Adoption of: H.J.M., Appeal of: B.A.M. ( 2022 )

J-A02040-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF: H.J.M. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: B.A.M., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 884 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):
44 In Adoption 2021
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF: K.A.M. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: B.A.M., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 885 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):
44A In Adoption 2021
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: JANUARY 14, 2022
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A02040-22
B.A.M. (Mother) appeals from the July 15, 2021 decrees of the Court of
Common Pleas of Erie County (trial court) terminating her parental rights to
H.J.M. and K.A.M. (collectively, Children).1 We affirm.
I.
We glean the following facts from the certified record. In October 2019,
the Erie County Office of Children and Youth (OCY) filed dependency petitions
for Children after they were removed from their parents’ care pursuant to an
Emergency Protective Order. OCY had received reports that Mother was using
methamphetamine but at that time she had not submitted to drug testing.
Mother also lacked stable housing, was facing imminent homelessness, and
left Children with Father even though he did not have electricity or heat at his
residence and was allegedly using methamphetamine.
Children have remained with their foster family since the dependency
petitions were granted. In 2021, OCY sought to change Children’s dependency
goals from reunification to adoption. The trial court held goal change hearings
on April 21 and May 26, 2021, before changing the goal to adoption. OCY
filed termination petitions between the two goal change hearings and in June
2021, the trial court held a termination hearing. The parties stipulated to
incorporate the testimony from the goal change proceedings into the record.
____________________________________________
1 Mother filed separate notices of appeal from each order and we consolidated
her appeals sua sponte. See Pa. R.A.P. 513. The trial court also terminated
the parental rights of Children’s Father but he did not file an appeal.
-2-
J-A02040-22
In addition, OCY submitted the permanency review orders and court
summaries that were generated throughout the pendency of the case, reports
from service providers for Mother and Children and results from all of Mother’s
drug tests throughout the case.
Patty Bush (Bush), a caseworker at OCY, testified at the goal change
hearing on April 21, 2021, that Mother had relapsed in March 2021 after a
period of sobriety and she had relapsed previously during the pendency of the
case. Mother told Bush that she had tested positive because she took a pill
her brother had given her but she did not know what was in the pill. In
addition to seeking treatment for substance abuse, one of Mother’s goals was
to obtain mental health treatment. Mother struggled with insomnia and was
moody and angry when she did not get enough sleep.
Bush testified that Children were three and four years old and were
receiving trauma counseling. K.A.M. was experiencing mood swings, crying
and was wetting his pants even though he was potty-trained. Bush said these
behaviors occurred more frequently around times Children would see Mother.
Both Children told their foster mother, A.P. (A.P.) and case aide that they did
not want to visit Mother. On one occasion, H.J.M. ran away from the car to
avoid a visit. Mother had never been able to have unsupervised or overnight
visits with Children. Bush could not estimate how long it would take to ensure
that Mother could regain custody of Children. She believed that the continued
reunification efforts with Mother were harmful to Children and she said that
-3-
J-A02040-22
their behaviors improved when Children were only seeing Mother through
virtual visits.
Patricia Potter (Potter), executive director and outpatient therapist at
Affinity Support Services, testified as an expert licensed clinical social worker
with an emphasis in trauma therapy at the second goal change hearing. She
had been working with H.J.M. for over a year due to his complex trauma and
disruptive behavior. She explained that complex trauma arises from multiple
traumatic events occurring after one another. H.J.M. had complex trauma
resulting from stress and neglect while living with his biological parents and
multiple changes to his caregivers. He had disclosed memories of being left
with different people, not having enough food, incidents with police and seeing
scary people he called “monsters” fighting and yelling with Mother and Father.
Notes of Testimony, 5/26/21, at 10. He described Mother as angry and mean
and said that she would hit, kick and yell when she was upset.
Potter worked to help stabilize H.J.M.’s out-of-control and self-injurious
behaviors and she noticed that he would be dysregulated and upset after visits
with Mother. He said he did not want to see Mother and that she was mean.
He would hit himself on the head, bite or pinch himself or poke himself with
objects. The visits also caused him to recall earlier traumatic experiences.
