In the Interest of: L.G., Appeal of: T.G. ( 2021 )

J-A25020-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.G., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: T.G., MOTHER : No. 711 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered May 22, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000008-2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: N.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: T.G., MOTHER : No. 712 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Dated May 22, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000192-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.G., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: T.G., MOTHER : No. 713 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered June 9, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000193-2020
J-A25020-21
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: T.G., MOTHER : No. 714 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered June 9, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000194-2020
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 19, 2021
Appellant, T.G. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered in the
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court Division, granting
the petitions of Appellee, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and
Families (“CYF”), for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to her
minor children, L.G., N.G., L.G., and K.S. (“Children”).1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of these appeals are as follows.
Mother has six children, two of whom are older than eighteen and not subject
to the current proceedings. CYF first became involved with the family in 2003,
and it received fourteen (14) referrals prior to this case being accepted for
services in 2016. (See N.T. Hearing, 4/9/21, at 17). CYF addressed domestic
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Because two of the children have the same initials, we will refer to them as
L.G. and L.N.G.
-2-
J-A25020-21
violence against Mother and Children by M.G., Mother’s husband and the
father of L.G., N.G., and L.N.G. (Id. at 10-11). At the time of the termination
proceedings, M.G. was awaiting trial on charges of sexually abusing N.G. (Id.
at 12, 14).
CYF removed N.G. from Mother’s care in April 2017, when Mother
refused to pick up N.G. following his discharge from a mental health facility.
(Id.) At the time, Mother stated that she was unable to address N.G.’s mental
health needs. (Id.) CYF removed L.G. on January 30, 2018, after Mother’s
inability to address L.G.’s mental health needs resulted in the child’s
commitment to a mental health facility. (Id.)
CYF first removed L.N.G. and K.S. on August 30, 2018. (Id.) The
removal occurred due to domestic violence in the home. (Id. at 16). CYF
returned L.N.G. and K.S. to Mother’s care in March 2019, after Mother
complied with certain CYF services. (Id.) Nevertheless, CYF again removed
L.N.G. and K.S. in August 2019. At that time, CYF learned that Mother’s
boyfriend, C.F., was living in the family home and set fire to the garage. (Id.
at 24, 27). C.F. watched the children when Mother was not present, and he
participated in “some sort of altercation” with N.G. (Id. at 25).
Mother subsequently failed to comply with her court-ordered family
service plan goals. Specifically, Mother refused to sign releases for CYF to
obtain proof of compliance with mental health services. (Id. at 45). Mother
also refused to utilize recommended services including intensive outpatient
-3-
J-A25020-21
treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. (Id. at 43-44).
On December 1, 2020, CYF filed petitions for involuntary termination of
Mother’s parental rights to Children. The court conducted a termination
hearing on April 9, 2021. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from
Stacey Policicchio, the CYF caseworker, Dr. Patricia Pepe, a licensed
psychologist, and Mother. In orders entered May 22, 2021, the court
terminated Mother’s parental rights to Children.2 On June 17, 2021, Mother
timely filed separate notices of appeal and concise statements of errors at
each underlying docket number. This Court consolidated the appeals sua
sponte on July 14, 2021.
Mother now raises one issue for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter
of law in concluding that termination of … Mother’s parental
rights would serve the needs and welfare of the Children
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?
(Mother’s Brief at 12).
Appellate review in termination of parental rights cases implicates the
following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our
standard of review is limited to determining whether the
order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence,
and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to
the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.”
____________________________________________
2 The court also involuntarily terminated M.G.’s parental rights, and he is not
a party to the current appeal.
-4-
J-A25020-21
In re. Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972
A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or
insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s
decision, the decree must stand. … 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en
banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004)
(internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder
of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of
witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be
resolved by [the] finder of fact. The burden of proof
is on the party seeking termination to establish by
clear and convincing evidence the existence of
grounds for doing so.
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super.
2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The
standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony
that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable
the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re
J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may
uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for
the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201
(Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are
supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the
court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite
result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191[-92] (Pa.Super.
2004).
In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d
1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165(2008)).
-5-
J-A25020-21
CYF filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental
rights on the following grounds:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(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:
* * *
(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.
* * *
(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.
-6-
J-A25020-21
* * *
(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(a)(2), (5), (8), (b). “Parental rights may be involuntarily
terminated where any one subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along
with consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions.” In re Z.P., supra
at 1117.3
On appeal, Mother argues that CYF failed to provide clear and convincing
evidence that termination would meet the needs and welfare of Children under
Section 2511(b). Mother argues that the court erred in examining her own
faults and missteps, and she emphasizes that Section 2511(b) concerns “the
welfare of the child and not the fault of the parent.” (Mother’s Brief at 21)
(emphasis in original). Mother claims that the court should have considered
the emotional effect that termination of the bond between Mother and Children
would create. Based upon the foregoing, Mother concludes that the Orphans’
____________________________________________
3Mother concedes that grounds for termination existed pursuant to Section
2511(a)(2). (See Mother’s Brief at 18-19).
-7-
J-A25020-21
Court erroneously terminated her parental rights. We disagree.
Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination
will meet the child’s needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520
(Pa.Super. 2006). “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability
are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The
court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, paying
close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond.”
Id. (internal citations omitted). “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.”
In re Z.P., supra at 1121.
“The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines
certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide
for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements
within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be
considered unfit and have … her rights terminated.” In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d
1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001).
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties.
Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of
a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and
support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be
met by a merely passive interest in the development of the
child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental
obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative
performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial
-8-
J-A25020-21
obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a
genuine effort to maintain communication and association
with the child.
Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty
requires that a parent exert [herself] to take and maintain
a place of importance in the child’s life.
Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with
good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every
problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship
to the best of…her ability, even in difficult circumstances. A
parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the
parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable
firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of
maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental rights
are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or
convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities
while others provide the child with his or her physical and
emotional needs.
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa.
718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
Instantly, the court evaluated Children’s circumstances following their
removal from Mother’s care. N.G. was removed from Mother’s care over four
(4) years ago, and he has not returned to Mother’s home ever since. (See
N.T. Hearing at 15). N.G. was the victim of abuse by his father, and he has
required several psychiatric hospitalizations. (Id. at 64, 89). In September
2018, N.G. was placed at a group home. (Id. at 64). Dr. Pepe testified that
N.G. has experienced stability for significant periods when active in therapy
and not in contact with Mother. (Id. at 108-109).
Although N.G. has expressed that he misses Mother and would like to
return home, Dr. Pepe explained that N.G.’s preference has been “variable”
-9-
J-A25020-21
and “reactive.”4 (Id. at 157). Dr. Pepe noted that N.G. expresses fear of
“losing his family” and is “extremely afraid” of his father’s upcoming criminal
trial. (Id. at 104, 115). Further, Dr. Pepe explained that N.G. has doubts
about his chances for adoption, noting that he experiences PTSD, physical
aggression, and suicidal ideations. (Id. at 65, 116). N.G.’s attachment issues
with Mother are ongoing, and “at time he feels rejected by her.” (Id. at 102).
In light of this information, the court determined that “the relationship
between [N.G] and … Mother is unhealthy and has the potential to further
perpetuate [N.G.’s] trauma.” (Orphan’s Court Opinion, filed July 26, 2021, at
22).
L.G. has been in ten (10) placements since her initial removal and has
experienced five (5) psychiatric hospitalizations. (See N.T. Hearing at 65).
Dr. Pepe testified that L.G. has developed maladaptive personality traits by
attempting to placate Mother. (Id. at 99). Like N.G., L.G. has made “a lot of
progress” since being taken out of Mother’s care. (Id. at 79). Ms. Policicchio
testified that L.G. has not been hospitalized recently, and L.G. has not
displayed severe behavioral issues in her foster home. (Id.) The court
emphasized that L.G. has an “unhealthy relationship with [M]other,” and L.G.
does not desire to return to Mother’s care. (Orphan’s Court Opinion at 23).
L.N.G. and K.S. have lived together in a total of five (5) foster homes,
____________________________________________
4We note that counsel for N.G. has filed an appellate brief arguing for reversal
of the order terminating Mother’s parental rights to N.G. only.
- 10 -
J-A25020-21
residing with their current foster mother in a pre-adoptive home since August
2019. (See N.T. Hearing at 67). L.N.G. was previously diagnosed with PTSD,
and K.S. was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. (Id. at 68). Dr. Pepe
testified that L.N.G. and K.S. have made “very positive progress behaviorally
and developmentally” and that they have formed “primary attachment” with
their foster mother. (Id. at 143). Thus, the court concluded that “[n]either
[L.N.G.] or [K.S.] have a necessary or beneficial bond with [M]other.”
(Orphan’s Court Opinion at 24).
In light of the evidence presented by CYF, the Orphans’ Court concluded
that Mother’s failure to address her own mental health and addiction issues
prevented her from taking care of Children’s needs:
Mother’s mental health concerns have prevented her from
being able to effectively parent any of her children and most
notably, to provide them with the safety and stability that
they require. She does not have a necessary or beneficial
bond with any of the children. The dependency court has
given Mother multiple opportunities to reunify with her
children. Each return home was short lived, and
reunification was never successful. Each new placement
brought new challenges and has had catastrophic effects on
the children’s development. Nearly all of the children have
pervasive and significant mental health concerns; all of
which have been directly impacted by their multiple
placements and continued relationship with their Mother.
For those reasons and the reasons above, the court finds
that the benefits of termination far outweigh the negative
impact that it may have on the children and that termination
of Mother’s parental rights best suits the children’s needs
and welfare.
(Orphans’ Court Opinion at 24-25). Our review of the record supports the
court’s determination. See In re Z.P., supra. We emphasize Dr. Pepe’s
- 11 -
J-A25020-21
conclusions that Children exhibit more of a primary bond toward their older
siblings than with Mother. (See CYF Exhibit 1 at 19).
Here, Mother has repeatedly failed to address Children’s extensive
mental health issues, refusing to take Children back into her home after their
psychiatric hospitalizations. (See N.T. Hearing at 15, 102). Mother also
exhibits denial of her own mental health issues and has been dishonest about
her alcohol use. (Id. at 89-90, 134). Finally, Mother continues to make poor
decisions, choosing relationships “with men with questionable attributes and
alcohol abuse resulting [in] not providing her children with essential care and
parental attention.” (See CYF Exhibit 1 at 14).
Terminating Mother’s parental rights would not destroy existing,
necessary, and beneficial relationships for Children. See In re Z.P., supra.Based upon the foregoing, the record supports the court’s conclusion that clear
and convincing evidence supported termination for Mother’s parental rights
under Section 2511(b). Id. Consequently, we affirm the orders terminating
Mother’s parental rights to Children.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/19/2021
- 12 -