Term. of Par. Rights to Z.S., Appeal of: S.S. ( 2018 )

J-S56024-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO Z.S., A : PENNSYLVANIA
MINOR :
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.S., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 868 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Decree, May 2, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Orphans' Court at No(s): 0023 of 2018.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 26, 2018
S.S. (Mother) appeals from the decree entered on May 2, 2018, which
involuntarily terminated her rights to her nearly three-year-old son Z.S. We
affirm.
We glean from the orphans’ court opinion the following history:
On June 14, 2016, Mother contacted the [Lancaster County
Children and Youth Social Services] Agency requesting
[Child] be taken into agency custody because Mother was
being evicted from her residence. N.T., 5/1/18, at 9. The
Agency met with Mother and made an assessment. Other
options were discussed besides the Agency taking custody,
but Mother refused these options. Id. During the
assessment period, the Agency received additional
information regarding Mother’s drug use and her inadequate
supervision of the child. While Mother was caring for [the
infant Child], she appeared to be under the influence and
there was a smell of marijuana emanating from her
residence. Id., at 10. Mother’s stove burners were lit with
nothing on the stove; the sink faucet was running and the
water was nearly overflowing and [Child] was sitting,
J-S56024-18
unsupervised, in an open doorway leading to a balcony and
stairs. Id.
Orphans Court Opinion, at 1-2.
After adjudicating Child dependent, the trial court approved a “Child
Permanency Plan” to aid reunification with Mother. The plan provided that
Mother shall complete the following goals: improve her mental health
functioning; remain free of drugs and misuse of alcohol; remain crime free;
to learn parenting skills; achieve financial stability; obtain and maintain safe
housing; and maintain an ongoing commitment to her child. Notably, Mother
submitted to drug/alcohol and mental health evaluations, but the evaluators
recommended no further treatment. But after these evaluations, the Agency
learned Mother still used drugs and misused alcohol. The Agency further
discovered that Mother received mental health treatment for bipolar disorder
with schizoaffective features. Meanwhile, the dependency case proceeded for
22 months, during which time Mother was largely noncompliant with the rest
of her plan. Ultimately, the Agency petitioned the court to involuntarily
terminate Mother’s rights. The court conducted the instant hearing on May 1,
2018 and issued a decree granting the termination petition under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8) and (b) Mother appeals.
She presents a singular issue for our review:
Was it an abuse of discretion to grant the Agency’s petition
where Mother had submitted to drug and alcohol and mental
health evaluations both of which resulted in no treatment
recommendations but where the Agency subsequently
became aware of Mother being in private counseling and
-2-
J-S56024-18
using drugs and alcohol and where the Agency made no
referrals for evaluations?
Mother’s Brief, at 7.
The party seeking termination of parental rights has the burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing
so. In re Adoption of M.R.B., 25 A.3d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2011). When
reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, the reviewing
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. In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 815 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal
citations omitted). This is a highly deferential standard and, to the extent that
the record supports the court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence
exists that would also support a contrary determination. Id. (citing In re A.S.,
11 A.3d 474, 477 (Pa. Super. 2010)). The court must examine the individual
circumstances of each case and consider all explanations offered by the parent
facing termination of parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of
the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary termination.
In B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 954 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).
Mother argues she largely complied with the reunification plan because
her evaluators recommended no further treatment, either on account of her
mental health or her drug and alcohol use. She maintains that the court’s
contrary conclusion is an abuse of discretion. Mother cites no relevant case
-3-
J-S56024-18
law to support her argument. And her theory ignores the totality of the
circumstances, which clearly and convincingly supports termination. The
orphans’ court thoroughly articulates Mother’s lack of compliance and progress
in meeting her goals in its Rule 1925(a) opinion:
Despite [Child] being in Agency custody for twenty-two
months, Mother has failed to complete her plan’s objectives.
N.T., at 58. As part of Mother’s mental health objective, she
received an evaluation and it was recommended that she be
randomly drug-screened, sign a release for information from
her probation officer, and complete a substance abuse
evaluation. Id., at 11. Mother was not recommended for
any further mental health treatment, however, subsequent
to her evaluation, Mother reported that she was seeing a
psychologist for ongoing mental health treatment. Id.
