In the Int. of: A.M.B.F., Appeal of: H.B. ( 2020 )

J. S34035/20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INT. OF: A.M.B.F., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: H.B., FATHER : No. 520 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered March 5, 2020,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Orphans’ Court Division at No. 2019-02096
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E. AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: AUGUST 31, 2020
H.B. (“Father”) appeals from the decree dated March 4, 2020, and
entered March 5, 2020,1 in the Orphans’ Court of Lancaster County, granting
the petition of the Lancaster County Children and Youth Social Service Agency
(“the Agency”) and involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his minor
1 While dated March 4, 2020, the decree was not entered for purposes of
Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) until March 5, 2020, upon the filing of decree and docketing
of notice. See Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 735 A.2d 113, 115 (Pa. 1999)
(holding that “an order is not appealable until it is entered on the docket with
the required notation that appropriate notice has been given”); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 108(a) (entry of an order is designated as “the day on which the
clerk makes the notation in the docket that notice of entry of the order has
been given as required by Pa.R.C.P. 236(b)”.).
J. S34035/20
female child, A.M.B.F. (“Child”), born in June 2018, pursuant to the Adoption
Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).2 After careful review,
we affirm.
The orphans’ court summarized the relevant facts and procedural
history of this case as follows:
[Child] was born [in June 2018]. The Agency filed a
Petition for Temporary Custody of the Child [shortly
after her birth,] alleging [Child] is a dependent child
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] 6302, in that [Child]:
is without proper parental care or control,
subsistence, education as required by law,
or other care or control necessary for
his/her physical, mental, or emotional
health, or morals; a determination that
there is a lack of proper parental care or
control may be based upon evidence of
conduct by the parent, guardian, or
custodian that places the health, safety or
welfare of the child at risk, including
evidence of the parent’s, guardian’s or
other custodian’s use of alcohol or a
controlled substance that places the
health, safety or welfare of the child at
risk.
A Shelter Care Order was issued on June 21, 2018,
which granted temporary custody of [Child] to the
Agency.
2 Father did not appeal the order changing Child’s permanency goal to
adoption. On October 24, 2019, the court terminated the parental rights of
Child’s mother, X.F. (“Mother”). (See Decree, 10/24/19, at 1.) Mother has
not appealed the termination. (See orphans’ court opinion, 4/21/20 at 5.)
On January 23, 2020, the court terminated the rights of E.P., Child’s
presumptive father, pursuant to his voluntary relinquishment of his parental
rights. (See Decree, 1/23/20, at 1.) Presumptive father did not appeal the
termination of his parental rights.
-2-
J. S34035/20
An Order of Adjudication and Disposition-Child
Dependent was issued by the Honorable Thomas B.
Sponaugle of this court on September 13, 2018, which
found [Child] to be a dependent child. Father
stipulated that there was sufficient evidence to
support the finding of dependency and he agreed to
the objectives on the initial child’s permanency plan.
That plan, as approved by the court, established a
primary permanency goal of reunification and a
concurrent permanency goal of adoption for [Child].
A permanency review hearing was held on
November 29, 2018. In the resulting order, the court
found that Father’s compliance with [Child]’s
permanency plan was minimal and that the progress
Father had made thus far toward alleviating the
circumstances which necessitated the original
placement was also minimal.
The next permanency review hearing was held on
April 18, 2019. The court again found that Father’s
plan compliance was minimal and his progress toward
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the
original placement also remained minimal. Notably,
Father failed to attend this permanency review
hearing.
The subsequent permanency review hearing was held
before a master and resulted in a Recommendation-
Permanency Review Order which was approved by the
court on September 20, 2019. Father was found to
have no compliance with the permanency plan as he
has been incarcerated at the Lancaster County Prison
since May 10, 2019. It was noted that Father had
been sentenced on September 13, 2019, and that he
was expected to remain incarcerated for six more
months. Father was also found to have made no
progress in alleviating the circumstances that
necessitated the placement of [Child].
Orphans’ court opinion, 4/21/20 at 1-5 (footnotes omitted).
