In Re: K.A., a minor, Appeal of: M.A. ( 2015 )

J-S32045-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: K.A., a Minor, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, :
:
Appellant : No. 251 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order entered on January 21, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 277 of 2010
IN RE: L.A., a Minor, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, :
:
Appellant : No. 252 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order entered on January 21, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Orphans' Court Division, No. TPR 079 of 2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2015
M.A. (“Mother”) appeals the Order granting the Petitions filed by the
Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) to
involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her son, K.A. (born 1/3/2003),
and daughter, L.A. (born 2/16/1999) (collectively “Children”), pursuant to
J-S32045-15
section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).1 We affirm
The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history
of this case in its Opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/13/15, at 1-4. We
adopt the trial court’s recitation for purposes of this appeal. See id.
On appeal, 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 CYF met its burden of proving[,] by
clear and convincing evidence[,] that [the] termination of
Mother’s parental rights would best serve the needs and the
welfare of the [C]hildren pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?
Brief for Mother at 7.
Our standard of review is as follows:
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion
standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a
petition for termination of parental rights. … [O]ur standard of
review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact
and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are
supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported,
appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an
error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated,
an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion.
Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion
only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness,
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
… [U]nlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to
make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where
the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant
hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings
1
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of K.B. (“Father”) and
“Unknown Father.” Father did not appeal the termination of his parental
rights to the Children.
-2-
J-S32045-15
regarding the child and parents. Therefore, even where the
facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in
dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must
resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its
own credibility determinations and judgment; instead we must
defer to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are
supported by the record and the court’s legal conclusions are not
the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826–27 (Pa. 2012) (citations
omitted).
Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the
Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Pursuant to that section, the
burden is on the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that
the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid.
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). “[C]lear and convincing
evidence is defined as testimony that 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.” Id. (citation
and quotation marks omitted).
Satisfaction of any one subsection of section 2511(a), along with
consideration of section 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination
of parental rights. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en
banc). In this case, Mother does not contest that there is competent
evidence in the record to support the termination of her parental rights to
the Children under at least one subsection of 2511(a). See Mother’s Brief at
-3-
J-S32045-15
13. Rather, Mother challenges the trial court’s decision to terminate her
parental rights based upon section 2511(b), which states the following:
(b) 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.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).
Regarding section 2511(b), the court inquires whether the termination
of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical and
emotional needs and welfare of the Children. See In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d
1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Intangibles such as love, comfort,
security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare
of the child.” Id. at 1287 (citation omitted). The trial court must also
discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention
to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id.; see also
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “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.”); In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(explaining that, in cases where there is no evidence of any bond between
-4-
J-S32045-15
the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists).
Additionally, “the strength of emotional bond between a child and a potential
adoptive parent is an important consideration in a ‘best interests’ analysis.”
In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 13 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also In re T.S.M., 71
A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013) (stating 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.”). Moreover, trial courts are not
required to use expert testimony when conducting a bonding analysis, and
may utilize evaluations by social workers and caseworkers to show the bond
between parents and their children. In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1121. Finally,
the focus in terminating parental rights under section 2511(a) is on the
parent, but it is on the child under section 2511(b). In re Adoption of
C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).
On appeal, Mother contends that the termination of her parental rights
may permanently sever the loving relationship between her and L.A.
Mother’s Brief at 13. Mother points out that Dr. Neil Rosenblum, a licensed
clinical psychologist, provided expert testimony that L.A. has a relationship
with Mother, she loves Mother, and there is a bond between them. Id. at
13-14. Mother claims that there is still a relationship between her and K.A.,
even though she is not visiting him. Id. at 14. Mother asserts that her
older daughter has indicated that K.A. misses Mother and wants Mother to
come home. Id. Mother desires to have contact with the Children, so that
-5-
J-S32045-15
they can enjoy the benefit of her love and companionship. Id. Mother
contends that the trial court’s Orders should be reversed, as CYS failed to
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of her parental
rights best serves the needs and welfare of the Children. Id. at 14-15.
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother’s claim, set forth the
relevant law, and concluded that her claim lacks merit. See Trial Court
Opinion, 3/13/15, at 5-11. We concur with the sound reasoning of the trial
court and affirm on this basis. See id.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/3/2015
-6-
/
( Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
K.A., a minor, NO.: CYS - 277 of 2010
L.A., a minor, No. TPR 079 OF 2014
OPINION
BY:
Honorable Arnold Klein
440 Ross Street
Suite 5039
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Copies to:
Alexandra Gruskos,Esq.
Allegheny County Office
of Children, Youth and
Families
445 Fort Pitt Boulevard
Suite 101
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Cynthia Moore, Esquire
Kidsvoice
437 Grant Street
Frick Building, Suite 700
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Gu
lrtl Raymond Sanchez, Esq.
