J-S01034-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.L., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1073 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000199-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1074 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000198-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1075 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at
No(s): CP-02-AP-0000200-2021
J-S01034-23
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED: MARCH 20, 2023
In this consolidated case, D.L. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders
entered on August 18, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Court that involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights to D.L., a
female born in 2010, K.L., a male born in 2017, and D.L., a male born in 2019
(collectively, the “Children”). We affirm.
On September 30, 2021, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth
and Families (“OCYF”) filed a petition seeking involuntary termination of the
parental rights of Mother and the unknown fathers of each of the Children.1
The petition alleged multiple grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.
§§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b). A hearing on OCYF’s petition was
held before the trial court on July 7, 2022. At the hearing, OCYF presented
44 joint stipulations, exhibits of the dependency orders for the Children, the
OCYF’s family plans, and the testimony of three OCYF caseworkers. Mother
also testified. The trial court, in its opinion filed under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),
compiled a thorough summary of the testimony and evidence introduced at
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Mother has never been married and the respective fathers of the three
children are considered as unknown. Joint stipulations were filed indicating
that the putative father of the oldest of the Children was named by Mother
but did not make himself available for assessment; K.L.’s putative father was
established as father by an ex parte order of the trial court on June 2, 2021,
but did not make himself available for further assessment; and the younger
D.L.’s father acknowledged paternity but did not comply with requested
genetic testing as of the termination of parental rights hearing. Joint
Stipulations, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 6-9; Notes of Testimony at 6-17.
-2-
J-S01034-23
the hearing on OCYF’s petition, which we now adopt. See Trial Court Opinion,
10/17/22, at 6-14.
Following the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered its orders
terminating the parental rights of Mother and the unknown fathers to the
Children. Ordersj, 8/18/22. On July 29, 2022, Mother, OCYF, and Childrens’
counsel prepared and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law ordered by the trial court. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal together
with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and on October
17, 2022, the trial court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion.2
In her brief, Mother does not challenge the trial court’s determination
that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate her parental rights
under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8); rather, Mother raises the
following question for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
law in concluding that OCYF 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. § 2511(b)?
Mother’s Brief at 7 (suggested response omitted).
We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the
parties, and the thorough and complete opinion of the trial court authored by
the Honorable David L. Spurgeon, dated October 17, 2022. Based upon our
review, we agree with the trial court that OCYF met its burden of establishing,
____________________________________________
2 No putative father filed an appeal in this matter.
-3-
J-S01034-23
by clear and convincing evidence, grounds for termination pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b). Because we believe that
the trial court has adequately and accurately examined the issue raised by
Mother in this appeal, we adopt the opinion of the trial court as our own. See
Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/22, at 1-27. As we have adopted the trial court’s
opinion as our own, we direct the parties to include a copy of that opinion with
all future filings pertaining to the disposition of this appeal.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/20/2023
-4-
Circulated 03/01/2023 12:16 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF: CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL
D.1., c P-02-AP-00 00 1 98-2021
A IVINOR
K.L. c P-02-AP-00001 99-2021
A I\4INOR,
D.1., c P-02-AP-00 00200 -2021
A IVIINOR,
1073WD{2022
1074 WDA2022
107swDA2022
APPEAL OF
D,1., OPINION OF THE COURT
I\XOTHER.
By:
The Honorable David L. Spurgeon
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
440 Ross Street, Suite 506
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Copies to:
Counsel for CYF, Guardian ad litem for Children,
llene L. Dubin, Esquire Erin Krotoszynski, Esquire
Allegheny County Office of CYF KidsVoice
445 Fort Pitt Blvd. 437 Grant Street
Fort Pitt Commons, Suite 101 Suite 700
Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for D.L.. (Mother)
Jeffrey K. Eisenberg, Esquire
Allegheny County Bar Foundation
Juvenile Court Project
Koppers Building, Suite 1'l 00
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF: CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL
D.1., c P-02 -A P-0 0 00 1 I 8 -2021
A IVIINOR,
K.1., c P-02-AP-00 001 99 -2021
A TMINOR,
D.1., c P-02-AP-00 00200-2021
A I\4INOR,
1073WDA2022
1074 WDA2022
1075WD{2022
APPEAL OF,
D.1., OPINION OF THE COURT
TUOTHER.