-3-
J. S34035/20
On August 30, 2019, the Agency filed a petition for involuntary
termination of parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2),
and (b). The court conducted a termination hearing on January 9, 2020. The
Agency presented the testimony of caseworker Jessica Landman. Father
testified on his own behalf. Gina Carnes, Esq., the attorney-guardian ad litem
(“GAL”) appointed to represent Child, was also present.3 Attorney Carnes
recommended that Father’s parental rights be terminated. (Notes of
testimony, 1/9/20 at 59.) On March 5, 2020, the orphans’ court entered a
decree involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to
Sections 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b). (See Decree, 3/5/20 at 1.) On March 23,
3 See In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172, 175, 180 (Pa. 2017)
(plurality) (stating that, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a), a child who is
the subject of a contested involuntary termination proceeding has a statutory
right to counsel who discerns and advocates for the child’s legal interests,
defined as a child’s preferred outcome); see also In re T.S.,192 A.3d 1080,
1089-1090, 1092-1093 (Pa. 2018) (finding the preferred outcome of a child
who is too young or non-communicative unascertainable in holding a child’s
statutory right to counsel not waivable and reaffirming the ability of an
attorney/guardian ad litem to serve a dual role and represent a child’s
non-conflicting best interests and legal interests). We note, however, our
recent opinion in In re: Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662 (Pa.Super. 2019)
(en banc), granting appeal in part, 221 A.3d 649 (Pa. 2019) (holding that
this court has authority only to raise sua sponte the issue of whether the
trial court appointed any counsel for the child, and not the authority to delve
into the quality of the representation). Attorney Carnes stated, “. . . due to
her age, she was not able to articulate [her preferences].” (Notes of
testimony, 1/9/20 at 53.)
-4-
J. S34035/20
2020, Father filed a timely notice of appeal. On March 25, 2020, Father filed
a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.4
Father raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the [c]ourt correctly found that [the
Agency] had met its burden of proving with
clear and convincing evidence that Father, who
was incarcerated for a majority of the relevant
time period, failed or refused to perform his
parental duties and would not be in a position to
do so in the reasonable future[?]
2. Whether the Agency provided sufficient
evidence that the termination of parental rights
was in [Child’s] best interest[?]
Father’s brief at 6 (answers omitted).
In matters involving involuntary termination of parental rights, our
standard of review is as follows:
The standard of review in termination of parental
rights cases requires appellate courts 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. [A] decision may be reversed
for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of
manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias,
or ill-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should
not be reversed merely because the record would
support a different result. We have previously
4 Although Father failed to file contemporaneously his notice of appeal and
statement of errors complained of on appeal, he filed the statement of errors
two days later, on March 25, 2020. Accordingly, we decline to dismiss Father’s
appeal on this basis. See In re: K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745 (Pa.Super. 2009)
(failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement is considered a defective notice of
appeal and will not be dismissed since failure to file the statement is a violation
of a procedural rule and not an order of court).
-5-
J. S34035/20
emphasized our deference to trial courts that often
have first-hand observations of the parties spanning
multiple hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
The termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated analysis
of the grounds for termination followed by the needs and welfare of the child.
Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511,
the court must engage in a bifurcated process prior to
terminating parental rights. 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 termination delineated in
Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the
parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her
parental rights does the court engage in the second
part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b):
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 L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citations omitted). We have
defined “clear and convincing evidence” as that which is so “clear, direct,
weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear
conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
-6-
J. S34035/20
In this case, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights
pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1), (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:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing
for a period of at least six months
immediately preceding the filing of
the petition either has evidenced a
settled purpose of relinquishing
parental claim to a child or has
refused or failed to perform parental
duties.
(2) The repeated and continued
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal
of the parent has caused the child
to be without essential parental
care, control or subsistence
necessary for his physical or mental
well-being and the conditions and
causes of the incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal cannot or will not
be remedied by the parent.
....
(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
-7-
J. S34035/20
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)(1), (2), and (b). We need only agree with the juvenile
court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), in addition to
Section 2511(b), to affirm a decree terminating parental rights. In re M.M.,
106 A.3d 114, 117 (Pa.Super. 2014).
Instantly, we analyze the orphans’ court’s decision to terminate Father’s
parental rights to Child under Section 2511(a)(2).
In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), the following three
elements must be met: (1) 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 of the incapacity,
abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be
remedied.
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1216 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The grounds for termination due to parental incapacity that cannot be
remedied are not limited to affirmative misconduct. To the contrary, those
grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental
duties.” Id. “Parents are required to make diligent efforts toward the
reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities . . . [A]
parent’s vow to cooperate, after a long period of uncooperativeness regarding
the necessity or availability of services, may properly be rejected as untimely
-8-
J. S34035/20
or disingenuous.” In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 340 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
With respect to incarcerated parents, our supreme court has held that
“incarceration, while not a litmus test for termination, can be determinative of
the question of whether a parent is incapable of providing essential parental
care, control, or subsistence.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 830 (Pa.
2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The length of the
remaining confinement can be considered as highly relevant to whether the
conditions and causes of the incapacity . . . cannot[,] or will not[,] be
remedied by the parent, sufficient to provide grounds for termination pursuant
to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(a)(2).” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).The
efforts made by the parent to care for a child before incarceration, as well as
efforts to maintain a relationship with a child while incarcerated, are both
relevant. See In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1126 (Pa.Super. 2010) (terminating
parental rights of incarcerated father after finding “Father’s overall parenting
history revealed no genuine capacity to undertake his parental
responsibilities”); see also In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79, 83 (Pa.Super. 2008).