Potter said that over the course of treatment, H.J.M. had become less
aggressive toward others and had fewer incidents of self-injury. He had
become more skilled at voicing his feelings and needs. He was still agitated
-4-
J-A02040-22
around visits with Mother and needed help calming himself. Potter said that
A.P. was involved with H.J.M.’s therapy but Mother was not. She said her role
was to help H.J.M. address his trauma and she was not involved in coaching
Mother on her relationship with H.J.M.
Potter opined that H.J.M. needed permanency and stability that his
foster family could provide. She said that he would not be able to achieve a
sense of safety, stability and trust if he continued visiting with Mother in
addition to working toward adoption. She diagnosed H.J.M. with post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and reactive attachment disorder and said
he needed a parent who was attuned to his needs, kind, loving and nurturing.
On cross-examination, Potter said that she had not asked about
Mother’s progress on her goals or spoken with any of her service providers.
She met with H.J.M. either weekly or biweekly in the approximately one year
she had been treating him. All meetings had been over video conference due
to the pandemic and A.P. was present for support due to H.J.M.’s young age.
Potter believed that the foster parents were meeting H.J.M.’s needs.
Jessica Bingle (Bingle), an outpatient therapist at Affinity Family Support
Services, testified regarding her treatment of K.A.M. She began treating him
in July 2020 to address his reactive behavior, such as tantrums and physical
aggression. He was upset around visits with Mother, said he did not want to
visit her, and was uncontrollable when leaving and returning from visits.
Bingle met with K.A.M. by video conference weekly at the beginning of his
-5-
J-A02040-22
treatment, eventually transitioning to every other week, and A.P. was present
to keep him engaged. Bingle said that he participated in an age-appropriate
manner and she did not observe any aggressive behavior during the sessions.
She testified that he had learned to identify and describe his feelings. His
behavior and ability to regulate fluctuated and she believed the changes were
correlated with the amount of time he spent with Mother. In the month prior
to the hearing, he had been wetting his pants and had decreased appetite
following visits with Mother. It would often take several days for him to stop
having tantrums and aggression following visits. He would also have
separation anxiety if A.P. left the room or ran errands without him. Bingle
diagnosed K.A.M. with adjustment disorder with anxiety. She did not involve
Mother in sessions with K.A.M. She believed that he needed permanency and
thought that it was in his best interest to be adopted by his foster family.
On cross-examination, Bingle confirmed that she had never observed
K.A.M. interacting with Mother and was not aware of any progress Mother had
made on her goals. She was concerned with how little progress Mother had
made toward reunification because Mother was still struggling with substance
abuse issues. She did not involve Mother in her treatment of K.A.M. because
Mother had her own services for family reunification. She believed it would
be counter-productive to involve Mother in the treatment aimed at addressing
complex trauma caused by K.A.M.’s years in Mother’s care.
-6-
J-A02040-22
A.P. testified at the goal change hearing that she and her husband were
willing to adopt Children. At that time, Children had been placed in her home
for approximately 19 months. She said that at the beginning of the
placement, they were terrified and did not want to be near anyone in the
home. She sought counseling for Children because they began showing
behaviors like anger, stomping, hitting, screaming, crying, nightmares and
eating issues immediately after visits with Mother. She confirmed that the
behavioral issues were ongoing and occurred when Children had visits with
Mother, but when visits were suspended, they were much calmer. She
testified that Children refer to her and her husband as “mommy” and “daddy.”
On cross-examination, A.P. said that she never asked OCY to stop visits
entirely because Mother had a right to visit with Children. She had little direct
contact with Mother and said she was told to block her phone number at the
beginning of the case because Mother was sending her hateful messages. OCY
never scheduled phone visits between Mother and Children.
Mother called Krista Stearns (Stearns), her drug and alcohol counselor
at Stairways Behavioral Health, as a witness at the goal change hearing.
Stearns counseled Mother from December 2019 until April 2021. Mother
began in the intensive outpatient program before stepping down to outpatient
treatment. Mother then felt she needed more support and requested to
reenter the intensive outpatient program before she stepped back down again
and was successfully discharged.