Spurgeon, J. October 17,2022
OPINION
On July 7 2022, this Court issued an order terminating the parental
rights of D.L. ("Mother") and unknown father ("Fathe/') to their children
D.L., a 12 year old female born l\/ay 8,2010, K.L., a 4 year old male born
November 27,2017 , and D.L., a 2 year old male born November 8, 2019.
T.T. 6 at 22-23, 25; f .T .7 al'1-1 0.1 The Court found that grounds existed to
terminate [Vlother's and unknown Father's parental rights pursuant to 23
l Trial Transcript hereinafter designated at "T.T."
1,
Pa. C.S. SS2511 (a) (Z), (5), and (8). The Court then concluded that
terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights served Children's needs
and welfare pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.S251 1(b). At the conclusion of the
Termination of Parental Rights (hereinafter "TPR") proceeding, the Court
ordered the interested parties to draft and file proposed finding of facts,
which were submitted by all interested parties on July 29,2022. This Court
entered its Order of July 7, 2022 on the docket effective August 18,2022.
N4other timely appealed the Court's Order within 30 days of this Court's
order.
Mother does not assert that the Court erred when it concluded that
clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate her parental rights
under 23 Pa. C.S. SS2511 (a) (2), (5), and (8). lVother's only issue raised in
her 1925 (b) statement is the Court erred when it ruled, pursuant to 23 Pa.
C.S.S251 1(b), that termination of lVlother's parental rights would best serve
the needs and welfare of the children. Although lVlother did not raise any
claim(s) of error under $$251 1 (a) (2), (5), and (8), the Court views these
factors as intertwined with the needs and welfare of the children analysis
under $25'1 1(b) and will address those factors in this Opinion. No putative
Father appealed the Court's Order terminating parental rights.
2
STANDARD
CYF based its petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on 23 Pa.
C.S.A. SS2511 (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8)and (b). These subsections provide
for the involuntary termination of parental rights if the petitioner can
establish any of the following grounds:
(a)(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 be remedied by the parent. [...]
(a)(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. [... ]
3
child has been removed from the care of the parent by the
(aX8) The
twelve ('12) months
Court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency,
placement' the
or more have elapsed from the date of removal or
child continue to
conditions which led to the removal or placement of the
existandtheterminationoftheparentalrightswouldbestservetheneeds
and welfare of the child.
23 Pa.C.S.A. SS2511 (a)(2), (aX5), (aX8)'
Once the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental
rights have been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, the
Court must consider whether the termination would meet the needs and
welfare of the child under $251 1 (b):
(b) Other considerations. - The Court in terminating the rights of a
parent shall give primary consideration to the development, 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 shallnot 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 petitions.
4
23 Pa.C.S.A. 52511(b)
A party seeking termination of parental rights must establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies at least one of
the statutory grounds for termination; if it is determined that this burden of
proof has been met, then the trial court must next consider the second step
of the process, which entails a determination of whether termination best
seryes the needs and welfare if the child. ln re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.zd 703
(Pa. Super. 2007). When determining whether terminating parental rights
serves the child's needs and welfare, the Court must examine the nature
and status of any bond between the parent and the child and consider
whether severing that bond would destroy a relationship that is "necessary
and beneficial." ln re P.A.B., 570 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. Super. 1990). The
Court is not required to use expert testimony when conducting a bonding
analysis. lt is permissible for the Court to accept the testimony of
caseworkers and social workers in relation to the bond between the child
and their natural parent and their pre-adoptive parent. The primary concern
is that adequate consideration be given to the needs and welfare of the
child, recognizing that a parent's own feeling of love and affection for a
child, alone, do not prevent termination of parental rights. /n re 2.P., gg4
A.2d 1108, 1120-1121 (Pa. Super. 2010)
5
ln reviewing an order terminating parental rights, the appellate court
"is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported
by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or
insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must
stand." ln re 5.H.,879 A.2d 802, 809 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore, the
trial court is "the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and resolves
all conflicts in testimony." /d
RELEVANT FACTS
At the July 7,2022 TPR proceeding, the following witnesses testified:
Jaylin Hammond - CYF caseworker
Hope Cooks - A Second Chance caseworker
Sherri lhrig - CYF adoption caseworker
Donna Lewis - tt/other
Rashonda Lewis-Brookins - [Vlother's cousin
Pursuant to the stipulations and testimony of the July 7,2022\PR,
the Court finds the following facts
D.L. is Mother to D.L. ("Child 1'), a female born May 8, 2010; K.L
('Child 2"), a male born November27,2017', and D.L. ('Child 3'), a male
born November 8, 2019. T.T. 6 at 22-23, 25,T.T. 7 at 1-10. The Court
accepted the stipulations of the parties regarding unknown Fathe(s): J.E.
