In Re: S.A.F.P., Jr., Appeal of: K.M.F. ( 2020 )

J-S69016-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: S.A.F.P.JR, A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: K.M.F., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 2191 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered July 18, 2019
in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,
Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 2019-A9013.
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 06, 2020
K.M.F. (Mother) appeals the order terminating her rights to her seven-
year-old son, S.A.F.P. Jr. (Child), pursuant to the Adoption Act. See 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).1 After review, we affirm.
In an opinion filed on September 26, 2019, the orphans’ court provided
a thorough recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case. 2
Therefore, we will only briefly summarize them. Child, born in April 2011, was
removed from Mother’s custody in April 2017 due to concerns about Mother’s
substance abuse, lack of treatment, lack of supervision and protective
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 S.P. (Father) voluntarily relinquished his parental rights.
2 See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/26/19, at 1-12.
J-S69016-19
capacity, and because of the existence of domestic violence in the home.
Bucks County Children and Youth Services Agency (CYS) had received six
referrals for abuse against Child committed by Mother’s paramour (D.R.).3
Child was formally adjudicated dependent in May 2017. Child was placed in
the home of his maternal aunt and uncle.
At the time of Child’s adjudication, CYS developed a placement
permanency plan, which consisted of objectives Mother needed to fulfill in
order to be reunited with Child. Specifically, the plan obligated Mother to: 1)
obtain and maintain suitable housing; 2) obtain and maintain a source of
income; 3) obtain a mental health evaluation and follow any and all treatment
recommendations; 4) maintain regular visitation with Child; 5) submit to
random urine testing; and 6) address domestic violence concerns. Over the
course of the dependency case, Mother did not make significant progress
toward accomplishing any of these objectives. Of note, Mother chose to
remain in a violent relationship with her paramour instead of alleviating the
principal concerns that led to Child’s removal.
On February 5, 2019, CYS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate
Mother’s parental rights.4 The orphans’ court conducted evidentiary hearings
____________________________________________
3 In light of this Court’s redaction of all information that might identify Child,
we note that D.R. is most commonly identified as “Mr. R.” in the attached
orphans’ court opinion. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/26/19, passim
(redacted).
4 In the parties’ briefs and in the orphans’ court opinion, there is reference to
a January 2019 goal change hearing. Those specifics are not in the record.
-2-
J-S69016-19
in March 27, 2019. At the hearings, Child was represented by his guardian ad
litem, who indicated that Child’s legal interests merged with his best interests.
On July 8, 2019, the orphans’ court entered the order granting the petition
under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). Mother timely filed this
appeal.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [orphans’] court erroneously grant [CYS’s]
petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights
of [Mother] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2)
when [CYS] failed to prove the grounds thereunder by
clear and convincing evidence?
2. Did the [orphans’] court erroneously grant [CYS’s]
petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights
of [Mother] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5)
when [CYS] failed to prove the grounds thereunder by
clear and convincing evidence?
3. Did the [orphans’] court erroneously grant [CYS’s]
petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights
of [Mother] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8)
when [CYS] failed to prove the grounds thereunder by
clear and convincing evidence?
4. Did the [orphans’] court erroneously move its inquiry
to the needs and welfare of [C]hild pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) and erroneously find that
termination would best meet said needs and welfare
when [CYS] failed to prove grounds for involuntary
termination of parental rights pursuant to the grounds
alleged under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8)
by clear and convincing evidence?
5. Did the trial court erroneously find that the needs and
welfare of [C]hild as contemplated under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
2511(b) were best met by terminating the parental
rights of [Mother]?
-3-
J-S69016-19
Mother’s Brief at 6.
In reviewing an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we
adhere to the following principles:
[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. As in dependency
cases, our 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. In re:
R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings
are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the
trial court made an error of law or abused its
discretion. Id.; In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa.
2011) (plurality). As has been often stated, an abuse of
discretion does not result merely because the reviewing
court might have reached a different conclusion. Id.; see
also Samuel–Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34
A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630,
634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an
abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.As we discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for
applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these
cases. We observed that, unlike 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 regarding the child and
parents. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. 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 Atencio, 650 A.2d
1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994).
-4-
J-S69016-19
In re I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340, 343–344 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting In re
Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826–827 (Pa. 2012)).
The burden is upon 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). We have
explained that the “standard of clear 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. (quoting In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251
(Pa. Super. 2003)). Moreover, this Court may affirm the trial court's decision
regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection
of section 2511(a). In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en
banc).
Here, the orphans' court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant
to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). We focus our review on
subsections (a)(2) and (b), which provide as follows:
§ 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-
J-S69016-19
***
(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. § 2511. This Court has explained that the focus in terminating
parental rights under section 2511(a) is on the parent, but under section
2511(b), the focus is on the child. In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999,
1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).
Mother argues that the conditions which led to Child’s removal are in
the process of being remedied. Mother’s Brief at 18. Mother notes that she
has cooperated in her treatment plans and improved in her communication
with the foster parents. Id. at 19. Although Mother admits to the domestic
violence concerns involving her paramour, she argues that Child was never
exposed to those issues. Id. at 20. Finally, Mother argues that she has a
worthwhile bond with Child; and that although his preference is to reside with
the foster parents, Child maintained that he wanted contact with Mother. Id.
at 29.
In response, the orphans' court has provided a thorough evaluation
supporting termination of Mother's parental rights to Child pursuant to each
-6-
J-S69016-19
challenged provision, including 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) and (b). Having
reviewed the notes of testimony and the certified record, we conclude that the
Honorable Gary B. Gilman’s findings and conclusions are supported by clear
and convincing evidence of record, and we adopt Judge Gilman’s opinion as
our own.5
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/6/20
____________________________________________
5The parties are directed to attach a copy of the orphans’ court opinion of
September 25, 2019 to any future filings in this matter.