-7-
J-A02040-22
Stearns said that Mother reported her positive drug test to her in March
2021. They had planned to discharge her on April 5, 2021, but extended
treatment until April 19 for additional drug tests and counseling. Stearns
testified that Mother was proactive about seeking out support and always
complied with treatment recommendations. She discharged Mother because
she did not feel she needed any additional treatment.
On cross-examination, Stearns confirmed that Mother was successfully
discharged in April 2021 despite testing positive for methamphetamine in
March 2021, and that she had three relapses over the course of the case.
Stearns was aware of Mother’s positive test around March 14 but admitted
that she did not know that Mother also tested positive on March 23 and missed
two of her tests entirely that month.
Next, Mother called her blended case manager, Deborah Sardini
(Sardini), who she had worked with since November 2019. Sardini
acknowledged that Mother could be emotional and angry at times but said
that she was loving and caring with Children, followed direction well, and was
able to provide meals and play time during her visits with Children. Sardini
said that Children would hug Mother and sit on her lap and testified that she
did not observe any behavioral issues during those visits. Sardini had
observed between 12 and 15 of the visits, which began in person but shifted
to video conference during the pandemic. Mother had difficulty keeping
Children engaged during the virtual visits.
-8-
J-A02040-22
The visits later moved to Mother’s apartment, where she would provide
a meal for Children. She had toys and bedrooms for Children. Sardini said
that Mother complied with OCY’s directives by gaining employment, attending
therapy and completing drug and alcohol counseling. She said that the foster
parents did not attend or transport Children to the visits. She did not see
Children arrive at or leave the visits upset, angry or dysregulated. Sardini
was eventually told by OCY that she could no longer attend visits with Mother.
On cross-examination, Sardini testified that she began meeting with
Mother twice a week when the case opened and gradually reduced meetings
to every other week. She said that Mother had successfully closed mental
health treatment and that she was helping her obtain permanent employment.
She did not observe any concerning behaviors from Mother during her visits
with Children. While she was concerned about Mother’s most recent relapse,
she said Mother took responsibility by self-reporting her drug use. She said
Mother had stopped taking medication for her nightmares because she no
longer needed it but continued to take all other medication.
After the trial court changed the goal to adoption, Bush testified again
at the termination of parental rights hearing. She said that Mother had been
found in moderate compliance with her family services plan after each of the
review hearings. One of her goals was to address her substance abuse but
Mother had relapsed three times, most recently in March 2021. Mother denied
her drug use on two occasions and insisted that the tests were not correct.
-9-
J-A02040-22
Mother stopped taking medication for her nightmares and Bush felt that
Mother’s anger issues stemmed from lack of sleep and noncompliance with
the mental health treatment. She said adoption was appropriate because the
Children had been in placement for 20 months and the issues persisted.
Bush described team meetings with Mother, various service providers
and herself. She said that at some meetings, Mother would get angry, raise
her voice and curse. Bush said Mother had been ordered to attend anger
management but that she allowed her to address that in conjunction with her
other therapy so as not to overwhelm her with appointments. In February
2021, Mother stopped her mental health counseling. Bush did notice
behavioral and mood changes in Mother when she was attending therapy but
she did not think Mother would comply with anger management because
Mother did not believe she needed treatment.
Bush said that she believed termination was in Children’s best interests
because they needed permanency and stability. They had behavioral issues
around visits with Mother and she believed those problems would escalate if
they increased visitation. During dependency, Mother had two-hour
supervised visits with Children but never progressed to unsupervised visits.
While Mother had good and bad days, her bad days were correlated with
relapses or discontinuing medication or mental health treatment. Bush did
not believe termination would have any negative effect on Children.
- 10 -
J-A02040-22
Mother called Richele Bann (Bann), a social service aid for OCY who
supervised her visitation with Children. Mother had 23 virtual visits with
Children between March and May 2020, but on seven of those calls, she hung
up on Bann or did not answer. Bann said Mother was often angry during these
visits and Children were not engaged and would ask when the visit would end.
During one visit, she told Children to have fun with their new family before
hanging up. She said that Children did connect with Mother at moments and
still referred to her as “mom.” She opined that Mother’s attitude was the
primary obstacle to successful virtual visits but she could not coach Mother
because she would hang up or not answer the phone. When she spoke to
Sardini about the issues, she suggested that Bann call Mother before the visits
to remind her to take her medication.