6
was named by lVother to be the putative father of Child 1.; however, J.E
did not avail himself for assessment. ld. at 18-24. J.S. was established as
the putative father of Child 2 on June 2, 2021, by an ex pafte order of the
Court of Common Pleas Famlly Division, Allegheny County; however, J.S
did not avail himself for assessment. ld. at 25; T.T. 8 al 1-7. M.A.B. was
established as the putative father of Child 3. on June 28,2021; however,
that has not been confirmed through genetic testing. ld. al8-22.2
On September 30,2021, Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth
and Families ('CYF") filed the TPR petitions seeking on behalf of Child 1,
Child 2, and Child 3. T.T. I at 4-9. Testimony was presented that tvlother
had two other children that are not in her care. T.T. 10 at 5-7.
On January 3,2020, an Emergency Custody Authorization ('ECA")
was requested and granted on behalf of the subject Children. ld. al8-12
The subject Children were placed with their maternal grandfather, E.H.,
where they presently remain. Id. at 13-'14. The Children have been in care
for thirty (30) months at the time of the proceeding. T.T. 17 at 1-3
An ECA was requested because Mother tested positive for THC
(tetrahydrocannabinol) at Child 3's birth. ld. al 17.lt/other admitted to using
Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3 are collectively referred to in this Opinion as "the subject Children" and "Children"
'?
unless reference is made to the specific Child.
7
alcohol and cocaine during the pregnancy. ld. at 18-20. Child 3was born
34 weeks at gestation and was placed in NICU (neonatal intensive care
unit) until his release on November 27,2019.
Multiple attempts to assess and evaluate Mother's drug and alcohol
usage were arranged by CYF through POWER (Pennsylvania Organization
for Women in Early Recovery). T.T. 11 at 1-3. Following a Shelter Hearing
on January 6,2020, the Court found that Mother failed to complete the drug
and alcohol assessments arranged by CYF. ld. at'l 9-25.
Dependency petitions were brought on behalf of the subject Children
and a hearing was held on February 5,2020, where the Children were
adjudicated dependent. This Court ordered the following: Children to
remain with their maternal grandfather, Mother was to address and
successfully complete drug and alcohol treatment, obtain housing, and
maintain consistent visitation with the subject Children3. f .T. 12 at 9-'1 9
The established CYF Family Plan goals in this case were for l/lother
to maintain sobriety, find and maintain housing, and meet the medical
needs of the subject Children. T.T. 25 at 21-25; T.T. 30 at 3-8 [see also:
CYF Exhibit 21.
3
A Shelter Care Order dated January 6, 2020 ordered Mother to have liberal, supervised visits with the Children.
Mother's visits have remained supervised throughout the life of this case. T.T. 11 at 10-11, 14-18.
8
Mother participated in the Pyramid outpatient program from January
16, 2020 to August 2020. T.T . 1 3 at 1 6-1 9. Mother entered inpatient drug
and alcohol treatment at FamilyLinks, but did not successfully complete the
program as she voluntarily withdrew herself. ld. al21-23. lr4other again
participated in Pyramid from September 22,2021. She was discharged on
January 7,2022 due to a number of "no-shows" and cancellations. T.T. '14
at 3-4. lVother has not attended any formal drug and alcohol treatment
since the latest discharge from Pyramid in February 2022. ld. at 12-13.
Mother had been court ordered to undergo random drug and alcohol
screens since June 4,2020.|d. at '14-16. Mother had been screened for
drugs and alcohol and tested positive for THC on October 7,2021 , and
positive for cocaine on October 29, 2021. ld. at 1-9. Mother had previously
tested positive for both THC and cocaine in February and July o'f 2020 as
well as signed an acknowledgement admitting to using cocaine and THC
two days prior to the July screen. T.T. 16 al 12-15, 18-21 .ln total, lVother
attended only two of the nineteen ordered drug screens. ld. 10-17. During
the TPR proceeding, Mother admitted she used cocaine six days before the
TPR hearing. T.T. 189 at 2-7. lVother also admitted to smoking marijuana
daily and that she did not have a valid medical marijuana license. ld. at 8-
10; T.T. 36 at21-25, T.T. 156 at 13-'16.