-7-
Circulated 01/28/2020 02:16 PM
IN. tHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS- COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
- . . . . . .
ORPHANS' COU:RT DIVISION (•"}I}r:r"·
... :,�.:'rl . A ..''i·,'(,,'I
l '"'Or'R'l''
.. '. C .... ,Jl.,t
·1N RE: ,$.A.F.,.p;,.JR. : No. 20l9-A9013
INVOLVNTARV'.TERMTNATION
0.F PARENT AL RIGJITS OF
.,.
K. 'll f ,- .....-_..
•MF�
OPINlON
I. INTRODUCTION
--= ----�=---- --�-- - - - --
(hereinafter "Appellant" or· "Mother") is the biological mother of S.A.F-P·. Jr., -(hereinafter
"Child") whose date of birth is April ·111 20U, -and who is presently .eight (8) years· of age.
Mother has appealed to the Superiot Court from our July 8, 20.1.9 Decree.granting the Pethio11
filed by the Bucks .County Children. andYouth Social Services.Agency (hereinafter referred to as
the·''Ag�ncy'.') to �)1volµnta1:ify. TerminateherParental Rights as to Child. An ..evidentiary hearing
which established.the
. . factual basis for our decision was held on Match .27,. 2019..
it. FACTUAL BACKGROU:l'c'D ANO PROCEDURAL msronv
At the March 27, 2019 hearing; the following relevant facts arid procedural history were
. established:
Victoria Kane is a caseworker for the Agency who was assigned to Child's case in May
of 2017. She testified that there have peen referrals to the Agency involving Child since 2015,
and that tJ1� most recent referral which .opened .this case. occurred in 2016; She stated. that the
l
-----·-�---·------·-----------------···-·······-·-...
...........
Agency sought an Emergency Court Order in .April .2017 as a result of reports of domestic.
violence and substance abuse in the home and "issues with. lack of supervision and Mother's
protective capacities." According to Ms. Kane, both biological patents were living on Mr;
R9111is property at the time and the domestic violence issues involvedthe "birth parents as well
as Ms: Feathers and her paramour, D- Rlla" (N.T. 3/27/19; pp. 27"29:)
Ms. Kane testified that mi Emergency Order was issued by the Dependency Court on
April 7, 2017, �••••
· .. l l!••••ll ! ! ll•••••P. On May 2, 2017, Child was
adjudicated dependent and placed in. the legaland physical custody of the Agency. Child was
placed with his maternal auntand uncle, S�C.-,!ind IAM•-·
. ·who are approximately
thirty (30) years old, and with whom he has consistently resided ever since. (Mother · is the
stepsister of Mr. M -) The Agency. thereafter developed a plan for Mother's reunification
With her child. (N.T. 3/27/19, pp. J:O, 76-77, 87.)
The Agency's concerns for Child's reunification with Mother included the instability of
Mother's housing, since she was residing at the time in .a camper on a seasonal. campground;
Mother's unhealthy relationship with Mr. Rlllltand the history of violence between them; and
Mother's uncertain mental health, (N.T. pp. 3Q:..3l.)
Ms. Kane. met with .Mother and Mr, R.. m June 14, 2017 to discuss. the steps needed
to
. achieve
. reunification with·
. Child,
. She
.. informed
. .. Mother
. . that she needed
. . to obtain stable
housing, a consistent source of income in. order to provide for Child, and a mental health
.evaluation. Mother was also ..advised that she. needed to maintain consistent visitation with the
child and submit to random drug testing. Ms. Kane Stated that Mr. Rosettiwas to be.a part of this
reunification process. (N.T. 3/27/19, pp. Jl-33;)
2
Results from a June 2017 drug test indicated that Mr. R\.. testedpositivefor THC or
marijuana, 'but Mother's test was negative despite her previous disclosure that she had used
marijuana. Mother tested positive for THC on November 21, 2017, but she had refused to be
tested on September 28) 2017; which was the date of her mental health. evaluation. Mother also
refused to submit to a drug test on November 2:1, 2018) and she did not respond to Ms. Kane's
request fora drug test on December 13, 2018. Ms. Kane stated that Mt. Rlllf did not submitto
additional drug testing requested on November 21 .and December 13, 2017. (N:T. 3/27/19, pp.
"3· ·_.,.,5r··)
:J »
When Ms; Kane first met with Mother, she expressed the Agency's concerns about
Mother's relationship with Mr. R- She said that most. of their subsequent conversations
regarding reunification with her child revolved around Mc R.. , his propensity for domestic
violence, and Mother's safety. Mother acknowledged that Mr. R- had a severe alcohol
problem, and. although the reunification plan had included Mr. R- up until 2018,. Mother
expressed indecisiveness over Mr, R-s participation in the reunification process as aresult
of ongoing domestic violence i11 the home andMr. R .. s failure to seek treatment for his drug
and alcohol abuse. Ms. Kane eventually advised Mother that as a result of Mr. R.."s lack of
compliance with the Agency's requirements, he was not approved to be part of the reunification
plan; and if Mother wanted to, continue.with the reunification, Mr. R,.rieeded to be either
compliant with the Agency's plan or removed from it entirely. (N.T. 3/27/19, pp. 3$-:39.)
Ms, Kane was queried about the goal-change. hearing that was held before Dependency
Court Judge Robert.O. Baldi on January 14 and 15, 20 i 9, and evidence concerning a severe. knee
injur):' Mother had sustained in February 2018. Ms. Kane said that after· the. injury was reported to
her, she met with Mother on FebruaryZf and.March 6, 2018, and Mother related to her that the
....
