J-S15044-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.C., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: J.K. :
:
:
:
: No. 1768 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered November 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000254-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 30, 2020
J.K. (“Mother”) appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her minor
daughter, M.C. (“Child”) pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).1 Mother claims the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding that termination of her parental rights would best
serve Child’s needs and welfare pursuant to Section 2511(b). We affirm.
The lower court summarized the factual background as follows:
Child was born [in May 2017] to [Mother] and [A.C.
(“Father”)]. Child came to the attention of the Allegheny County
Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“CYF”), after Mother gave
birth to Child at Magee Hospital due to parents’ homelessness and
significant mental health [issues]. Child was brought into the care
of CYF on June 6, 2017, and adjudicated dependent on October
____________________________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1The trial court involuntarily terminated the parental rights of Child’s father,
A.C., who did not file an appeal and is not a party to the instant appeal.
J-S15044-20
18, 2017. At the adjudicatory hearing, Mother stipulated to
[having issues with] mental health, domestic violence, and
housing. It was reported that Mother and Father had just moved
to Pittsburgh, PA from Florida, and were currently staying in an
extended stay hotel and prior to the hotel had lived in their car.
The family had a history of homelessness. Both parents reported
having a history of mental health concerns including diagnoses of
schizophrenia. Mother reportedly had no pre-natal care.
Additionally, there were reports of [Father’s] violent behavior and
substance abuse[.]
At the adjudication hearing, the Court ordered Mother to
have mental health treatment, domestic violence counseling,
parenting [classes], assistance with housing, and consistent
visitation and contact with the agency.2 The Court ordered Father
to mental health treatment, parenting [and] domestic violence
classes, drug and alcohol assessments including treatment and
urine screens, housing, [and] contact and visitation with the child.
The agency developed a family plan to assist Mother and Father
in accomplishing their goals. Mother attended all family planning
meetings. Father did not attend any of the family planning
meetings. Father has not been actively involved throughout the
life of the case. Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) petitions
were filed on December 20, 2018. The TPR Hearing was held
November 1, 2019.
Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 12/18/19, at 2-8 (citations omitted).
At the termination hearing, caseworker Rebecca Thompson testified that
Mother complied with some of her goals by attending a domestic violence class
while living in a shelter, obtaining housing through Western Psych’s New
Neighborhood living project, maintaining contact with CYF, and visiting Child
consistently. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 11/1/19, at 14-17.
Ms. Thompson’s main area of concern was Mother’s untreated mental
health issues. As Mother conceded she had been diagnosed with
____________________________________________
2Mother was also ordered to have no contact with Father due to reports of his
domestic violence.
-2-
J-S15044-20
schizophrenia and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the trial court
ordered that Mother seek mental health treatment from a psychiatrist and
cooperate with medication management. While Mother did attend “talk
therapy,” Mother refused to seek psychiatric treatment or medication
management and became uncooperative in verifying her compliance with this
goal since June 2019. Ms. Thompson felt that Mother’s mental health was
“deteriorating,” noting that Mother had filed multiple affidavits accusing CYF
of kidnapping Child and owing her money. N.T. at 13-16.
While Mother was initially permitted to have visitation with Child three
times a week, Mother’s visitation was gradually cut back to only one
supervised visit each week. Although Mother was offered parenting programs
through two separate agencies (Project Star and Holy Family), Mother was not
able to close out either program successfully. N.T. at 12-13.
Amy Rendos, program manager for Project Star, indicated that Mother
had difficulty understanding two-year old Child’s needs when observing her
cues. Mother would try to feed Child when she was not hungry, even when
Child would reject the food and walk away from Mother. Mother would
misinterpret Child’s emotions in being upset over that fact that she was in
foster care and not because she was tired. N.T. at 57-58.
Representatives from both Project Star and Holy Family reported that
Mother struggled to provide Child with basic care, such as changing Child’s
diapers or giving her age-appropriate food, even when assisted by visitation
coaches. Mother had trouble remaining calm, but would become
-3-
J-S15044-20
argumentative and ignore the directives from visitation coaches. On one
occasion, Mother refused Child’s request to go to use the bathroom at the CYF
office, as she was concerned about germs. On another occasion, Mother called
911 after the visitation coach had directed her to change Child’s diaper. N.T.
at 17-18, 57-60, 74-78, 99-100, 110-111.
Multiple caseworkers expressed concern for Child’s safety in Mother’s
care. Caseworker Emily Drizos testified that Mother lets Child “do really
whatever she wants to do” as she is “afraid to redirect” Child. Ms. Drizos
testified that when Mother and Child were on a walk during a visitation, Mother
allowed Child, who was under two at that point, to walk near the road by
herself. Mother did not want to upset Child, who would have a temper tantrum
when Mother tried to hold her hand. N.T. at 75-76, 112.
CYF also presented evidence that Mother exhibited erratic behavior on
multiple occasions in which Mother threatened the child’s foster mother, C.F.
(“Foster Mother”), caseworkers, and the CYF agency. Mother accused Foster
Mother and one of the caseworkers of having sexual relationships with Father.