9
Mother testified that it was her belief that the use of cocaine. alcohol
and marijuana would not affect the ability to parent because "my mother did
it. She raised us." T.T. '1
51 at 3. Mother also admitted that her mother was
not always there to raise her and was "here and there when she could".
T.T. 188 at 8-9. lVlother admitted E.H., where her children have been
placed for the last 30 months, took over her parenting because of her
mother's absence in her life due to drugs and alcohol. ld.
lVlother was ordered to have liberal supervised visitation with the
Children. At the June 4,2020 Permanency Review Hearing, the Court
ordered tt/lother's supervised visits could be modified to unsupervised visits
once she began to undergo drug and alcohol screens and that the screens
were negative for all controlled substances and alcohol. T.T. '1 3 at 8-13
Despite the Court permitting a liberal visiting schedule, Mother's visits with
the Children were infrequent and inconsistent. T.T. 30 al 12-15; T.f . 42 at
25, T .I . 91 al 22-23. [\rlother's visitation never progressed from supervised
to unsupervised because of her drug usage and visitation inconsistency.
T.I . 41; 11 al 17-18. Mother's failure to consistently visit Child 1 negatively
impacted her feelings. T.T. 43 at 3; T.T. al 17-23.
Mother had a Court ordered goal to secure and maintain housing. At
the case inception, Mother and the Children had been moving from various
10
addresses between the Homewood and Hill District sections of Pittsburgh,
PA. T.T. 37 al7-11. None of the residences were stable and lr/lother was
homeless at one point. T.T. 38 at 3. l\4other obtained an apartment in
March, 2020, through Urban League of Pittsburgha. ld. at 5. lVlother
admitted she did not actually reside in that residence, but instead stayed
with E.H. and allowed her brothers and sisters to stay in the residence. T.T.
192 al 15-21. On September 24,2021, eighteen (18) months after
obtaining the apartment, lVlother actually moved into that apartment. T.T.38
at 16.
lVlother did not meet the medical needs of the children despite
retaining medical decision-making rights. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
flagged the family due to a delay in the medical care and unmet medical
needs. T.T. 39 at 4-8. Child 3 had not been seen for his monthly well
checks as a baby. ld. at 9-10. Upon the Children coming into care, Mother
was expected to bring the Children up to date medically, including dental.
ld. at 1 1-15. Mother was provided in-home services to assist her with
scheduling Children's medical appointments. ld. at 18-20. l\4other did not
fulfill her obligations with the Children's medical needs, which resulted in
this court appointing E.H. as secondary medical decision maker. ld. at23-
a
Mother received the housing subsidy through ARCHO. T.T. 95 at 6-9
11
25. Although Mother purported that the Children received medical care; the
caseworker obtalned medical records from UPMC Oakland and it was
revealed that the Children had not been seen at all. T.T. 119 at20-25; T.T.
120 at 1-3. At the time of the TPR, it remained unknown when the last time
lt4other's participation in the Children's medical or dental care actually
occurred. T.T. 41 at 5-8. Conversely after E.H.'s appointment as secondary
medical decision maker, the Children were brought up to date in their
medical and dental care. T.T. 57 al 12-15.
CYF presented evidence that E.H. provides the Children with a stable
home and care. The Children have been in his care for thirty (30) months.
T .T . 17 at 1-3. The Children are progressing positively in his care. T.T. 56
at 'l 5-1 6. The Children are provided with love and attention. ld. at '1 7. The
Children appear happy and playful in E.H.'s care. T.f .57 at 1-3. E.H.
provides the Children a safe home. ld. at 6-10.
ln addition to the medical decision-making functions, E.H. was also
appointed secondary educational decision maker. T.T. 15 at '1
6-'1 9. This
appointment resulted in part because Mother did not have an active
cellphone and failed to register the children for preschool. T.T. 58 al 16-22.
Currently, Child 1 is in middle school while Child 2 and Child 3 stay at
home during the day with E.H. T.T. 57 al 19-25, T.T. 58 at 1. There have
t2
been no truancy concerns, nor are there any special service needs
required. T.T. 59 at 1-6. Child 1 performs well in school and receives
grades of A's. ld. at 10-12
E,H. has two other children that reside in the home. ld. at 13-17.
