J-S03015-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: C.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.S. :
:
:
:
: No. 1363 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000200-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.S. :
:
:
:
: No. 1364 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000199-2018
BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED MAY 27, 2020
A.S. (“Mother”) appeals from the orders terminating her parental rights
to A.S., born in December 2009, and C.S., born in August 2012, (collectively
“Children”). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S03015-20
terminating Mother’s parental rights, and that termination best meets the
needs and welfare of Children. We therefore affirm the trial court orders.
On July 5, 2017, CYF obtained custody of Children after a friend of
Mother died of an overdose in the family home. Children, who were four and
seven years old, were present in the home at the time of the overdose. CYF
placed Children with their paternal grandparents.1 The Children were
adjudicated dependent on August 9, 2017, after Mother stipulated to
dependency based on her substance abuse and domestic violence issues. The
court ordered that she undergo substance abuse and domestic violence
treatment and that she visit with the Children.
On September 21, 2018, CYF filed termination petitions. The court held
a hearing on the petitions on August 9, 2019, during which it heard testimony
from a CYF case worker, Maeling Thompson; a therapist for A.S., Teri Pentz;
a therapist for C.S., Samantha Strum; and a forensic psychologist, Gregory
Lobb. Mother also testified, and the court heard representations from
Children’s legal counsel, Courtney Potter, Esquire.
At the start of the hearing, Mother stipulated that the conditions leading
to the Children’s removal continued to exist. She had not completed either
substance abuse or domestic violence treatment, and did not have stable
housing. Mother admitted that she visited the children inconsistently.
Therefore, she stipulated that her conduct met the criteria for termination
____________________________________________
1The father of Children passed away in March 2016, prior to CYF’s involvement
with the family.
-2-
J-S03015-20
under Section 2511(a)(8). However, she contended that because termination
did not serve the needs and welfare of Children, Section 2511(b) was not
satisfied. See N.T. Hearing, 8/09/19, at 7-8.
Mother testified that she started using drugs when she was younger.
The longest period of sobriety she had maintained was seven years while the
Children’s father was alive. However, she relapsed with the stress of him
getting sick. She then went to a treatment facility, but relapsed again after he
died. Mother confirmed that a friend of hers died of an overdose while the
Children were present in the house, and that since the children were placed
with their grandparents, her visitation has been sporadic. See id. at 76.
The CYF case worker, Maeling Thompson, testified that since their
placement with paternal grandparents, the Children have been undergoing
trauma therapy concerning their father’s death, and their exposure to drug
use and domestic violence. The Children have a good relationship with
paternal grandparents. They appear happy and have the opportunity to
engage in many different activities. Ms. Thompson testified that, with their
paternal grandparents, the Children are able to just enjoy being kids. See id.
at 18. Finally, Ms. Thompson explained that, despite retaining authority to
make educational and medical decisions for the Children, Mother has not
attended any school or medical appointments for the Children since CYF has
been involved. See id. at 33.
Teri Pentz, therapist for A.S., testified that she has been providing
treatment for A.S. since July 2017. She is a trauma counselor, and began
-3-
J-S03015-20
treating A.S. because A.S. had recently lost her father and was living with her
grandparents after being separated from her mother. Ms. Pentz testified that
A.S. has consistently told her that she does not want to live with Mother or
visit her. See id. at 45-46. A.S. does not include Mother in a list of trusted
adults in her life. See id. at 54. Finally, Ms. Pentz explained that while Mother
had the opportunity to be involved with A.S.’s therapy, she never took
advantage of the opportunity. See id. at 48.
Samantha Strum, therapist for C.S., also testified at the hearing. Ms.
Strum, also a trauma counselor, stated that she had been providing treatment
for C.S. since February 2018, because of the loss of his father and separation
from his mother. Ms. Strum testified that, despite his young age, C.S.
remembers that, when he lived with her, his Mother did not take care of him.
See id. at 61. Ms. Strum explained that C.S. was not upset about the past
mistreatment because he does not see Mother much and she does not call.
See id. at 63. C.S. has told Ms. Strum that he would like to live with his
grandparents permanently and would not like to continue visits with Mother.
See id. at 65. C.S. did not consider Mother a trusted adult. Finally, Ms. Strum
confirmed that Mother similarly had the opportunity to be involved with C.S.’s
therapy, but never chose to do so. See id. at 72.
Next, Gregory Lobb, Ph.D., a psychologist, testified as to the results of
his court-ordered evaluation of the family. He testified that during his
evaluation of Mother, he learned about her drug use, drug addiction, and
domestic violence issues. Mother informed him that while the Children were
-4-
J-S03015-20
in her care, she was in an abusive relationship where she was both the
perpetrator and victim of abuse, often fueled by substance abuse, and that
the police were often at the home. She indicated that she had a history of
drug abuse related to opiates since about age twenty-four, and alcohol abuse.
She explained that although she had a long period of sobriety, she relapsed
after her husband became ill. See id. at 111-12.