When Bann took over transportation for visits between February and
May 2021, she observed that Children did not want to leave A.P. and needed
reassurance that they would return to the foster home. Once, H.J.M. ran away
from the car. Bann spoke to the case aide who supervised the visits between
May 2020 and February 2021 and was told that the same issues Bann had
observed in the beginning of the case had persisted.
During the supervised visits in 2021, Mother would not provide
appropriate meals for Children and fed them candy and pop. She was asleep
when they arrived for one visit. She would give Children age-inappropriate
information, such as telling them she missed her visits because her urine test
- 11 -
J-A02040-22
was bad or that her court date did not go well. Bann did not see Children
exhibit any separation anxiety when leaving visits with Mother.
Mother called Sardini once again at the termination hearing. She said
Mother was upset during virtual visits when Children would call A.P. “mommy”
and when they would leave the table without engaging with her. Mother asked
if she could watch Children play during the virtual visits instead of actively
engaging, but was told that if Children left the table, the visit would end.
Sardini did speak with Mother about her anger and said that Mother’s mental
health counselor was an anger management specialist.
Mother testified on her own behalf and said that she was frustrated
during the virtual visits because she does not like the phone. She said that
the in-person visits went well and that she played games and took Children to
the park. Children would call her “mom” and give her hugs and kisses.
Mother testified that she tested positive for amphetamines in March
2021 because her brother gave her an energy pill. She said that was the only
drug she took that month and did not know why she tested positive twice.
She complied with the mental health treatment goal by attending counseling
and taking medication to treat her depression and PTSD. She stopped taking
medication to treat her nightmares but did not speak to her doctor before
doing so. Mother participated in the time-limited family reunification program
but was upset that she could not see Children on holidays and birthdays. She
had obtained housing and a full-time job where she worked the overnight
- 12 -
J-A02040-22
shift. Because her visits were at 9 A.M., she would occasionally fall asleep
after work and would leave the door unlocked for Children to wake her up.
The initial dependency petition also alleged that Mother allowed Children to
spend time with a registered sex offender. Mother said that the offender was
Father and that OCY told her that she could not keep Children from him.
On cross-examination, Mother said that OCY worked with her to find a
time for visitation that did not interfere with her work schedule and that she
had requested the 9 A.M. visits so she could see Children before going to
sleep. She said that after she stopped taking her medication for nightmares,
she began having them again. Regarding her most recent relapse, Mother
testified that she tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines
on March 14, 2021, after taking the pill from her brother. She tested negative
on March 17 and missed her tests on March 19 and 21. On March 23, she
tested positive for amphetamines. She admitted that the second positive test
could not have been from the pill but did not know why she tested positive.
Finally, Mother called Denise DiGiacomo (DiGiacomo) of Family Services
of Northwest Pennsylvania. She had provided reunification services to Mother
by attending visits and meeting with her on a weekly basis. She testified that
virtual visits were difficult and lasted approximately 15 minutes because
Mother was frustrated and angry. When the visits became virtual for a second
time in November 2020, Mother initially refused to participate, but eventually
attended and was able to engage Children. She said Mother’s attitude varied
- 13 -
J-A02040-22
and seemed to depend on her sleep schedule. She said the visits went much
better when they were in person and Mother was interactive, animated and
engaged with Children. She did not see Children acting fearful or anxious.
She testified that Mother was sometimes angry when given feedback but
would still incorporate it into her next visits.
DiGiacomo said that there had been little progress toward a reunification
plan. Mother had not identified childcare plans for her work schedule.
DiGiacomo testified that at times Mother was beginning to progress toward
reunification, but her most recent relapse had set her back again. She said
that Mother was cooperative and always came to their meetings, even if she
was unhappy to be there. Mother was discharged from the program after the
goal change but was never removed for noncompliance.
On cross-examination, DiGiacomo clarified that Mother had done well
with in-person visits in May 2020 but had regressed and was exhibiting
frustration during the February 2021 visits. Family Services had been working
with Mother continuously from October 2019 until June 2021. DiGiacomo said
that Mother still had more work to do before she could be reunited with
Children and that her attitude fluctuated constantly during the case.
