father's income was sufficient to cover
the family's basic needs. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, QC-docket 511/2017 N. T. at
10
26. Regarding housing, the parents continued to struggle with utility payments. DP-
docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, DC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 28. Cleanliness was a
concern, including cat feces and vomit, scissors, cigarettes and medication being in
reach of the children. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, 6/5/2017 Orders, QC-docket
511/2017 N. T. at 28, 79-80, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 64-65, DC-docket 9/1/2017
N. T. at 74-75. Regarding their commitment to the children, Mother visited regularly with
the children but was often late, and Father's visits with K had been less consistent due
to a shift change. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, DP-docket CASA Reports 4/2712017,
DC-docket 511/2017 N. T. at 31-32, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 15. Mother missed an
early-intervention appointment for K, despite notice that it was scheduled around her
work schedule. DP-docket 6/512017 Order, 5/1/2017 N. T. at 39-40, 76-77, DP-docket
6/5/2017 N. T. at 27-28, DC-docket 9/1/2017 N. T. at 28. Mother also did not attend P's
therapy sessions, despite knowing that it would be helpful for P's development. OC-
docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 38-39, 77. The in-home visits had been relocated to a
supervising agency in February of 2017, and the weekend visits were terminated,
because of concerns for safety in the home. DP-docket 4/11/2017 Petitions, QC-docket
5/1/2017 N. T. at 30-3, 65-66.
Father had completed the sexual victimization education classwork, but concerns
remained that he would not apply the knowledge acquired, and the therapist suggested
that, if K.M. were to return to the home, home-based supports should be put in place to
make sure Father complied with the safety plan and supported the children. DP-docket
4/11/2017 Petition, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 46, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 23-24.
11
In June, 2017, the Agency recommended a goal change to adoption for both children; P
had been in placement for 30 months and K for 25 months. DP-docket 4/11/2017
Petitions, 615/2017 Orders, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 31.
At the conclusion of the testimony on September 1, 2017, the Court issued an
Order terminating Mother's parental rights to P and both parents' rights to K, pursuant
to 23 Pa. C.S. §2511 (a)(1), (2), (5) and (8). QC-docket 9/5/2017 Decree. The Court
found clear and convincing evidence of the parents' failure to perform parental duties
for more than twelve months, that the parents' continued incapacity caused the children
to be without essential parental care, that the parents cannot remedy the causes within
a reasonable period of time, and that termination of the parents' rights would best serve
the children. QC-docket 9/512017 Decree. At that time, P had been in placement for
31 months and K for 26 months. DP-docket 8/812017 Petitions, 9/1/2017 Orders.
The Court notes that a Court-Appointed Special Advocate ("CASA") has been
involved in with the family since January 2016, and that the CASA has filed numerous
reports for each of the children at issue over her years of involvement. The CASA has
continually noted that the resource parents are loving and kind with the children, and that
the children are emotionally attached to the resource parents. DP-docket CASA Reports
412012016, 7117/2016, 1112712016, OC-docket 511/2017 N. T. at 48-49, DP-docket 6/512017
N. T. at 88. P's COBYS caseworker also noted his "significant" bond with the resource
parents and that he thrived in their care. QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 13-14. By this time,
P referred to his resource mother as "mom" and has expressed a desire to be adopted by
the resource parents; K calls her resource mother "Momma." DP-docket CASA Report
12
4127/2017, QC-docket 5/1/2017 N. T. at 9, 10, 49, DP-docket 615/2017 N. T. at 30, QC-
docket 9/1/2017 at 8, 14-15, 17. In July of 2016, the CASA observed minimal affection
between Mother and P, and no affection from K towards Mother or Father. DP-docket
CASA Reports 7/1712016.
In November of 2016, the CASA reported that P's behavior changed, including being
clingy to the resource parents, having trouble sleeping, and being more tearful when asking
questions about "where he will live." DP-docket CASA Report 11/27/2016. P was playing
sports and learning piano, and both children enjoy the company of the resource family's
extended family and the various animals at the resource home. DP-docket CASA Reports
4/27/2017. P's behavior, during the weekend visits to Mother's home, became erratic,
including anger, hurting other children, sleep disruptions, frustration, and again, concerns
about where he would live; P was happy when he learned that there would be no more
weekend visits. DP-docket CASA Report 4/27/2017, QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 35-36,
79, DP-docket 615/2017 N. T. at 28-30, QC-docket 9/112017 N. T. at 8-9, 10-11.
The resource parents had raised concerns regarding K's speech delay. DP-docket
CASA Report 11/27/2016, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 12. In April of 2017, the resource
parents were helping K with communication by teaching her some sign language, and
following up on recommended speech and orthopedic evaluations. DP-docket CASA
Report 4/27/2017, DP-docket 6/5/2017 N. T. at 33. K was also toilet-trained with few
accidents. DP-docket CASA Report 4127/2017. K, also, was showing behavioral changes
that coincided with the weekend visits, including being clingy to her resource parents and
sleep disturbances, as well as potty-training and sign language regression. DP-docket
13
CASA Report 4/27/2017, QC-docket 5/112017 N. T. at 49, DP-docket 615/2017 N. T. at 32-
33, QC-docket 9/1/2017 at 9.
The CASA is in agreement with the Agency, that termination of the parents' parental
rights will serve the best interests of the children. DP-docket 615/2017 N. T. at 78, 87-88.
ISSUE
Whether a termination of parental rights is appropriate when the children have been
in placement for almost three years during which time the parents have not completed their
child permanency plans, and where credited testimony indicates that the best interests of
the children will be served by terminating the parents' parental rights?
ANALYSIS
Parental rights may be terminated by statute; the pertinent statute, 23 Pa. C.S.
§2511 (a), provides for termination of those rights when:
(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.
14
(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.