_J
---u, Juvenile Court Project
1100 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
K.A., a minor, No. CYS 277 OF 2010
L . A. , a minor, No. TPR 079 OF 2014
Introd
uction
The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and
Families ("CYF") filed a Petition to Terminate the Parental
Rights of K.A. ("Father) and M.A. ("Mother") to their son,
K.A., (age 12) and their daughter L.A., (age 16). The Court
granted CYF's petitions and terminated the parental rights
of Mother, Father and Unknown Father to both children on
January 21, 2015. Father did not appear at trial. Mother
did appear at trial and she has appealed this court's order
upon the basis that the termination of her parental rights
does not meet the needs and welfare of the children.
1
i. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
\ .
Procedural History
CYF opened its case for K.A. and L.A. in November 2008,
as the result of a referral from Ohio's child welfare
agency. The children came into the care of CYF on March 9,
2009. They were adjudicated dependent May 1, 2009 in
Allegheny County, but their dependency actually dates back
to October 30, 2008 when they were found to be dependent in
Logan County, Ohio.
When CYF initiated contact with the children, they were
living in Pittsburgh at the home of their nineteen years old
sister and her paramour along with two other siblings1• In
other words, all five children were living in the residence
of an older sister. Mother was, at that time, still living
in Ohio. Mother returned to Pittsburgh in December 2008.
In home services were provided through CYF beginning in
February 2009. Services of various types continued
throughout this case. K.A. was removed March 30, 2009 and
never returned to mother's care. L.A. was in foster care
from March 30, 2009 to July 2011. L.A. was returned to
The children ranged in age at that time from 2 years to 12
1
or 13 years, excluding the older sister who was19 years of
age and who had a child of her own.
2
/,..-···
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
l
mother's care from July 13, 2011 to February 2013. During
part of that time, mother and L.A. lived in Ohio. For at
least part of that time, L.A. was involved with Ohio's child
welfare agency because in January 2013 their agency came to
Pennsylvania and took L.A. back to Ohio after she or she and
mother had returned to the Pittsburgh area. L.A. returned
to Pittsburgh in the summer of 2013 and CYF took her back
into care on July 8, 2013.
CYF established a family service plan (FSP) in 2009 for
mother. The court will not address it because it is not an
issue in this appeal. It is sufficient to say for purposes
of this appeal, which does not contest the Court's findings
and conclusions regarding the Section 251l(a) factors, that
mother failed to make reasonable progress on her FSP goals.
CYF's goal was changed from reunification to adoption
for K.A. and L.A. on May 28, 2014. Termination of parental
rights petitions were filed for both children on May 6,
2014. The trial was conducted on the TPR petitions on
January 9, 2015, and the Court announced its adjudication
with a detailed statement of the findings of fact and
conclusions of law supporting its adjudication on January
3
( Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
21, 2015. Mother then filed a timely appeal. Her Concise
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pa.R. App.P. 1925(c) raised the following single issue:
The iiial court abused its discretion and/or erred as
a matter of law in concluding that CYF met its burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
termination of Mother's parental rights would best
serve the needs and welfare of the child pursuant to
23 Pa.C.S. §25ll(b). Such termination immediately,
permanently and unnecessarily deprives the child of
the love, companionship and affection of her
biological mother. It also jeopardizes her
relationship with her siblings and extended family.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The court's findings of facts are set forth in the
January 21, 2015 transcript, which is incorporated by
reference.
DISCUSSIONS
In addition to deciding whether grounds existed to
terminate mother's parental rights under Section 25ll(a)2,
the Court must also consider whether termination of parental
rights meets the needs and welfare of the children, 23
Pa.C.S.A. 25ll(b), Section 2511(b) provides in pertinent
part:
223.Pa.C.S.A. §25ll(a)
4
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
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 best interests of the child analysis under Section
2511(b) requires that,
The court should also consider the importance of
continuity of relationships to the child, because
severing close parental ties is usually extremely
painful. The court must consider whether a natural
parental bond exists between child and parent, and
whether termination would destroy an existing,
necessary and beneficial relationship. Most
importantly, adequate consideration must be given
to the needs and welfare of the child.
In re T.A.C., 2015 PA Super 31 (Feb. 11, 2015) quoting, In
re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa.Super.2008), (emphasis
added).
K.A. has not been in his mother's care since he was
seven years old. His mother's visits were less than once
per week under supervision. Mother's last visit with K.A.
was on December 10, 2012. All of mother's visits were
suspended after February 2013 because they were having a
detrimental affect on K.A., such as he was urinating on
himself when he returned from the visits. K.A. is a child
who has cognitive and developmental disabilities and he does
5
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
not readily form bonds with others. For all practical
purposes K.A. has no bond with mother. Breaking what bond
does exist with mother will have no detrimental effect on
him.