The trial court ultimately issued decrees terminating Mother’s parental
rights on July 15, 2021. After extensively reviewing the evidence, it held that
termination was justified under 23 Pa.C.S. 2311(a)(8) because the conditions
which led to their removal existed for 12 months or more after their removal,
- 14 -
J-A02040-22
and under 23 Pa.C.S. 2311(b),2 that it would be in the best interest of the
children if Mother’s parental rights were terminated. Mother timely appealed
and she and the trial court have complied with Pa. R.A.P. 1925.
II.
On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
finding clear and convincing evidence to terminate her parental rights under
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b).3 We disagree.
____________________________________________
2 23 Pa.C.S. 2511(b) provides:
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.
3 We review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. In re G.M.S.,
193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[w]e give
great deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the
parties spanning multiple hearings.” In re Interest of D.F., 165 A.3d 960,
966 (Pa. Super. 2017). “We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of
the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported
by competent evidence.” In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005).
“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.” In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 477 (Pa. Super. 2010). “If
competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if
the record could also support the opposite result.” Id.- 15 -
J-A02040-22
A.
Mother argues that OCY did not provide clear and convincing evidence
to establish grounds for termination under subsections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5)
and (8).4 She argues that the trial court failed to acknowledge the progress
____________________________________________
4 Those provisions provide:
(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 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.
***
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 16 -
J-A02040-22
she made throughout the pendency of the case, including completing her drug
and alcohol treatment, obtaining mental health treatment, establishing an
appropriate home and obtaining employment. She focuses much of her
argument on the disparities in the testimony between witnesses presented by
OCY and her own witnesses. She contends that her witnesses directly
observed her interactions with Children and disputed testimony by OCY’s
witnesses regarding Children’s dysregulation, poor behavior and emotional
outbursts surrounding visits.
“The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for
termination delineated in [the subsections of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)].” In re
Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 942 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting In re
L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Clear and convincing evidence
is 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 D.L.B., 166 A.3d 322, 326 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). The court may then enter a final
____________________________________________
(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.
- 17 -
J-A02040-22
decree of involuntary termination if it is in the child’s best interests as outlined
in Section 2511(b). Id.The agency alleged that Mother’s parental rights should have been
terminated pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8). When
reviewing a trial court’s order terminating parental rights, we need only agree
as to one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), to affirm
the order. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).
Accordingly, like the trial court, we will focus on subsection 2511(a)(8)’s
requirement that the conditions leading to Children’s removal for 12 months
or more continue to exist.
Termination under subsection 2511(a)(8) does not require consideration
of the parent’s willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the
child’s placement if the conditions continue to exist. See In re Adoption of
R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 511 (Pa. Super. 2006). Even if a parent has made
progress in remedying the conditions and could potentially parent the child
successfully in the future, termination is justified if the conditions continue to
exist after 12 months in placement and it would serve the needs and welfare
of the child. In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 806-07 (Pa. Super. 2005).
Here, it is undisputed that Children were in placement for over 12
months, as approximately 20 months elapsed between their removal from
Mother’s care and the termination hearing. Further, the record supports the
trial court’s determination that the conditions leading to Children’s placement
- 18 -
J-A02040-22
continue to exist. While Children were in placement, Mother had supervised
virtual and in-person visits but was never able to progress to unsupervised or
overnight visits. She had difficulty engaging with Children during the virtual
visits and would hang up the phone or make inappropriate comments. When
asked why she was not engaging the Children during virtual visits, Mother said
that she does not like talking on the phone.
DiGiacomo testified that Mother was more engaged with Children during
the in-person visits in 2020 but struggled during the visits in 2021. She had
difficulty controlling her frustration and Children’s behavior during the visits
and did not provide appropriate meals. DiGiacomo said that she did not see
consistent improvement in Mother’s parenting during the 2021 visits.5 Mother
did not have a childcare plan for Children during her overnight work shifts.