"In termination cases, the burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid."
In re Adoption of M.R.B., 25 A.3d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2011). "The 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." M.R.B., supra, at 1251.
When the Agency has met its burden under Section 2511 (a), the Court must also
look to the requirements of Section 2511(b) before terminating any parental rights. "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 (b). Section 2511 (b) centers judicial inquiry upon the
welfare of the child rather than the fault of the parent. In re A. R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super.
5The parents' Concise Statement asserts that this final sentence of section 2511(b) violates their
due process and equal protection rights because the Agency can still use the setbacks and failures,
occurring after the Petition is filed, against the parents. The Court notes that, in this matter, both the
progress and setbacks or failures of these parents occurred before the February 2017 Petition was filed;
that the setbacks or failures continued afterwards did not alter the Court's decision.
15
2003). "Considering what situation would best serve the child's needs and welfare, the
court must examine the status of the bond between the natural parent and the child to
consider whether terminating the parent's rights would destroy an existing, necessary and
beneficial relationship." In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 396 (Pa. Super. 2003).
On appeal, the parents assert that the Court's Order is not supported by evidence,
and not in the best interests of the children. A review of the record, however, indicates
otherwise.
TIMING
The language of 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a), sections 1, 5 and 8 requires the Court to
examine the facts in the context of time, specifically: the six-month period before the filing
of the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights (a)(1 ); the child's legal status over six months
(a)(5); and the child's status over 12-months after placement (a)(8).
At the time of this writing, the children have been in placement for 35 and 30
months, including 26 months between P's dependency determination and the February
2017 Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, and 21 months between K's dependency
determination and the February 2017 Petition to Terminate, and for both, and in the twelve-
months after their respective dependency determinations. In the six months from August
2016 to February 2017, the parents struggled to manage three children, to attend
appointments for their children, and to keep the home free of clutter and safety hazards,
even with PPT visits scheduled and predictable.
This Court is concerned that forcing the children to remain in the uncertainty of
placement, after almost three years already in placement, while continuing to wait for their
16
parents to change, will be harmful to them. The timing requirements of 23 Pa.C.S.
§2511 (a), sections 1, 5 and 8, have been met.
PARENTAL EFFORTS
The language of 23 Pa.C.S. §2511 (a), sections 1, 2, 5 and 8 requires the Court to
examine the parents' conduct, specifically; the parents' refusal or failure to perform
parental duties (a)(1); the parents' incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal to care for her
children and whether the underlying causes can or will be remedied (a)(2); the causes of
the children's placement and whether the parents can remedy the causes with the
assistance of services (a)(5); and the causes of placement and whether the causes
continue (a)(8). "The focus of the termination proceeding is on the conduct of the parent
and whether his conduct justifies termination of parental rights." In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d
847, 854-55 (Pa. Super. 2004).
As this Court has noted, the parents' efforts have ranged from minimal to
substantial. Even with a PPT in the home, in the six months from August 2016 to February
2017, the parents struggled to manage three children, and to keep the home free of clutter
and safety hazards; as soon as the children started their transition visits in December of
2016, even more serious concerns developed. In nearly three years, the parents had not
completed parenting training and their commitment goals were at issue, with numerous
attendance issues including missing appointments scheduled for the children. These
issues were consistent and repeated, throughout the Agency's involvement, and were not
remedied despite the Agency's involvement.
Parental duty is "best understood in relation to needs of a child. A child needs love,
protection, guidance and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met
17
by a merely passive interest in development of the child .... [T]he parental obligation is a
positive duty which requires affirmative performance.". In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa.
Super. 2000). In re G.P-R, 851 A.2d 967 (Pa. Super. 2004) .. "Where the child is in foster
care, this affirmative duty requires the parent to work towards the return of the child by
cooperating with the Agency to obtain the rehabilitative services necessary for him to be
capable of performing his parental duties and responsibilities." In re G.P.R., 851 A.2d 967,
977 (Pa. Super. 2004), summarizing In re: William L., 383 A.2d 1228, 1233-34 (Pa. 1978).
Here, the parents' continued inability to care for their children or to complete
permanency plans for reunification supports the termination decision in the Orphans' Court.
This Court cannot gamble with the safety and welfare of these children. The parents have
had ample opportunities to demonstrate their ability to be acceptable parents but have
failed to do so. The parental efforts requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. §2511 (a), sections 1, 2,
5 and 8, have been met.
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN
The language of 23 Pa.C.S. §2511 (a), sections 5 and 8 requires the Court to
examine whether termination of the parents' rights would best serve the needs and welfare
of the children.
The Court does not see a bond between the parents and these children sufficient
to interfere with the termination of the parental rights. The credited testimony of the CASA
is particularly enlightening; the CASA noted the children's ease with the resource parents,
and that the children sought those parents for comfort. In contrast, the children's visits with
Mother and Father brought developmental regression and behavioral problems.
18
These children deserve the certainty of remaining with parents they love and are
bonded to, and do not deserve the parents who are unwilling to care for them in a healthy
and appropriate manner; the best interest requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a), sections
5 and 8, have been met.
By clear and convincing evidence, the Agency has met its burden to terminate the
parents' parental rights under Sections 2511 (a)(1 ), (a)(2), (a)(5) and (a)(B).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to terminate
Mother's parental rights to P and Mother and Father's rights to K. The Clerk of the
Orphans' Court is directed to transmit the record, with incorporated dockets, to the Superior
Court.
BY THE COURT:
�Mt'�
DATED: NO\J .2,'Wt] LESLIE GORBEY, JUDGE
Attest:��
Copies to:
Elizabeth Stineman, Esquire, Guardian ad Litem
Gary G. Efstration, Esquire, for parents
Laura McGarry, Esquire/Courtney J. Restemayer, Esquire, for CYA
19