With respect to Mother’s relationship with the Children, Dr. Lobb
testified that they had an ambivalent-insecure attachment, explaining that
because of the past drug addiction and domestic violence, the Children are
unable to be certain they can count on Mother to be there for them and take
care of their needs. See id. at 115-16. He testified that “when a parent is
struggling with addiction, domestic violence, their own mental health issues,
sometimes those things can get in the way of that normal kind of development
for the child where they can learn that this parent, they can count on them.”
Id. at 116.
With respect to the Children’s relationship with their grandparents, Dr.
Lobb testified that the bond with paternal grandmother is the “healthiest []
attachment they know.” Id. at 120. He described their attachment as a secure
attachment, “[s]he’s their go to parent. She is their psychological parent.” Id.
at 130. Finally, Dr. Lobb testified that the grandparents have been providing
stability and consistency, which has been a huge benefit for the Children.
Finally, at the hearing, Courtney Potter, Esq., the Children’s advocate
explained the Children’s position: “Both times that I met with the Children
-5-
J-S03015-20
they were clear. They want to stay with their grandparents. They want to be
adopted. They do not want to have any further visitation or contact with their
Mother.” Id. at 154-55 (some capitalization provided).
The trial court granted CYF’s petitions to terminate Mother’s parental
rights to Children. Mother filed timely notices of appeal from the orders.
Mother raises the following issue on appeal:
1. 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 [Children]
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b)?
Mother’s Brief, at 6.
“A party seeking to terminate parental rights bears the burden of
establishing grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.” In re
Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). “Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is
so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come
to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in
issue.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
When reviewing an order granting termination of parental rights, “we
accept factual findings and credibility determinations supported by the record,
and we assess whether the common pleas court abused its discretion or
committed an error of law.” In re Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662, 670
(Pa.Super. 2019) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
A trial court decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion “only upon
-6-
J-S03015-20
demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
will.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
Termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, and requires a bifurcated analysis.
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).
Here, Mother does not contest the trial court’s finding that her conduct
warranted termination under subsection (a)(8). Rather, Mother contends that
the trial court erred when it determined that it was in the Children’s best
interest to terminate her parental rights pursuant to subsection (b). She
argued that the Children need her in their life, and that they would benefit
from therapy with her, and from her and paternal grandparents jointly
undergoing therapy to help their relationship, claiming that their
estrangement does not serve the Children’s needs and welfare. See Mother’s
Brief, at 18-20. Mother’s claim does not merit relief.
Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider “the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child” to determine if
-7-
J-S03015-20
termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511(b). The focus under Section 2511(b) is not on the parent, but on the
child.
One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the
nature and status of the emotional bond that the child has with
the parent, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of
permanently severing any such bond. Moreover, the fact that a
child has a bond with a parent does not preclude the termination
of parental rights. Rather, the orphans’ court must examine the
depth of the bond to determine whether the bond is so meaningful
to the child that its termination would destroy an existing,
necessary and beneficial relationship.
In re Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d at 674-75 (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the court “should also consider the
child’s relationship with his foster parents and whether the foster parent
provides to the child the intangibles such as [] love, comfort, security, and
stability.” Id. at 675 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the trial court found that terminating Mother’s parental rights was
in the best interest of the Children and would best serve their developmental,
physical, and emotional needs and welfare. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/19,
at unnumbered page 9. The court explained that it conducted a bond analysis
and considered testimony from the CYF caseworker, the two trauma
therapists, and Mother, in addition to the expert testimony and report of Dr.
Lobb. The court highlighted the Children’s good relationship with their
grandparents, and the fact that they were happy living in the grandparents’
home. See id. at unnumbered page 6. The trial court also considered that
-8-
J-S03015-20
both Children remembered Mother not caring for them when they lived with
her.
The court further explained:
At the TPR hearing, this court also learned that Mother has not
attended any of the Children’s medical appointments, no school
appointments, Mother never reached out to either therapists, and
there were periods of time that Mother did not attend any visits.
This court acknowledges that [the] relationship between paternal
grandparents and Mother was somewhat contentious. However,
parental grandparents have not interfered with Mother meeting
her objectives, engaging in the Children’s medical treatment,
school involvement, nor therapy session. Both Children have
expressed that they no longer wish to visit with their Mother. They
have expressed that they feel safe, loved and properly cared for
with their grandparents. As such, this court believes it is in the
Children[’s] best interest to terminate the parental rights of
Mother and free the Children for adoptions.
Id. at unnumbered page 9 (some capitalization provided).
The record supports the trial court’s factual findings. Upon review, we
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that terminating
Mother’s parental rights would best meet the Children’s developmental,
physical, and emotional needs and welfare. The testimony established that
although the Children have some bond with Mother, termination of Mother’s
parental rights, and adoption by paternal grandparents—with whom the
Children have a secure bond—would best serve their needs and welfare.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental
rights under Sections 2511(a)(8) and 2511(b) is supported by the record.
Accordingly we affirm.
Orders affirmed.
-9-
J-S03015-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/27/2020
- 10 -