Mother repeatedly barraged Foster Mother with emails until Foster Mother filed
a police report to get her to stop. Mother’s paranoid thoughts made her believe
that everyone “was out to get her” or “working against her.” Many of Mother’s
angry outbursts required intervention from police officers and occurred in the
presence of Child, requiring that Child be comforted by caseworkers. N.T. at
49, 59, 76-78, 101-103, 112, 123-24.
-4-
J-S15044-20
Although Mother had been ordered not to have contact with Father,
Mother admittedly did not comply with this order and appeared at two CYF
visits with visible bruises and reported that Father “got rough” with her. In
November 2017, Mother poured windshield wiper fluid in the gas tank of
Father’s truck. N.T. at 13-14, 45-46.
Ms. Thompson indicated that Child is in the care of Foster Mother, who
is very attentive to Child and is meeting Child’s educational, psychological,
and developmental needs. Ms. Thompson noted that Child is a “very happy
little girl” in the home of Foster Mother, who Child calls “momma.” Ms.
Thompson felt that Child and Foster Mother are “very bonded.” N.T. at 22.
CYF also presented the testimony of Dr. Patricia Pepe, a licensed
psychologist. In her first individual evaluation of Mother, Dr. Pepe reported
that Mother’s “paranoid ideations” prevented her from being in the state of
mind to cooperate with the interview. In her second evaluation, Mother was
able to maintain better direction and was able to disclose her psychiatric
diagnoses and hospitalizations. Mother explained that she did not take her
recommended medication, which made her feel “worse and dysfunctional.”
Mother also experienced “auditory hallucinations” and “general delusional
thinking” during the evaluation. After conducting the interview and
administering psychological testing, Dr. Pepe diagnosed Mother with
schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder. N.T. at 130-32.
Dr. Pepe also conducted several evaluations of Child’s interactions with
both Mother and was concerned about how Mother’s schizophrenia would
-5-
J-S15044-20
affect her ability to keep Child safe. Dr. Pepe admitted that Mother exhibited
positive parenting skills during one of the evaluations. However, in a
subsequent evaluation, Mother became so agitated she began throwing
objects and jumping. During this episode, Dr. Pepe was able to convince
Mother to allow her to hold Child for her protection and then subsequently
called the police. N.T. at 135-140.
While Dr. Pepe acknowledged that Mother deeply cares for Child, Dr.
Pepe recognized that Mother’s good intentions do not necessarily lead to
positive outcomes. Dr. Pepe opined that the severance of the bond between
Mother and Child would not cause serious harm to the Child and asserted that
Child’s continued exposure to Mother’s unpredictable outbursts would be
detrimental to Child. N.T. at 144-48.
Moreover, Dr. Pepe conducted an interactional interview with Child and
Foster Mother in which Child showed positive attachment to Foster Mother,
who she calls “momma.” When Child appeared to be anxious in Dr. Pepe’s
office, Foster Mother was able to reassure Child and give her a snack. Overall,
Dr. Pepe indicated that Foster Mother exhibited excellent parenting skills, was
extremely knowledgeable about Child, and was very responsive to Child. Dr.
Pepe testified that Child views Foster Mother as a psychological parent and is
“extraordinarily attached to her.” N.T. at 141-142.
At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the trial court entered an
order involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental rights under Sections
2511(a)(2), (5), and (8) of the Adoption Act and found that the termination
-6-
J-S15044-20
best served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare
pursuant to Section 2511(b). On November 27, 2019, Mother filed a timely
notice of appeal along with a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Mother raises one issue for our review on appeal:
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 Mother’s parental
rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?
Mother’s Brief, at 6.
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., [616 Pa. 309, 325, 47
A.3d 817, 826 (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 [325-26, 47 A.3d at] 827. We have previously emphasized our
deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of
the parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re R.J.T., [608
Pa. 9, 26-27, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)].
In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 628, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (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.”
-7-
J-S15044-20
In re M.G. & J.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, governed by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, 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.
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, 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998)).
In this case, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant
to Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). As Mother concedes that CYF
-8-
J-S15044-20
presented sufficient evidence to justify termination of her parental rights
under Section 2511(a), we need only analyze whether termination was proper
under Section 2511(b). Our Supreme Court has stated:
[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. [a/k/a E.W.C. & L.M.
a/k/a L.C., Jr.], [533 Pa. 115, 123, 620 A.2d 481, 485 (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., 620 Pa. at 628-29, 71 A.3d at 267. “In cases where there is no
evidence of any bond between the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer
that no bond exists. The extent of any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily
depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d
753, 762-63 (Pa.Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
When evaluating a parental bond, “[T]he 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).
Moreover,
-9-
J-S15044-20
While a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child is a major
aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is
nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the
court when determining what is in the best interest of the child.
[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can
equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and
should also consider the intangibles, such as the love,
comfort, security, and stability the child might have
with the foster parent. . . .