There is a large support system for the children. ld. The subject Children
and E.H.'s other children that reside within the home all get along well and
look up to these older children. ld. at 25, T.T. 60 at 1. The home is safe,
well-kept and clean. ld. at 6-7; T.T. 134 at 13-14. The Children are cared
for and well-fed. ld. at21. The Children's physical, psychological, and
developmental needs are being met by E.H. T.T. 60 al22-25.
E.H. maintains consistent contact with CYF and with Mother. Ms.
Hammond testified that E.H. ensures that the Children will be permitted to
have a relationship with Mother. T.T. 97 al 11-22.
There have been six permanency review hearings in this case.
lt/lother's efforts to remedy the causes that brought her Children into care
have lessened throughout the life of this case. At June 4,2020, September
3,2020, and December 3,2020 hearings, Mother was found to be making
moderate progress towards her goals. f .T. 14 at 17-23. At the next two
hearings on June 9,2021 and September 8,2021, t\Iother was found to be
in minimal compliance and making minimum progress. ld. al24-25: T.T. 15
13
at 1-2. At the most recent hearing on March 3,2022, Mother was found to
not be in compliance and made no progress. ld. at 3-6.
DISCUSSION
To terminate parental rights, a trial court must first find clear and
convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist under one of the
eleven subsections of 23 Pa. C.S.A. S251'1 (a). lf grounds exist, the court
must then consider, under 23 Pa. C.S.A. S2511(b), whether termination
would best serve the Child's developmental, physical and emotional needs
and welfare. ln re J.F.M.,71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013).
In order to establish grounds to terminate under subsection (a)(2) and
(a)(5), CYF must demonstrate that the conduct that led to the removal has
continued to persist throughout the entire life of the case. The scope of
review engaged in by the trial court spans from before removal up until the
final hearing. ln the instant matter, CYF has demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence that t\4other is unable to parent due to her incapacity
and neglect; and further, those conditions will not be remedied within a
reasonable period of time due to lVlother's lack of effort. Further CYF met
their burden under subsection (a)(8) as they demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence that Mother failed to remedy the conduct which has
resulted in the Children being out of the home for thirty (30) months.
14
ln this case, Mother does not raise any claims of error with the
Court's finding under subsections (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) and concedes
CYF met their burden. lVother's only claim of error is limited to 92511(b),
specifically that the record does not support a conclusion that termination of
Mother's rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children
The clrcumstances of each case must be considered to determine if
the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants the
involuntary termination of the parental rights. ln re A.L.D.,797 A.2d 326
(Pa. Super. 2002). The Superior Court in ln re: B, N.M., stated "a parent's
basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of his or her 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 environmenl." ln Re: 8., N.M, 856 A.2d 847, 856
(Pa. Super. 2004)
The needs and welfare analysis focuses on whether termination of
parental rights meets the developmental, physical, and emotional needs of
the child. ln re T.D.,949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008). The analysis focuses
on the totality of the circumstances. ln lnterest of Coast,561 A.2d 762 (Pa
Super. 1989). Judicial inquiry of the needs and welfare of the child
examines "the effect of parents' actions or omissions upon the child" to
15
determine whether the parent is meeting the child's developmental,
physical and emotional needs. ld. at767.
The Court finds in this case that tVlother's continued drug use is
ongoing and a significant negative impact on her ability to parent and
therefore negatively affects the welfare and safety of the Children. Mother
was ordered to maintain sobriety and to address her substance abuse
disorder which included submission to random drug screens and treatment,
find and maintain housing, visitation, and meet the medical needs of the
subject Children. The Court found IVlother was not compliant with these
goals.
The Court accepted the testimony of CYF caseworker Jaylyn
Hammond, who was assigned to this matter in August, 2021 . T.T. 19 at7.
[\4s. Hammond credibly testified that the family has been known to the CYF
since 2014, after Mother tested positive for controlled substances during
the birth of a child. T.f .21 at 12-16. CYF attempted to assess fi/lother and
a case was opened and subsequently closed on July 9,2015.|d. at22-25,
f .T.22 at 1-3. Mother was referred to CYF three more times: November 7,
2016, April 4, 2018, and November 9, 2019, due to Mother's use of
marijuana and cocaine. ld. at 6-9. N4other subsequently tested positive
again at Child 3's birth, resulting in a notification to CYF. f .I. 23 at 1. At
16
that time, lVother told CYF caseworkers that she smoked marijuana daily
and did not plan to quit. ld. at 3-4. Mother also admitted to drinking alcohol
throughout the course of the pregnancy. ld. at 5-7
The Court was troubled by lt/lother's admission of her use of other,
harder narcotics during the pregnancy of Child 3. Mother told CYF that she
had used cocaine during the pregnancy two weekends per month. ld. at 8-
10. tt/other told CYF that she planned to use cocaine again when she gets
money. ld. at 11-12. Further, during the TPR hearing, she admitted using
cocaine six (6) days before the proceeding. T .T . 189 at 2-7 .