..)
injury had been caused by a violent encounter with Mr. It• wherein they had been drinking,
and he pushed her, As .a. result, she fractured her knee, which required hospitalization: Evidence
presented at the goal-change. heating revealed,. however ' that when Mother
. ..
was
.
heated
·.
at the
. .....
hospital, she made untruthful reports to. the hospital· personnel that she had had an accident at
home and fell down the stairs; (N.T: 3/27/19, pp. 38-41, 65.)
Neither Mother nor Mr. Riii has participated in any domestic violence counseling,
although.it had been. discussed at the time Child came into the Agency's care. Ms'. Kane. noted
that while.she spoke to Mother on multiple occasions about the necessity for Mr. R 1!illltto either
obtain treatment or be removed· front her life, Mother would simply state that. follow-up
conversations. needed to occur With Mt. R - � and she continued to remain.indecisive about her
relationship with lrim.and his participation in the reunification process, Although Ms. Kane also
had individual discussions with Mr. R11111, he never followed through with any ofthe Agency's
suggestions. (N.T 3/27/19 pp. 42-44:)
Ms .. Kane advised Mother on multiple occasions.to obtain services) including therapy and
mental health. treatment.-She said Mother received an intake assessment in November of 2018,
and the first appointment was scheduled for December. 12. 2018, which was approximately
fifteen (15) months after the original evaluation. Ms. Kane stated that the Agency provided a
third-party parenting service to Mother through Links Reunification Services, but they were a
time-limited service which closed their case involvement after fifteen ( I 5) months, Ms. Kane
said that a Nurturing Parent Program began in August of 2017, which Mother successfully
completed. Mother was also referred to NOVA trauma counseling, but.Mother only attended one
(l). session. Mother has. also received services from K&S Consultants, a service referred by the
Agency to work with .Mother and Mr; R. to strengthen the family. Ms: Kane testified that
4
. .-....
Mother will be discharged from that service soon, due to Mother's indecision as to Mt. R-3
participation in the reunification process. · The caseworker eventually narrowed Agency support
efforts to help Mother decide "whether Mr. R - .s going to be involved in her life and the
child's," (3/27/19, pp. 45-47.)
The Agency attempted to assist Mother in finding. . alternative
. . housing for Child, Mr.
R •. ind 'her through the Bucks County Housing Urik Information, The only program for
which Mother was eligible Was Bridge Transitional Housing. The application was submitted in
October 2017. However; there was a four to eight {4 to. 8) inonth waiting list, and after the
domestic violence incident involving Mr.�18' the appllcation was updated to remove him as
an applicant. Mother's application was denied in August of 2018. Ms. Kane .stated that she.
contacted the Doylestown Women's Center, but Mother had no interest in moving to a shelter.
(N.T.3/27/19,
. pp, 47-50.)
.
Ms. Kane testified that Motherhas never explicitly said to herthat.sheis going to remove
Mr. Rosetti. from her life. Even after the goal-change hearing before Judge Baldi iii January
2019, after which the Agency reduced Mother's visitation with Child fro in twice .a week to. once
a month, Mother spoke only of spending less time at Mr. RIB s residence, and has continued
to live with hint. Ms. Kane testified that every time she discussed reunification with Mother, she
advised her that she had to decide if Mr. Rlllllil was going to beinvolved in the process, and that
if she couldn't make that decision, she, had to decide whether to choose her son's welfare over
Mr; R·- �.T. 3/27/19. pp. 50-53, 64.)
Child has been in foster care with the maternal aunt.and uncle since April of 2017, and he
enjoys an affectionate, comfortable and close. relationship with them. In .addition, there are two
(2) older adults residing in the home, with whom Child enjoys a loving, caretaking relationship.
5
Elementary School in llmlmlt. where heis academically on
track -. He has exhibited behavioral problems at school andin the foster home, but he has made
significant progress since his.initial placement in foster care. He has a 504 Plan at schcol.and
.daily reports are provided to the foster parents and Ms. Kane, He also receives behavioral
therapeutic Services through the Penn Foundation, meets bi-weekly with an occupational
therapist, and spends hours in school with a behavioral specialist consultant, Ms. Kane stated that
Child's behaviors have improved tremendously sincestarring at the school. (N.T. 3/27/19 pp. 5'.l-
.56.}
On cross-examination by Mother's counsel, Ms .. Kane acknowledged that Mother
submitted clean drug tests cm September l2,. .2017 and March 6, 2018. and that Mother has been
compliant in meeting with the family therapist from K&S Consultants; She also acknowledged
that in the fall and Winter of 2017, Mother indicated that she was-overwhelmed because shewas
working, attending school to be a Medical Assistant, and dealing With the I<&S therapist, all at
the .same time. Ms. Kane acknowledged that.Mother has attended almost every visit with Child
that the }\.gency has arranged. (N.T. 3/27/19, pp. 57-62.)
When queried on how Child;s behavior has improved, Ms. Kane explained that when he
first came into foster care, Child exhibited "a lot of toilet issues" during and after visitation with
Mother .. Child wasalso having severe temper tantrums at school and had at one point destroyed a:
classroom, and the school was not providing him with the specific support he rieeded. Child now
works with a mobile therapist through Behavioral Health Rehabilitative Services; with focus on
his behavioral issues at school and at the.foster home. (N.T. 3/27/19, pp, 62-64.)
Ou cross-examination by Child's court-appointed Guardian ad Litern, Ms. Ka11-e related
that the fast referral to the Agency for this family occurred in 2015 and that there. have been
(j
twelve ( 12} "Childl.ine" referrals. Six. (6) of those referrals involved abuse, times when Child
claimed Mr. RilJinjuted him, Mother was aware of those six referrals. (NT. 3/27/19, pp. 65.-
66:)
Ms. Kane testified that she was concerned, about Mr. RIIJll's belligerence during and
after he has been drinking alcohol. She testified that Mother revealed that at one point Mr.