Mother was also directed to address her substance abuse and mental
health issues when working toward reunification. However, she relapsed at
least twice6 during the pendency of the case, with the most recent occurring
____________________________________________
5 Sardini testified that she had observed 12 to 15 visits over the course of the
dependency case and that Mother was loving and caring and had a good
relationship with Children. She acknowledged that Mother was emotional and
angry at times. Mother sometimes struggled to control her anger in team
meetings regarding her progress at OCY. In its opinion, the trial court found
Sardini’s testimony to be conclusory and noted that she did not acknowledge
factual inconsistencies, such as the recent relapse, missed visits with Children
or anger during meetings. Opinion, 6/15/21, at 16-18.
6The trial court noted that OCY had identified two relapses, while Stearns,
Mother’s drug and alcohol counselor, testified that there had been three.
Opinion, 6/15/21, at 14 n.6.
- 19 -
J-A02040-22
in March 2021. While Mother admitted to taking one pill in March 2021, she
was not able to explain why she tested positive on two dates with a negative
test in between. Even though Stearns testified that Mother had been
successfully discharged from treatment the following month, the trial court did
not credit this opinion and found that Mother was still struggling with addiction
in March 2021. As the record supports this credibility determination, we may
not disturb it. A.S., supra.Bush also testified that around the time of this relapse, Mother stopped
taking medication to address her nightmares and said that she no longer
needed mental health treatment. Mother admitted that the nightmares
returned when she stopped taking the medication, and Bush was concerned
that her frustration and anger correlated with lack of sleep. Mother missed
both virtual and in-person visits because she was tired or overslept. Similarly,
DiGiacomo testified that Mother seemed to have more difficulty parenting
during times when she was not complying with her mental health treatment.
The record supports the trial court’s conclusion that there was clear and
convincing evidence that after almost 20 months, the conditions that led to
Children’s placement had persisted. Despite moderate efforts to achieve the
goals set out for her by OCY, Mother was not able to visit with Children
unsupervised and her visits had not extended past two hours. She continued
to struggle with addiction and mental health issues that interfered with her
ability to visit with and parent Children. While she had made progress in
- 20 -
J-A02040-22
obtaining employment and suitable housing, she was still not able to parent
Children on a full-time basis. Her progress in some areas did not alleviate all
the conditions that led to Children’s placement. See S.H., supra. Moreover,
as we address infra in our analysis of Section 2511(b) that terminating
Mother’s parental rights will best serve Children’s needs and welfare.
Accordingly, OCY presented sufficient evidence to support termination under
subsection 2511(a)(8).
B.
The next step of our inquiry is whether the termination is in the best
interests of Children. There are several factors to consider in this analysis:
Section 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental rights
would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional
needs and welfare of the child. . . . While a parent’s emotional
bond with his or her child is a major aspect of . . . [S]ection
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.
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015); In re
M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 464 (Pa. Super. 2017). It is sufficient for the
court to rely on the opinions of social workers and caseworkers when
evaluating the impact that termination of parental rights will have on a child.
See In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010). “In this context, the
court must take into account whether a bond exists between child and parent,
and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial
relationship.” Id.- 21 -
J-A02040-22
Moreover, “[c]ommon sense dictates that courts considering
termination must also consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive
home and whether they have a bond with their foster parents.” In re T.S.M.,
71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). The court may consider
intangibles such as the love, comfort, security and stability the child might
have with the foster parent. See In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super.
2011). Ultimately, the concern is the needs and welfare of the child. In re
Z.P., supra at 1121.
Here, the record supports the trial court’s determination that
termination is in Children’s best interests. Children were two and three years
old when they were removed from Mother’s care and bonded with their foster
parents during their long period of placement. They refer to their foster
parents as “mom” and “dad.” The family has ensured that they receive trauma
counseling to address dysregulation and emotional issues stemming from their
years in their parents’ care. Their counselors, Potter and Bingle, testified that
both Children exhibited maladaptive or disruptive behaviors that would
alleviate in periods when they were not visiting Mother. Over their time in
therapy, the Children learned to verbalize their needs and feelings and use
healthy coping mechanisms to address emotional dysregulation. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it is in Children’s best
interests to remain with their foster family.
Decrees affirmed.
- 22 -
J-A02040-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 01/14/2022
- 23 -