[\4other demonstrated to the Court that she was not going to stop
using controlled substances nor accept the help that was provided for the
addiction. Mother was not cooperative with CYF. Four attempts to assess
lVlother were made by CYF at her residence and caseworkers were not
permitted to access the residence. ld. at 17-22. CYF made an additional
POWER referral for lvlother; however, lVlother declined to participate and
the assessment could not be completed. T.T. 24 al 13-15.
There were multiple drug addiction services offered to t\4other that
she did not utilize. IVIother participated in intensive outpatient with Pyramid
in January 16,2020 and entered into inpatient at FamilyLinks in August 31 ,
2020; however, she left the facility against advice of the staff. T.T. 13 at 20-
L7
23. Mother did not reengage treatment until nearly one ('l ) year later,
September 22,2021 only to be discharged three (3) months thereafter as
"partially successful" due to the "no-shows and cancellations on a regular
basis" T.T. 14 al 1-4. ln that three-month period of last known treatment,
Mother tested positive for THC on October 7,2021, cocaine on October 29,
2021 , and received a negative test for any substances on December 3,
2021 . ld. at 5-9. t\4other reentered Pyramid in February 2022 but left by
May 2022. She has not engaged in any other treatment up to and including
the time of the TPR proceeding. ld. at 10-13.
Mother also failed to attend her Court ordered drug screens as she
attended only two (2) of nineteen ('19) screening appointments. lt is notable
that at the two she attended, she tested positive for marijuana and cocaine.
T.T 16 at 10-15.
ln it's termination analysis, the Court considered Mother's lack of
concern about the negative affects drugs and alcohol have on the ability to
parent and to raise a child in a safe environment. lVlother testified that she
didn't believe the use of drugs and alcohol affects one's ability to parent.
T.T. 151 at 1-3. She reasoned that her own mother used drugs while
parenting, so it was not out of the ordinary. ld. During lt/lother's testimony
on cross-examination, she rationalized that she still cares for her Children
18
"regardless of the drugs" and that "there are people every day that does
[sic] that." T.T. 189 at 19-22
This Court finds that Mother placed her own needs above the needs
of her Children. For example, CYF made numerous attempts to engage
Mother to schedule family plan meetings to provide her with necessary
skills to effectively parent. T.T. 26 al21-25. I/other failed to maintain
contact. T .T. 28 at 13, 58 at '1 7. The last family plan lVlother attended was
nearly two years ago on October 2,2020. f .f .28 at 3-5. This Court found
that Mother's addiction to drugs prevented her from providing the basic
parental care needed by the Children and her refusal to acquire effective
parenting skills.
The Court found that Mother is unable to provide the Children with
shelter. A safe, clean home is necessary for a child. Housing provides a
child with safety and security. Mother demonstrated that she was unable to
maintain suitable housing for the Children throughout the life of this case
The Court rs unpersuaded by Mother's current living arrangement,
especially in light of the fact that, left to her own devices, she will continue
to use cocaine, marijuana and alcohol while the Children are present
Mother further demonstrated her inability to provide for the welfare of
her Children in terms of meeting their medical needs. Caseworker
19
Hammond testified that Mother was given an in-home worker that could
assist her with keeping the Children's medical appointments. T.T. 39 at 18-
20. Nonetheless, Mother failed to meet the Children's medical and dental
needs. T.T. 40 al23-24.lVlother misled A Second Chance caseworker,
Hope Cooks, about the Children receiving medical care; however, when
N/s. Cooks obtained medical records from UPMC Oakland, it was revealed
that the Children had not been seen. T.T. 1 19 al20-25;1.T . 120 at 1-3. At
the time of the TPR, it remained unknown when the last time lt/other's
participation in the Children's medical or dental care actually occurred. T.T.
41 at 5-8. The Court therefore finds that tVlother lacks the parental skills to
be trusted to provide appropriate medical care for the Children.