Riii had been drinking six (6) beers a day, and that Mr. Rt W ecelved an intake assessment
at Aldie in Doylestown for alcohol treatment hi: October 201.7. Regrettably,
.
he did not follow
.
through with any of thesubsequent treatment recommendations. ·(N.T. 3/27/19, pp. 6:5-'68.)
Despite Ms. Kane's efforts to help Mother become independent, and despite Mother's
testimony at the goal-change hearing that police had been called at least five (5) times to her
house for fights between her, and Mr. R .... and despite reports that Mother had left Mr..
Rosetti 's residence at least ten (10) times, sometimes for days at a time, and that Mr. F ... has
kicked her out of thehouse, Mother has always returned to Mr. R\ 9 Ms. Kane stated that
when she would discuss the domestic violence issue with Mother, Mother would suggest that she
is partly to blame. {N.T. 3/27/19, pp. 68.-70.)
Ms; Kane stated that the nrost recent ChildLine referral occurred iii ApdL20l 8, when she
received a report that a "concerning video" had been discovered. on the Child's il'ad. As a result
of the subsequent Child Protective Services investigation, Judge Baldi issued a. protective No
Contact Order and a No Visitation Order for Child for approximately two (2) weeks, after which
Mother was allowed .subsequent.supervised visitation, {N:T. 3/27/19, pp. 70"74.)
Ms. Kane confirmed that Mother testified at the goal-change hearing before Judge Baldi
that Childwas ruining her-relationship with Mr. R- (N.T. 3/27119; p. 74.)
7
Pursuant to questioning by the court-appointed Child-Directed Counsel Timothy Barton,
Ms. Kane testified that Child feels very safe and comfortable with his aunt and uncle. The aunt,
S- Cllllr. is employed as. an assistant teacher for toddlers at -
••••; and the uncle, C• Iv 11111• works full-time for a funeral home. Ms. Kane
observed that the foster parents are very protective of Child and involved in his school and
activities, which include soccer, Boy Scouts and fishing. They reside in".. •h••••••
Montgomery County; and Child
enjoys spending time outdoors. The two older. adults who own and reside at the residence are.
E. S- and her husband, Who, are in their 70's. Ms, Karie testified that the. S..... are
completely supportive of the foster care placement and want Child to reside with them as ions as.
possible. (N.T; 3/27/19, pp; 76-81.)
Ms. Kane described the visitation schedule that was established for Mother and Child
during the two years he has spent in foster care. Mother initially had a supervised Visit once a
weekwhich was increased to twice a week in June of 201 7. In October 2017 Mother was granted
unsupervised visitation, which continued until June of 2018., when she was again placed on
supervised visitation due to reports the Agency received; Mother resided with Mr. �\911at the
time and she understood that he was riot permitted to. attend the visitations. (N.T. 3/27119, pp. 81 �
83.)
Pursuant to a Dependency Court Order; Mr. W... was to have no contact with Child,·
and he was required to undergo a Risk Assessment Evaluation, which he failed to do. Ms. Kane
stated she had multiple conversations with Mother in which she advised her that Mr. R, ...was
art obstacle to her reunification with Child, but Mother was very defensive and angry, and at one
point stated that they (the Agency) should "just keep the child," Ms. Kane said that despite the
8
·· �
"multiple productive· conversations" she .had with Mother. suggesting she extricate herself from
her relationship with Mr. R ... Mother would shortly afterward. resume.living with him, (N:T.
3/27/19, pp. 84�86.)
Corey Asner is a family therapist employed by K&S Consultants, which provides a
therapeutic 'support program to families. referred by the Agency. She testified that on August 3,
2017, she was assigned to work with.Mother on reunification with Child. She initially met with
Mother .once a week, and Child would be involved. every other week. She stated that initially Mr. (2.
4•&• was: to be. part of the reunification process, but due to his noncompliance and
uncooperative attitude, his involvement was terminated. (N. T. 3/27/19; pp. gg .. 92.)
Ms. Asner testified that her initial focus was on rebuilding Mother's parenting.
relationship with Child, but that.she
. shifted to working on Mother's mental health, including. her
anger, depression and relationships with Child and. the foster parents. She said the clear
expectation was for Mother to obtain ,a . safe and stable
. environment for Child, and for Mother to
make the-choice of either her child.or Mr. Rlllf. She stated that despite those expectations;
Mother struggled with that decision. (N.T. 3/27119, pp. 92�94.)
Ms. Asner testified that Mother appeared at their sessions on two (2) occasions· With
physical injuries, The first occurred. on February 20, 2018� when Mother. had on a leg brace and
related to her that she had had an altercation 'with Mr. R� �11 the second 'incident, on July 13,
2018, Mother had a bruised eye; which she .related was due to another altercation with Mr.
R... Despite their conversations concerning .her safety and the traumatic impact these events
· were having on Child, Ms. Asner noted that Mother did not pursue the recommendations to seek·
the assistance of the. women's shelter, and Mother eventuafly returned to Mr. R .... (N.T.
3/27/19, pp. 94-97:)
9
On cress-examination by Mother's counsel) Ms. Asner said she believed that Mother had
made progress on some .of the goals of the treatment plan, including improved self-confidence
.and communication with the foster parents, but was still working through. the issues with
domestic violence and safety. She related that Mother appeared to have a positive and loving
relationship with Child. (N.T. 3/27/19, .pp. 97HlOO:)
The next.witness at the March 27, 2019 evidentiary hearing was Mother. She testified on
direct examination that she has been employed by Giant for eight (8) years and works twelve
(I 2) hours a week, which is .not enough to sustain herself. She has obtained additional
employment as a· housecleaner earning Sixty dollars ($6{LQO) every other week, arid also started
employment.at Turkey Hill on March l, 2019, where. she. expects to work twenty to tweilty-:five
(20 to 25) hours.perweek. (N.T. 3/27/19, pp. 101-108.)