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quoting
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa.Super. 2011)) (quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Mother asserts that CYF did not meet its burden to show that termination
of her parental rights will best serve Child’s needs and welfare as Mother visits
Child consistently and Child “derives benefit from her relationship and contact
with Mother.” Mother’s Brief, at 19. Specifically, Mother argues that CYF
witnesses offered “speculative” testimony about Mother’s mental health that
only raised “concerns of potential risks as opposed to any events directly
happening.” Id. at 14, 19.
Upon review, the record supports the trial court’s finding that Child’s
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare favor termination
of Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b). There was sufficient
evidence to allow the trial court to make a determination of the Child’s needs
and welfare, and as to the existence or lack of existence of a bond between
Mother and the Child such that, if severed, would not have a detrimental
impact on Child.
- 10 -
J-S15044-20
As Child was taken from Mother’s care upon her birth, Child has never
been in Mother’s care at any point in her life. Although Mother regularly
attends supervised visitation sessions with Child, caseworkers and visitation
coaches have consistently asserted that Mother has difficulty assessing and
meeting Child’s basic physical, emotional, and developmental needs. Several
caseworkers have noted that Mother is afraid to redirect Child, a toddler, even
in issues of safety, as she does not like to make Child upset. While Mother
was provided with support from two different agencies, Mother failed to
complete either parenting programs as she failed to cooperate with the
visitation coaches and did not exhibit significant progress.
Ms. Thompson indicated that the main area of concern affecting Mother’s
ability to parent Child and provide for her needs and welfare is Mother’s
unstable mental health, which Ms. Thompson felt “directly impacts her ability
to keep [Child] safe.” N.T., 11/1/19, at 13, 17-20. As stated above, Mother
refuses to submit to regular psychiatric treatment and medication for her
schizophrenia.
In diagnosing Mother with schizophrenia, Dr. Pepe also expressed
concern that Mother’s severe mental health issues, if left untreated, would
affect Mother’s ability to parent Child as it could lead to unpredictable
behavior, including paranoia, extreme anger, hallucinations, and a “total
disconnect with the real world.” N.T. at 135. Dr. Pepe explained:
it’s very unfortunate because with untreated schizophrenia
[Mother] could have, you know, a range of symptoms which would
include significant auditory hallucinations. And often in
- 11 -
J-S15044-20
schizophrenia there are what are called command hallucinations.
So the hallucinations would actually command a person to do
something which the person often follows through because they
believe it’s reality.
The problem with schizophrenia is it’s living in reality but it’s
a different perception of reality. For example, the person does
truly believe that they are, for example, being followed or people
are stealing from them or people are out to get them and there is
a degree of anxiety because there is a constant fear of something
happening to them. There is not just the ability to remain stable
over a period of time in terms of mood and affect and behavior so
the concern is that the symptoms could override, could take over
the person to such a degree that, for example, a young child would
not be safe because, you know, the person can do unusual things
or abscond with the child or abandon the child. I mean anything
could happen.
It is very difficult to assess. But it is certainly a concern.
And that’s why many times individuals with schizophrenia are on
medication because it helps to abate the symptoms to a large
degree.
You know, I certainly believe that individuals with mental
health issues are capable of parenting but I think you have to look
at the severity of it and unfortunately, it’s very unfortunate for
[Mother], her symptoms kind of wax and wane and she is just not
always in complete control and sometimes is so just obsessed with
what she is believing in that she is really not centered in reality,
reality in terms of the real world. Her own reality takes over.
N.T. at 133-135.
Caseworkers from various providers have testified to specific instances
of Mother’s erratic behavior on multiple occasions that required them to seek
the assistance of police officers when Mother became so agitated that she lost
all self-control. Mother’s outbursts often occur in front of Child, who is often
taken by caseworkers, who attempt to comfort her and prevent her from
witnessing Mother’s disturbing behavior.
- 12 -
J-S15044-20
While Dr. Pepe observed that Child had become accustomed to the
routine of visitation with Mother, she has never been in Mother’s care and has
been subjected to the negative impact of Mother’s unpredictable outbursts.
We agree with the trial court’s assessment that to the extent that Mother and
Child have a bond, the termination of Mother’s parental rights would not have
detrimental effects on Child.
Moreover, Child recognizes Foster Mother as her psychological parent
and is “extraordinarily attached to her.” N.T. at 141-142. Child looks to Foster
Mother for safety, security, and comfort and is thriving in her care. Foster
Mother is able to assess and provide for Child’s needs and has given her
stability and continuity in the only home Child has ever known.
While Mother may profess to love Child, a parent’s own feelings of love
and affection for a child, alone, will not preclude termination of parental rights.
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1121. As we stated, a child’s life “simply cannot be
put on hold in the hope that [a parent] will summon the ability to handle the
responsibilities of parenting.” Id. at 1125. Rather, “a parent’s basic
constitutional right to the custody and rearing of his child is converted, upon
the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper
parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe
environment.” In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation
omitted).
- 13 -
J-S15044-20
Accordingly, based upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of
discretion and conclude that the trial court appropriately terminated Mother’s
parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a) and (b).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/30/2020
- 14 -