It is the opinion of the Court that given the totality of the
circumstances, Mother's unwillingness to remedy her addiction issues, and
the unwillingness to acknowledge the detrimental effect it has on the family,
in terms of being a responsible parent who is ready and willing to provide
the basic needs for the Children, the needs and welfare of the Children
would be best served by tr4other's rights being terminated.
The Court next turns to the bond analysis required under $25'1 1(b).
As discussed by the Superior Court linl ln re N.A.M., the inquiry into
whether terminating a parent's rights serves the best interest of the Child's
20
needs and welfare necessitates an inquiry into the nature and status of any
bond between the parent and child and the effect of severing that bond if it
exists:
However, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily
depends on the circumstances of the particular case. ln re K.Z.S.,
946 A.zd753,763 (Pa. Super.2008).
While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major
aspect of 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. ln re K.K.R.-5.,
958 A.2d 529, 533-536 (Pa. Super. 2008) The mere existence of an
emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights.
See /n re T.D.,949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super.2008) (trial court's decision
to terminate parents' parental rights was affirmed where Court
balanced strong emotional bond against parents' inability to serve
needs of child). Rather, the Orphans' Court must examine the status
of the bond to determine whether its termination 'would destroy an
existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.' ln re Adoption of
f.8.8., 835 4.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003).
ln re N.A.M.,33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 201 1); see also, in Re
K.2.5.,946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discussing proper analysis of
parenVchild bond in terminating parental rights)
ln re E.M.,533 Pa. 115,620 A.2d481(1993)and its progeny have
shaped the traditional subsection (b) analysis and calls for interpretation of
any child bond. With respect to this determination, as set forth above, this
Court conducted a parent-child bond analysis. ln so doing, the Court is not
required to use expert testimony and may rely upon the evaluations of
social workers and caseworkers as well. /n re 2.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121
21
(Pa. Super. 2010). The effect of the bond-effect analysis necessarily
depends on the circumstances of the particular case. ln re K.2.5.,946 A.zd
753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008).
ln this case, l\4other never progressed from unsupervised visits. T.T.
41; 11 at 17-18. The Court made Mother aware that visits could be
modified upon proof of successful completion of substance treatment and
maintained sobriety. Mother was unable to comply. T.T. '1 3 at 8-13
Mother wasn't consistent with the visits even though this Court
permitted the visitation to be liberal, meeting at the Mother's convenience.
Caseworker Hammond credibly testified that Mother had not consistently
attended visits, even though the visits were liberally arranged. f .f 42 at 11.
The liberal visits included Mother being able to stay overnight at E.H.'s
house with the Children. T.T. 91 at 18-25. Hope Cooks testified that she
observed Mother at E.H.'s home during her two visits, but that was in July
ol 2021, before taking Flt/LA leave. Since her return in November 2021,
Mother's visits have not been consistent. T.T. '1 1 1 at 18-25. Mother testified
during the proceeding, however, the Court rejected much of her testimony
in favor of the corroborated evidence offered by the CYF witnesses
l/lother's cousin Rashonda Lewis-Brookins testified about a loving
relationship she observed between Mother and the Children, however, [Vls.
22
Lewis-Brookins only observed these interactions when the Children were
infants, and then again in July 2021. T.T. 199 at 9-1 1,22-24. This court
rejected much of her testimony due to the lapse of time seeing lVlother and
Children together and placed little weight on her opinion. The Court
believes that Mother loves the Children, and a parent-child bond may exist
in varying degrees for each child. The court individually analyzed the bond
for each child. The Court determined that Child 2 has spent nearly all of his
life in foster placement and Child 3 has spent his entire life in care. At 12
years old, Child 1 spent the most time living with Mother and may have the
most significant bond although an insecure bond. /n re Adoption of T.B.B.,
835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super.2003)" This Court relied on the testimony of [t/s.
Cooks about the sadness expressed by Child 1 over text messages she
would receive from lVother promising to visit, but failing to adhere to her
visitation promise. T.T. 1 '13 at 10-23. Accordingly, this court finds that any
bond that may exist is not beneficial, but rather detrimental. The bonding
cannot be in one direction only - that of a child to the parent - but must
exhibit a bilateral relationship which emanates from a parent's willingness
to learn appropriate parenting. . . drug rehabilitation. .. ln re KK.R.-S., 958
A.2d 529,535 (Pa. Super. 2008). The court weighed the record regarding
bond against tr4other's inability to serve the needs of the Children.