Mothertestified that she is again on the waiting list for housing with the Bridge Program.
She stated her Initial application for the program was denied because she wasn't working
enough. She stated that i11 order to. obtain more stable housing in the interim, she and Child can
reside at her friend Sara'shouse. (N.T. 3/27/19; pp. l08HIU.)
Presently, Mother sees a psychiatrist at Penn Foundation every month for her mental
health treatment, and prescribed medication has improved her depression. She has also started
with a. Recovery Coach, who helps her with "everything," including. housing. (NS, 3/27/19, pp.
l H-112.)
During Mother's. two-hour unsupervised visits with Child, they would go to the park and
visit his eighteen-year-old sister. When asked about the evidence of Mr. R..at;s noncompliance
with the reunification process, Mother stated that she has asked him numerous times to comply;
but "can ;t make. him do. .anything." She stated she wants him to be part of the .process, but that it
10
is "very hard" forher and she "doesn'twant to pick.a man over my son," (N.J: 3/27/19, pp. 112-
114.)
Mother acknowledged on cross-examination that she has been told repeatedly that. she has
to make a choice between her son and Mr. R..., and that she has been advised repeatedly that
it is not safe to have Mr. R... in the presence of Child. She stated, however; that "that was
happening when there was drinking going on;" and she insisted he is rto longer drinking When
asked why Mr. R... was absent from this hearing, she said she was advised that he should not
attend. She confirmed that she has riot made a decision. to "move on" from Mr. �· (N.T.
3/27/19, pp. 114�1 l 7.)
On cross-examination by Ms. Home, the Guardian adLitem, Mother acknowledged that
she was aware that Child has made multiple disclosures of abuse by Mr. R.41111 She denied that
Child told her that Mr. � "calls him a little fucker, stupid, arid nigger, spic, Puerto Rican,"
but Mother acknowledged that she heard that testimony at the goal change hearing in January.
She denied that the Penn Foundation had found her housing, and that she told the case. manager
that it was not what she was looking for. She admitted. that she told. Child that he is a liar in
reference to a disclosure he made in April.regarding Mr. R a 1 but denied telling him that he
was ruining her relationship with Mr. R/JtltJJIII.. When questioned .as to her inability to take the
most significant step and· leave Mr: 'Rllllll she acknowledged that she has 'not left him but
insisted that she "had done everything that you guys (the. Agency) have asked me to do!' (N.T.
3/'l,7/19, pp. 117 .. 121.)
On cross-examination by Mr. Barton, Mother said she had been living with Mr. R...
for three-and-one-half (3Y2) years. She acknowledged that Mr. R-had a severe drinking
problem during that time, and that. it .had not been a good environment for Child. When .asked if
11
--·-------·-------··"··-----..···-······· ..··..·····
...........
she would agree that it would. not only be a bad situation for Child to live with her and Mr,
R... but that reunification with Child would also not be ideal as long as she maintained her
relationshipwith Mr; R...,, she replied "Yes and no." (N.T. 3/27/19� pp.121-'123.)
While ackrrowledging thatshe was very frustrated by Mr. R'llllll�s noncompliance With
the reunification process, Mother admitted that she still wanted Mr. R4111f to be part of the
family structure, although she also admitted that it has not been, and would not be; a, safe
environment.for Child. (N.T: 3t27/J9j pp. 124-126.)
As the Child-Directed Counsel.for Child, Mr. Barton noted at the March 27, 2019 hearing
that he had reviewed the entire case, met with the appropriate parties; and believed that he had
established an appropriate attorney-client and personal relationship with Child. He related that
Child wanted him to state to the Court that Child wished to· continue Jiving with his aunt and
uncle in their residence, where he felt comfortable and safe, and which he now considered his
home. He said Child acknowledged that d1ere have been problems with his behavior, but
appreciates the therapies and opportunities. available to him, and believes he is doing much.
better. Child related to him that he enjoys .sehool and wants to remain there; but Child also
stressed that he.misses his morherand expressed a desire for increased visitation with her. Child
also asked ifhe could see his father more often. (N.T7. 3/27/19, pp. 126-131:)
On July 8, 2019, after careful considerafionof this matter, this Court entered a Decree
granting the Agency's Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights and Duties, which
terminated Mother's parental rights as to. Child.
On August 1, 2019, Mother. filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
from our Decree of July .8, 20.19.
12
····"··.:
III. APPELLANT'S STATEMENTOF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Appellant's Notice of Appeal was accompanied by a Concise Statement of Matters
complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. I 925(a)(2), which is repeated, verbatim, as
follows:
1. The. trial court erroneously granted Rucks County Children & Youth Social
Services Agency's (hereinafter referred to as "Agency") petition to involuntarily
terminate (he parental rights of Appellant pursuant to 23' Pa. C:S.§ 25 II (aJ(2)
when the Agency had failed to prove the grounds thereunder by clear and
convincing evidence. · ·
2, The trial. court erroneously granted the Agency' s petition -to involuntarily
terminate the parental rights of Appellant pursuant to. 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(5)
when the Agency had failed to· prove the grounds thereunder by clear and
convincing evidence,
3. The trial court erroneously granted the Agency's petition to involuntarily
terminate the parental rights of Appellant pursuant to 23 Pa .. C.S.. § .251l(a)(8)
when the Agency had failed to prove the grounds thereunder by clear and
convincing evidence, .