K.A. is now placed with very capable foster parents. It
is close to certain that K.A.'s current foster parents will
adopt him. He calls them "mom and dad". They have decades
of experience as foster parents of children with special
needs, some of whom they have adopted. Foster mother works
at Pressley Ridge, a school for children with special needs,
and foster father is retired. They live in a large house
with ample room for K.A. and the other children and adults
who reside there. His foster family ensures that K.A.
receives needed mental health services.
K.A. is coming out of his shell in his current foster
home and interacting more with others and his behavior has
improved since he was placed with this foster family. The
foster parents have a large and close extended family that
allows K.A. to interact with others. K.A. is enrolled is
school in the Keystone Oaks School District, which has an
autistic program. Foster parents are planning on K.A.
6
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
participating in activities, such as Special Olympics. They
are also teaching him responsibilities and incorporating him
into the family by having him do chores.
K.A. has developed a good relationship with his current
pre-adoptive parents. He is doing well in his current
foster home. His foster parents have skill and experience
dealing with children with developmental impairments. K.A.
has made marked improvement since coming into their home.
Mother admitted that she did not understand K.A's problems,
and she does not know what to do to help him. Removing K.A.
from his current pre-adoptive foster home would be
detrimental to him developmentally, emotionally and
educationally. His current placement could not be improved
upon. While he knows his mother, severing that relationship
will not have a material detrimental affect on his
development.
L.A. is a sixteen year old young woman who desires to
be adopted by her current foster family and she has made
remarkable progress in her adoptive home. During the time
that L.A. was returned to mother, there were problems with
truancy and getting L.A. enrolled in school following a
7
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
change of residence. L.A. was enrolled in a cyber school
prior to July 2012. That type of school was not conducive
to L.A.'s needs, and the court ordered mother to enroll L.A.
in a traditional school in the Steel Valley School District,
where mother was residing at the time, but that enrollment
never happened. Mother then moved to McKeesport, but L.A.
was not enrolled in that school district either. Mother
enrolled L.A. in a cyber school after she moved to Ohio.
L.A. did not do well educationally until her placement with
her current foster family, after which she developed
educationally as well as emotionally.
L.A.'s foster mother plans to adopt her. She
previously adopted five other children, two of whom now
successfully live on their own. L.A. is attending school
regularly and getting good grades. L.A. plans to join the
Marines after high school, then retire and join the FBI.
She currently participates in Junior ROTC. L.A. is doing
well, and she is very happy in her current foster home.
L.A. is a young woman with ambitions and goals for her
life, and she possesses the drive and determination to
fulfill them. She clearly sees that it is in her best
8
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
interest to remain with her foster mother. L.A. desires to
be adopted by her foster mother and she has told her mother
that she wants to be adopted. With the educational support
L.A. now receives and the stable living environment provided
by her foster mother, L.A. will continue to progress to be a
productive adult. If the court were to deny the petition,
L.A. would remain in foster care because returning her to
her mother's care is an unacceptable option. However for
the court to leave L.A. in foster care would conflict with
the law's goal of achieving a final resolution of a child's
status.
Dr. Ros?nblum's testimony about L.A. is worth quoting,
coming as it does from a witness who is not given to
hyperbolic statements:
In L.A.'s case, I mean, she does have a
relationship with her mother. She loves her
mother. But she is very definite in stating that
she wants to get adopted. She has experienced
some criticism from her family, sisters, mother,
about her decision, but I have found her to be
resolute and very clear thinking about her reasons
for wanting a goal of adoption.
And I have to editorialize and say that L.A.
is one of the brightest examples of progress and
improvement in her personal adjustment and in her
goals and her aspirations as any child I've seen
in the dependency system in 30 years. She just
9
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
has blossomed into a young lady who's going to
make her mark in life.
And I have personally witnessed just enormous
progres~ .with this young lady. She's a shining
example of what happens to a child if she gets the
right - they get the right attention and emotional
support.
So I believe that this is a very important
step for L.A. and something that she
understandably aspires to as being important for
herself.
CONCLUSION
Mother's thought process is immature. Mother believes
that because she gave birth to these children and she loves
them and they may love her, nothing else is important. Even
after five years, Mother clings to this immature belief
despite considerable, but unsuccessful, efforts by CYF and
others to help her correct the behaviors that required her
children to be taken into the care of others. Even her
children realize that being in her care is not in their best
interests. Both children, for entirely rational reasons,
want to be adopted by their current foster parents who are
able to provide them with educational, emotional,
developmental and protective care they need and deserve.
10
Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
The evidence could not be more certain that termination
of mother's parental rights to K.A. and L.A. best serves the
needs and welfare of these children.
BY THE COURT:
Ud)JJ~.
Arnold I. Klein
11