23
Ultimately, the court determined that severing this bond would not cause
the children to suffer extreme emotional consequences. Further, the court
did not overlook in the case the harm inflicted on children by prolonged
familial uncertainty. See, T.S.M., 71 A. 3d aL267-268.
While a parent's emotional bond with her Child(ren) is a major aspect
of the subsection 251 1 (b) best interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one
of the factors to be considered by the court when determining what is in the
best interest of the child. ln re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa.
Super. 2015). Notwithstanding the bond analysis, 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 the stability the Child
might have with the foster parent. ld. at 1219.
Reunification in this case in not imminent. "A child's life cannot be
held in abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity necessary
to assume parenting responsibilities. ln the Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d
502, S13 (Pa. Super. 2006). Parents have a limited time to demonstrate
theirfitness. ln this case, Mother has 30 months to obtain sobriety, yet
used cocaine less than one week before this proceeding.
Conversely, CYF presented evidence that E.H. provides the Children
with a stable home and care. The Children have been in his care for thirty
24
(30) months. I.f . 17 at 1-3. The Children refer to him as Pap-Pap. T.T. 108
al2-10. The Children are progressing positively in his care. T.T. 56 at 15-
16. The Children are provided with love and attention. ld. at 17. The
Children appear happy and playful in E.H.'s care. T.T. 57 at '1 -3. E.H.
provides the Children a safe home. ld. at 6-10
In reaching the above conclusion the Court gave significant weight to
testimony from CYF Adoption Caseworker Sherri lhrig, who has been
employed with CYF for thirty-one (31) years. f .f . 142 at 7. She has
completed studies of approximately two hundred sixty-four (264) pre-
adoptive families. f .T.143 at 1 1. Ms. Ihrig credibly testified that E.H.
provides for the Children's medical needs. Since E.H.'s appointment as
secondary medical decision maker, the Children have been brought up to
date in their medical and dental care. T.T. 134 al 17-18. tt4s. lhrig testified
that "a lot of dental work and medical care had to be done and he (E.H.) did
that." ld. at 15-19
Ms. lhrig's observations of the family led her to opine that the family
functions well together. I.f . Q9. In this instance tt/ls. lhrig has the unique
insight and experience to make this assessment because she was also the
caseworker for the other two children adopted by E.H., which have
blossomed into well-functioning adults. ld. at22-25;130 at '1
25
Ms. lhrig credibly testified that the Children go to E.H. for their needs.
T.T. 133 at 2-3. They show E.H. affection. ld. at 4. He, in turn, provides
them with guidance and discipline. ld. at 5-14. lt was from these
observations that tVs. lhrig concluded that E.H. was the primary functioning
parent in the Children's lives. T.T. 134 at 25, T.T. '1 35 'l -3. lt was her
testimony that was a significant factor on which the Court heavily relied. ln
reaching the conclusion that the Children's need of love, comfort, security
and stability are met by E.H., who the court deemed to be the Children's
primary emotional attachment. ln re K.M.,53 A.3d 781 ,792 (Pa. Super.
2012).
ln this case, the Children have been out of Mother's care for over
thirty (30) months. This Court considered and finds that a strong and
positive bond does exist with E.H., who provides a loving and safe
environment and fertile grounds for a well-adjusted life. The Court also
accepted that E.H. will continue to maintain contact with t\4other and will
continue to foster contact and visits between Mother and the Children. As
this is a kinship placement, the Children also have access to other
extended family.
Therefore, the evidence establishes and the Court concludes that
termination will be able to provide Children with much needed stability and
26
permanence and that the developmental, physical, and emotional needs
and welfare of the Children would be best served by terminating lVother's
parental rights under 2511(b).
The record clearly demonstrated Mother's engagement in a pattern of
behavior that clearly disregarded the needs and welfare of her Children
CONCLUSION
The evidence drscussed above amply supported the Court's
conclusion that Children's bond with l\/other "no longer helps but rather
hinder[s] the child".5 lt is clear that any bond between Mother and Children
is not beneficial. lt is clear that E.H.'s home provides security for the
Children and that the Children are bonded to him. ln totality of the
circumstances, CYF has carried the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that IVother's rights should be terminated and would
be in the Children's best interest. Therefore, for these reasons, the Court's
order should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT
,J
The Hon. David L. Spurgeon
s
In re P.-4.8.,570 A.2d 522,526 (Pa. Super. I990)
27