4. The trial court erroneously moved its inquiry to the needs and welfare of the
children pursuant to 2J Pa. C.S. §2511 (b) and erroneously found that termination
would best meet said needs and. welfare . when the Agency had failed to prove
grounds for involuntary termination of
parental tights pursuant. to the grounds
alleged under 23 Pa. C,S. §2511(a)(2), (5) and (8) by cleat and convincing
evidence.
5.. The trial court erroneously found that the needs and welfare of the child as
contemplated under 23 .Pa. C:S. §251 l(b) were best met by terminating the
parental rights of Appellarit.
IV. D1SCUSSION
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23
Pa;C.S.A.. §§ 21'01-2938, whichrequires a.bifurcated analysis, as follows:
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The. party seeking
termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for terminationdelineated
13
.........
iii Section 251 l(a) .. Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct
warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage 11)
the second part of the. analysis pursuant to Section 251 ljb);
determination of the. needs and welfare of the child under the standard of
best interests of the. child. One major aspect of. the needs and welfare
analysis concerns the nature. and status of the emotional bond between.
parent and child, with close attention paid .to the effect :on the child of
permanently severing any such bond.
In re Adoption ofCD.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1215 (Pa.Super, 2015)citing]n re LA1., 92JA2d 505,
511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
Here; Appellant has challenged the Agency's termination of her parental rights pursuant
to §2511 (a)(2), (5), and (8},which provide, in pertinenrpart, as follows:
(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 mid 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 theincapacity, 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 theremoval or placement ofthe child
continue to exist, the patent 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 remedyfhe 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 ino.re
have elapsed from .the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led
to the removal orplacement of the child continue to exist and terminationof
parental rights would best serve the needs. and welfare of the child,
As the party seeking termination, the Agency bore the burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence. that grounds existed for terminating Mother's parental rights: Clear and
14
convincing evidence means. testimony that is so "clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to
enable the.trier ..offact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise
facts in issue." In re M1i!/., 106 A.3d 114, 117 (Pa;Super.2014) (internal citations omitted),
"[Tjhe complete and irrevocable termination ofparental rights is one ofthe most serious
and severe steps a court can: take, catryi11g with it great emotional impact for the parent and the
child." Iii re C.P. 90.1 A.2d 516; 520 (Pa.Super. 2006). "Because of the importance placed on
the family unit, governmental intrusion into the family, and disruption of the. parent-child
relationship, is warranted only in exceptional circumstances;" .and "only upon a. showing of clear
necessity. ;, . Even when such intrusion is necessary to protect the child, every possible effort must
be made to reunite the family. hi addition, all circumstances must be considered when analyzing
a parent's performance or non-performance of parental obligations .. A parent's performance must
be measured in light of "what would be expected of an individual in circumstances which the
patent under examination finds himself (or herself}." In re Miusock, 611 A2,d 737, 742.:743
(Pa.Super. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
In reaching a decision following a termination proceeding, the trial court's initial focus is
on the conduct of the parent and whether his or her conduct justifies termination of parental
rights pursuant to the pertinent. statutory provisions. In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa.Super.
2001). Only if the statutory grounds for terminatiorr are established, pursuant to §2511 (a), does
the welfare ofthe child .. become the court's paramount consideration, and the court must reflect.
on whether. termination will best serve the child; focusing on the .developmental, physical, and
emotional needs and welfare of the child pursuant to §25 n (b). Inre LJ.1., 923 A2d at 5 ll ,
Following the hearing in. the present case, and upon careful consideration of all of the
testimony and evidence presented, we determined that the Agency inet its burden of
15
.demonstrating clear and convincing evidence in support of the termination of Mother's parental
rights.
A. THE AGENCY PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONViNCING EVIDENCE lN
S:UPPORT OF TERl\HNATING THE PARENTAL RIGHTS QF MOTHER
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 251l{a)(2), (5:), and (8)0F THE ADOPTION ACT
It is clear that in a termination proceeding, the initial focus is on the conduct of the
parents .. In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 896 (Pa.Super, 2014). The statpte does not require. aggregate
conditions of incapacity, abuse and neglect in order for a court to terminate parental fights.
Rather, the statute clearly states one condition is sufficient. if the court finds that there is clear
and convincing evidence to establish that the probability of a parent performing his or her
parental duties is very low, the. court may terminate parental rights. In. re Z.P. ,<994 A2d H 08,
l 126(Pa.Super. 2010).
L Termlnation of Mother's ParentalRights.is Warranted Pursuant to §25ll(a)(2)
Pursuant to Section 25J l(a)(2) of the Adoption Act, termination of parental rights is
permissible if'the following three elements are. met:
(l.) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) such
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal has caused the child to be without
essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or
mental well-being; and (3) the causes ofthe incapacity, abuse, neglect or
refusal cannot or will not be remedied.Za re Adoption ofM,E.P., 825 A.2d
1266, 1272 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted),
The grounds for termination due to parental incapacity that cannot be·
remedied are not limited to affirmative misconduct. To the contrary.jhose
grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform
parental duties .. In rt: A.L.D1; 797A.2d 326, 337 (Pa.Super. 2002) (citations
omitted) .
.In re Adoption ofC.D,/l., Ll l A.1d at 1216 ..
16
, ..-... ...... . .
Iii the instant case, the Agency has alleged that Mother is incapable of patenting Child.
In order to terminate the parental rights. of Mother; the court must not only find.incapacity, but it
must also find that .the conditions which cause Mother's incapacity are irremediable. We
determined that the Agency did present clear and convincing evidence which not only
established. Mother's incapacity, but also demonstrated her inability to remediate the conditions
that warranted the termination of her parental rights.
