J-S75015-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF B.L.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
APPEAL OF: B.L.H.
Nos. 1133 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Orphans' Court at No: 003-2019
IN RE: ADOPTION OF B.L.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
APPEAL OF: B.L.H.
Nos. 1136 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
Orphans' Court at No: 002-2019
BEFORE: STABILE, KUNSELMAN, and PELLEGRINI,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 26, 2020
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S75015-19
Appellant, B.L.H. (“Mother”), appeals from the June 19, 2019 orders
terminating her parental rights to her Children (“Children”), B.L.B. (born
February 14, 2013) and B.L.B. (born March 6, 2016), pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A.§§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and § 2511(b). We affirm.
The orphans’ court’s opinion contains the following summary of the
pertinent facts:
[Children] were adjudicated to be dependent on September
29, 2017, after [Mother’s] paramour had been charged with rape
and aggravated indecent assault of a six-year-old, and [Mother]
thereafter failed to prevent further assaults by her paramour.
[Mother] was ‘indicated’ as a perpetrator by omission. [Mother]
had been told by her own child (age six, and not involved herein)
of the continuing assaults, and she had been advised by the
agency of the abuse allegations; nevertheless, she refused to
believe the allegations, refused non-offender services and
continued to live with her sexual offender paramour, William
Brady, while he continued offending the six-year-old.
[Mother] was ordered to attend non-offender and grief
counseling, but she did not believe the allegations against her
paramour. Thus, [Children] were determined to be without proper
parental care and control. A plan was ordered.
By October 2018, [Mother] had demonstrated ‘minimal’
compliance. She had obtained stable housing and employment,
but attended only 88 out of 128 parenting sessions, and had
attended only 16 [of 29] non-offender counseling sessions, and
was unsuccessfully discharged from further services.
Moreover, [Mother] continued to live with her paramour,
William Brady, who was considered a grave danger to the safety
of [Children].
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/12/19, at 2.
Appellant filed this timely appeal on July 2, 2019. She claims Appellee,
the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau, failed to prove by clear and
-2-
J-S75015-19
convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was warranted
under § 2511. Appellant’s Brief at 1. On appeal from an order terminating
parental rights, we consider whether competent evidence supports the
orphans’ court’s decision. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004). We will not reverse
absent an error of law or abuse of discretion. Id. We employ a “broad,
comprehensive” review of the record to ensure that competent evidence
supports the orphans’ court’s decision. Id.
Section 2511(a)(8) authorizes termination where there is clear and
convincing evidence that:
(1) that the child has been removed from the care of the
parent for at least twelve (12) months; (2) that the conditions
which had led to the removal or placement of the child still exist;
and (3) that termination of parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child.
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). Termination
under § 2511(a)(8) does not require an assessment of the parent’s ability or
willingness to remedy the conditions that led to placement; the only question
is whether those conditions continue to exist. In re R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502,
511 (Pa. Super. 2006).
Vijaya Greene, one of Mother’s non-offender counselors, testified that
Mother attended 16 of 29 non-offender treatment sessions from October of
2017 through September of 2018. Mother never made any progress because
she was not truthful with Greene. In particular, Mother denied that Brady
-3-
J-S75015-19
sexually assaulted her older daughter. Id. at 65, 67-68. Mother denied
having any history of mental health problems, and she was not truthful about
her plans to end her relationship with Brady. Id. at 63, 67. At one session,
Greene asked Mother if she would choose Children over Brady and Mother
responded that she would “see how things go.” Id. at 66. Greene did not
believe Mother would protect Children from Brady, because Mother did not
believe Brady had done anything wrong. Id. at 70. Likewise, Greene did not
believe Mother would protect Children from abuse by other men in the future.
Id. at 71.
Joe Narduzzi, another of Mother’s non-offender counselors, testified that
Mother attended 7 of 12 non-offender treatment sessions from December of
2018 to April of 2019. Narduzzi testified that Mother denied that her daughter
was the victim of a sexual assault. Id. at 82-83. Mother believed the child’s
father coached her into making the accusations, and that the child’s graphic
description of Brady’s assault was based on pornography her father showed
her. Id. at 85-86. Mother and Brady violated a no-contact order promptly
upon Brady’s release on bail for the sexual assault offense. Id. at 88.
Narduzzi testified that it was unlikely Mother could protect Children from
abuse. Id. at 88-90. Narduzzi did not believe Children should be returned to
Mother, given her lack of progress in non-offender treatment and her inability
to acknowledge the abuse of one of her children. Id. at 94.
-4-
J-S75015-19
Mother testified that she began dating Brady in February of 2017 and
that the relationship ended in February of 2019. Id. at 135. She stated that
her employer was understaffed, that she worked 60 to 80 hours per week,
and that her work schedule prevented her from attending some of her
treatment sessions. Id. at 126. Mother denied that any of her children ever
reported being the victim of a sexual assault. Id. at 129-30. She confirmed
her belief that her older daughter’s father was responsible for the abuse
allegations against Brady. Id. at 132, 149. Mother acknowledged an ongoing
custody battle with the father of her older daughter. Id. at 150. She denied
that Brady was an abuser. Id. at 144.
In summary, the record reflects that Children were placed in agency
custody on September 7, 2017, and the agency filed its termination petition
approximately sixteen months later, on January 4, 2019, thus satisfying the
first element of § 2511(a)(8). As the trial court noted, Children were placed
because of Mother’s inability to accept that Brady sexually abused one of her
other daughters. The record plainly demonstrates that this condition
continues to exist. Mother underwent months of non-offender treatment with
several counselors and never made any progress. She never accepted that
Brady, with whom Mother commenced a relationship shortly after Children’s
natural father died, committed the sexual abuse. N.T. 5/2/19, at 65, 81, 84,
144. She blamed her daughter’s father for coaching the allegations. Id. at
85. Furthermore, Mother did not end the relationship with Brady prior to the
-5-
J-S75015-19
TPR petition, despite several declarations of her intent to do so. Id. at 63,
67. Mother was unsure of whether she would chose Children over Brady. Id.
at 66. Brady never attended offender treatment, and he faced additional
criminal charges for assaulting Mother while he was out on bond on the sexual
assault charges. Id. at 87-88, 108. Several of Mother’s counselors testified
that the pattern of abuse toward Mother’s daughters could repeat itself, either
with Brady when he gets out of jail, or with another opportunistic paramour.
Id. at 71, 94. Therefore, the record supports a finding by clear and convincing
evidence that Mother never remedied the condition that led to Children’s
removal, and that Mother’s failure was plainly detrimental to Children’s best
interests. We discern no error in the trial court’s decision to terminate
Mother’s parental rights under 2511(a)(8).
Next, we must consider the extent of the bond between Mother and
Children pursuant to 2511(b):
[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. § 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. [T]his Court [has]
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 T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (some internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
-6-
J-S75015-19
The instant record reflects that Mother and Children have love and
affection for each other, and that a bond exists. The record also reflects that
Children view their visits with Mother as mere playtime. N.T. 5/2/19, at 117.
Furthermore, the record indicates that Children have a very positive
relationship with their pre-adoptive foster parents, and that their needs and
welfare are met in their foster home. Id. at 41. They are well adjusted and
in a routine. Id. at 115. If reunited with Mother, however, Mother likely
would lack the ability to protect Children from sexual abuse. We discern no
error in the trial court’s decision that the Children’s needs and welfare
warranted termination under § 2511(b).
In light of all of the foregoing, we affirm the orders terminating Mother’s
parental rights.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/26/2020
-7-