Mother had been diagnosed as bipolar with schizoaffective
features and Mother was to seek a provider for medication
management. Mother provided no evidence that she
followed the recommendation. Id., at 12. It was reported
that Mother inconsistently attended her individual therapy
sessions. Id. Mother completed her drug and alcohol
evaluation and no treatment was recommended. Id., at 13.
Once again subsequent to the evaluation, Mother admitted
she used synthetic marijuana, missed two mandatory drug
screenings, was cited for public drunkenness twice, and
tested positive for benzodiazepine twice. Id., at 14-15, 33.
Mother’s failure to complete her objective of remaining
crime free. Id., at 13. Mother has an extensive criminal
history. Id., at 13-14. At the time [Child] was taken into
custody, Mother was a Drug Court participant until she was
arrested on September 19, 2016 for failing to appear at
Drug Court. Id., at 14. In October 2016, Mother was cited
for driving with a suspended license and, in February 2017,
for public intoxication and received thirty days house arrest.
Id. On April 10, 2017, she was charged with defiant
trespass. She was incarcerated again from April 14, 2017
until May 2, 2017 for public drunkenness and false reports
to law enforcement. Id., at 14-15. Mother received another
citation for public drunkenness and has been incarcerated
-4-
J-S56024-18
since October 2017 after unsuccessfully completing Drug
Court. Id., at 15, 40.
Mother has not completed the objectives of financial and
housing stability. Upon her release from prison, she intends
to reside with maternal grandmother. Id., at 16. Mother
admitted to the Agency that [the] residence would not be
suitable for the child. Id., at 19. Her plan is to go to a
recovery house for six months to a year upon release but
Child would not be allowed to stay with her. Id., at 47.
Mother was discharged from Reunify, Empower, and Prevent
Program on November 8, 2017. Id., at 19-20. She is
currently unemployed. Prior to her incarceration, she only
worked sporadically. Id., at 18.
Mother failed to learn and use good parenting skills.
Despite her incomplete mental health and drug and alcohol
objectives, the Agency referred her for parenting
classes[…]. [She] has not successfully completed the same.
Id., at 17.
Mother has an objective to maintain a commitment to
Child. While the child has been in Agency custody, 54 visits
were scheduled for Mother to visit Child of which Mother only
attended 20. Id., at 21-22. Her last visit with Child was
September 14, 2017. Id., at 52.
The best interests of Child is served by remaining in
foster care and being adopted. He has been in care for 22
months. The court is convinced Mother will not resolve her
significant issues in a reasonable amount of time. Child
remains in a loving and healthy home which is a potentially
permanent resource. Id., at 24. He has bonded with this
foster family that he has been placed with since February 5,
2016. Id., at 24-26. Child has special needs that require
weekly occupational therapy and weekly “theraplay” with a
behavioral focus special instructor. Id., at 25. []Child was
evaluated and diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder
and child neglect. Id., at 29. Child cannot wait for an
indefinite period of time for the stability and care of a
permanent family in hope that his Mother will drastically
change her behavior and accomplish her goals. The
guardian ad litem concurs with the termination of parental
rights. Id., at 58.
-5-
J-S56024-18
Orphans’ Court Opinion, at 5-7.
Thus, it is clear that Mother’s mental health was only one factor the
court considered when arriving at its conclusion. Mother’s mental health
recommendation and further treatment were not discounted, but neither were
her ongoing mental health issues that likely contributed, at least in part, to
the need for Child to remain in placement for nearly two years. Similarly,
while acknowledging the evaluator’s recommendation of no further drug and
alcohol treatment, the court observed that Mother had not complied with her
drug screens nor had she maintained a drug-free lifestyle. In fact, her alcohol
misuse caused continuous legal problems, which in turn also contributed to
the need for Child to remain in placement.
Finally, Mother notes that the Agency made no additional referrals after
becoming aware of Mother’s subsequent mental health treatment and her
subsequent drug and alcohol use. See Mother’s Brief, at 7. Perhaps she
means that the Agency did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification.
From what we can tell, that is not the case. But even if it were, the failure to
provide reasonable efforts is not a basis for denying termination. See In re
D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662, 675-76 (Pa. 2014).
We find that the record supports the court’s decision to grant the
Agency’s petition for termination. Accordingly, we affirm the decree
terminating Mother’s rights.
-6-
J-S56024-18
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/26/2018
-7-