Th� testimony · of the Agency caseworkers revealed that the first referral to the Agency
involving these parties occurred in 2015 and that there.had been twelve (12) subsequent referrals,
six (6) of which involved claims. of abuse of Child by Mother's. paramour, Mr. Rlll!ll and of
which. Mother was plainly aware'. Furthermore, the referral which opened, the present case
occurred in 2016,, arid the most recent referral occurred in April 2018, after Child had already
been removed from Mother's custody in April 2017. The testimony presented at the hearing
convinced this Court that, unfortunately, Child was clearly in danger when he. was in the
presence. of Mr. R... It also revealed that although Mother wanted Mr. R- to be involved
in the reunification process; his behavior and conduct demonstrated that he did not. want to be
part of that process! and he continually refused to meaningfully. participate in the reunification of
Mother and Child, Mr. R_. would not take the necessary actions or follow suggestions to
remediate, his violent behavior 'in order to establish a: safe and nurturing environment in which
Child could grow up; This Court was convinced that, to the-eontrary, Child would be exposed to
frequent danger and.denigration while. in Mr. R�;s presence.
This Court further observed that Mother had exhibited a. significant amount of instability
· in her life, including unstable housing arrangements and mental health. issues. Although .. she had
made some efforts to remedy this instability and was receiving some treatment for her mental
17
-- -.
health;. Mother had not pursued with . appropriate vigor the goal of securing and maintaining
stable housing for Child and herself. She had. apparently dismissed alternative housing thai had
been offered to her, and· appeared incapable of appreciating the. necessity for providing a stable
home environment for her son, Mother appeared more interested in returning to her cohabitation
with Mr. Rosetti than in establishing a stable home for Child and herself.
The most regrettable .aspect of Mother's relationship with her child was her undeniable
and continuing inability . to choose her son over Mr. R.., and her failure to reject the
tumultuous, unstable and violent relationship she shared with. him. While Mother had been
severely physically injured by Mr. R.... on at least two (2) occasions of Which the caseworkers
were aware, while the police had been called numerous times to Mr. R.... 's residence to
diffuse altercations between them, and while she acknowledged that such an environment would
have a traumatic effect upon Child, Mother continued to be completely incapable of extricating
herself from her abusive and harmful relationship with Mr. :R.-. Although Mother has been
continually advised by everyone who worked with her and offered support and therapeutic
services over the· last several years that she must cease her relationship with Mr. R.. if she is
to be reunited with her son, she has refused to do so.
We also noted that Mother has created excuses for her physically violent and
inappropriate relationship with Mr. Rosetti by suggesting, that she. was partly to blame for the
violent encounters with him, and by insisting that he no longer consumed alcohol. We. did not
find such testimony convincing.
Mother's repeated and continued refusals to cooperate with reasonable Agency objectives
which require her to. terminate her relationship with M.r. Rallf clearly and convincingly
demonstrated.her incapacity to consistently perform parental duties. over a significant period of
18
··--··----·-··--···------·-----
·�..
time. It is revealing that Mother would continually place herself in a situation in which she
would have to apologetically explain that she "doesn't want to pick a man over my son." Mother
has denied Child the parental care necessary for his physical and mental well-being by permitting
his continued exposure to the physical and mental abuse foisted upon him by Mr. R..; and
then by failing to take the steps necessary to protect him from · that abuse. Such continuous
incapacity and refusal clearly and convincingly warrants termination of Mother's parental rights,
2, Termination ofMother's Parental Rights is Warranted Pursuant to §251l(a)(5)
The Agency was able tc prove clearly and convincingly; pursuant to. §2511 (a)(S), that
Child has been in care for six (6) months or more after removal from Mother's care by
Dependency Court, that the reasons for such. placement continue to exist. and that those reasons
are not likely to be remedied within a reasonable time,
Decisional law instructs this Court to evaluate the individual circumstances of a case, and
consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination of his or her parental tights
When determining if the evidence, in light of the totality of circumstances, clearly warrants
involuntary terminatiot'l. In re .R.LS., 36 A.3d at 572. Based .on the evidence and testimony
provided regarding Mother's circumstances, arid in accordance with the pertinent statutory and
decisional law. we found that Child has lacked the proper parental care and control necessary for
his well-being on a continuing basis. per §2511 (a)(S).
We incorporate our factual recitation in Sections II and Ill AL, �, into this section of
our Opinion. Based on the testimony we heard. not only from Agency witnesses, but from Mother
herself we determined that Mother has rrot adequately remedied her parental incapacities so as to
appropriately be able to provide and care for Child. Unfortunately, the evidence is. clear and
convincing that she cannot and will not remedy those conditions within a. reasonable time period,
.1.9
3. Termination of'Mother's Parental Rightsis Warranted Pursuant to §25Il(a)(8)
The Agency also metits burden ofproving, pursuant.to §251l(a)(8),thatChild has been
in care for at least twelve (12) months, as Child was placed in the Agency' s care in April 2017,
after removal from Mother's care by the Dependency Court. The additional requirement set forth
in §2511 (a)(8), that the. conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to
·exist, has been detailed in the preceding sections of this Opinion.
hi addition, the Court must determine that termination of parental rights would best.serve
the needs and welfare. of the child. As discussed above, this Court determined that removal.of
Child from Ivfother's care was necessary to protect him front the present and continuing abuse
that he experienced from Mr. R.. and from which Mother was unwilling and incapable of
protecting him. It was also clear that Child had been. placed iii a safe, comfortable and loving
environment with his foster parents, D• M ... and. se c•. and the s•s,c who own the
farm house in which he resides and now considers his home. Child has expressed that he wants
to remain with his fosterparents. Moreover, Child has expressed his appreciation for, as well as
his desire to remain, in his current school, and he is receiving. the necessary therapeutic services
and treatment that are resulting in. improvement in his behavior and overall well-being.
The Agency clearly and convincingly established the criteria .set forth in i3. Pa.c:s.
§25ll(a) (2);(5), and ($) for termination.' Accordingly, we. next examined, pursuant to Issue
Numbers 4 and 5 of Mother's Concise Statement of Matters, along with 23 P'1..C.S. §2Sll(b),
whether the termination of Mother's parental rights serves the best.interests of Child, considering
his developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. We found that itdoes so.
I We reiterate that the Superior Court need only agree with the trial court's decision as to. any one subsection of
§251.1, in.order toaffirm termination of parental rights. In re M.M., 106 AJ;d I 14.
20
C.
B .. TERMlNATlON OF MOTHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS IS WARRANTEQ
PURSUANT to §25ll(b) of tile.ADOPTION ACT
As noted above, Child has resided with his present foster parents, S- and o•
M4lllt, who is Mother' s stepbrother.. since April 2017; Ms. C-. and Mr. M... are. very
loving and attentive to Child, and involve him in many activities .including soccer, Soy Scouts
and fishing, In addition, the s•s; the older couple who own the farinho�se in which they all
· reside, are very. receptive and. welcoming of Child, and they wish for him to remain in .their
household.
Child does not have special medical needs, but as a consequence bf the disruptive and
destructive behavior he has exhibited at school; he is 'receiving wraparound services through
Penn Foundation, as well as mobile therapy from Behavioral Health Rehabilitative Services,
.along with other behavioral specialistand therapeutic support services. Ms.. Kalie .testified that
Child's behavior has improved over lime, apparently due in part, to participation in these
services.
We also noted that Mr. Barton, the court-appointed legal-interests counsel for Child,
expressed on behalf of Child that although he misses his mother arid wished for increased.
· visitation with her. Child appreciate� his current place.menfwith Ms, C.. and Mr. M� and
wishes to remain in their household, which he...now considers his home. Child acknowledged that
he has exhibited behavior problems, but apparently appreciat�sthethe1:apy and opportunities he
has received, and believes he. is doing muchbetter. In addition, Child enjoys the school he is
currently attending, and wants to remain there. Clearly, Child is improving if not thriving .in his
current placement.
21
When considering what situation will best setve a child's needs and. welfare, the trial
court.must examine the status of the natural parentalbond and whether terminating
.
the natural
. .
parent's rights would destroy somethingin existence that is necessary and. beneficial.to the child.
When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert
testimony. .Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well.;
Additionally, Section 2511 (b) does not require a formal bonding
evaluation ... "Above all else. ... adequate consideration must .be given to the
needs and welfare of the child."... A parent's own feelings of love and
affection. for a child, alone, do not prevent termination ofparental rights ...
Before granting a petition to terminate parental rights, it is. imperati ve that a
trial court carefully consider the· intangible dimension of the needs and
welfare pf a child-the love.iccmfort, security, and closeness--entailed in a
parent-child relationship, as well as the tangible dimension. Continuity of
relationships is also important to a child, for whom severance of close.
parental ties is usually extremely painful. The trial court, in considering
what situation would best serve the child's needs and welfare, must examine
the status of the natural. parental bond to consider whether ter111i1111ti11g the
natural parents' rights would destroy something in existence that is
necessary and beneficial.
111 re ZP.
. , 994 A .. 2d 1108,
. 1121 (internal
. citations
. omitted).
In this matter, we observed that the termination of.Mother's parental rights advanced by
the Agency was. supported by Mr. Barton in his capacity· as Child-Directed Counsel for Child.
Mr. Barton offered the Court insight into Child's positive feelings for his. foster parents, his
residence and his school. Although Child still maintained a natural bond with Mother, as
exhibited by his desire for increased visitation with her, he nevertheless clearly appreciated his
current circumstances and wished .to convey to the Court his .desire to remain permanently with
his aunt and uncle, whom he apparently readily accepted as the important decision-makers .in his
life. Child also professed his desire · to continue. his attendance at his school,"I ••••1t
Elementary, where he was progressing academically and where he received behavioral
22
rehabilitative and therapeutic. services, which he recognized were responsible for improvements·
in his behavior and well-being.
Out appellate courts have long held that parental bonds may be properly terminated
1
' •• .when preservation of the parental bond would consign a child to an.indefinite, ui1happy;ai'id
unstable future devoid of the irreducible minimal parental 'Care to which that child is entitled." In
re.' J. W, 578 A.2d 952, 958 (Pa.Super. 1990).
Mother's ambivalence regarding the choice of continuing to. live with Mr: R..,, her
paramour, whom she acknowledges becomes verbally and physically abusive when he drinks
alcohol.versus leaving him and independently eating for her son, is palpable. Mother agrees that
it would he. a "bad situation" for Child to Iive with. Mr. R... ; she understands it would be
unsafe for Childas well as for her. Yet, Mother has chosen to continue to live with Mt. R4111t,
a situation which is untenable. for Child. Mother's actions and failure to act, then, speak volumes
about her parenting choices.
After balancing' considerations of Mother's continuing inability to remedy her parental
.incapacities which have repeatedly subjected Child to instances ofneglect .and abuse, against
Child's needs for permanence and stability, this Court appropriately concluded that it was in the
bestinterestsof Child to grant the Agency'sPetition to Terminate Mother's Parental Rights.
V. CONCl..lJSION
Mother has long-placed herself in the unenviable position in which she has been required
to make a decision as to whether she cap achieve reunification with her. son or 'continue her
relationship with her abusive paramour.· While we do not doubt that Mother loves Child; her
inability to make the decision to do what is best for her son speaks voltimes as to her incapacities
as an adequate parent. For .all ofthe reasons noted above, then; we respectfully submit that .our
23
Decree of July 8, 2019, granting the Agency's Petition to Involuntarily Terminate Mother's
Parental Rights, should he affirmed.
BY THE CQURT."
. . . B... ILMAN,
GARY
t . ·. . J.
I, .
·�.
24