Father contends that the court erred in terminating his parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2) because he requested, obtained, and
participated in visits with his daughter while incarcerated, and the visits went
well and he acted appropriately. (See Father’s brief at 5.) Father argues
further that he engaged in drug and alcohol treatment in prison in 2019, and
-9-
J. S34035/20
was awaiting enrollment in prison mental health counseling and parenting
groups. (Id. at 5-6.)
Upon review, we find that there was clear and convincing evidence to
support the juvenile court’s termination of Father’s parental rights to Child,
pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). The record establishes that “incapacity”
under Section 2511(a)(2) exists given that Father has demonstrated a
repeated and continual inability to fully satisfy his permanency plan
objectives.
As noted, the Agency became involved in this matter in June 2018, when
Child showed signs of opioid withdrawal at birth. (Notes of testimony, 11/3/19
at 3-5.) The Agency had a long history with Mother, and Father was on parole
for a criminal history that involved drug and theft charges. (Id. at 5.)
Jessica Landman, the Agency caseworker assigned to this matter, testified
that Father’s child permanency plan included the following objectives for
reunification with Child: (1) attend mental health treatment; (2) attend drug
and alcohol treatment and remain drug and alcohol free; (3) remain crime
free; (4) remain domestic violence free; (5) learn and use good parenting
skills; (6) obtain financial stability to provide for himself and Child;
(6) maintain a home free of hazards to himself and his child; and (7) maintain
an ongoing commitment to Child. (Id. at 5-6.)
Ms. Landman’s testimony during the termination hearing revealed that
Father has failed to satisfy his objectives. Father did not complete his mental
- 10 -
J. S34035/20
health goal. (Id. at 7.) Father did complete a psychological and parenting
capacity evaluation in December 2018, while incarcerated, and was released
shortly thereafter, but did not participate in weekly therapy. (Id. at 6-7.)
Father briefly participated in treatment at T.W. Ponessa in March 2019, but
stopped attending; he claimed he was planning to attend treatment at another
clinic but was arrested prior to doing so, in May 2019. (Id. at 6-7.)
Father did not complete his drug and alcohol goal. (Id. at 8.) He
participated in a 30-day rehabilitation program and was successfully
discharged in February 2019. (Id.) However, he did not follow through with
the recommendation to complete weekly outpatient treatment, and was again
arrested in May 2019. (Id.) Father informed Ms. Landman that he had
participated in drug and alcohol treatment in Lancaster County Prison;
however, he failed to provide the requested documentation so that the Agency
could determine whether the treatment plan was acceptable. (Id. at 8, 18.)
Father did not complete his goal to remain crime-free. (Id. at 8.)
Father was incarcerated in July 2018 for theft, and released in February 2019
after completing a 30-day inpatient program. (Id. at 8-9.) Father failed to
attend scheduled probation appointments and a bench warrant was issued;
Father has been incarcerated since May 2019 as a result. (Id. at 9.) In
September 2019, Father was sentenced to ten months of incarceration. (Id.)
Father did not complete his goal with respect to domestic violence. (Id.
at 9.) Father signed a release for a referral, and a referral was completed in
- 11 -
J. S34035/20
March 2019. (Id.). However, he was arrested and incarcerated prior to
receiving treatment. (Id. at 10.) Similarly, Father did not participate in a
parenting program. (Id.) Additionally, although Father was approved for
work release, he did not have employment lined up for his release from
prison.5 (Id.) Nor did Father have stable housing.6 (Id.)
Ms. Landman testified Father attended some visitation with Child in
October 2018, while incarcerated. (Id. at 16). After his release in February
2019, Father did not attend visitation with Child until March 2019, when he
attended two visits with Child. (Id. at 10, 14.) Father did not visit with Child
in April 2019, and stated that he had “gotten mixed up” with Mother and “did
not have his priorities straight, basically, so he wasn’t showing up.” (Id.
at 11.) Father has been having visits on a biweekly basis at the prison as of
September 2019. (Id. at 11, 17.)
Father testified on his own behalf that he had attended drug and alcohol
group meetings in prison, and that, upon his release in February 2019, he
completed a 30-day inpatient treatment program at Cove Forge. (Id. at
24-25, 27-28.) At Cove Forge, Father was prescribed Vivitrol. (Id. at 27-28.)
5Father had previously received income from social security disability due to
chronic depression and mild bipolar disorder, but at some time prior to the
hearing, his benefits ceased. (Id. at 37-38.)
6 Father indicated that he planned to live with his mother upon his release
from prison; however, as she had Section 8 housing, Father could not be
added to the lease, and the Agency could not consider that arrangement
“stable housing.” (Id. at 10.)
- 12 -
J. S34035/20
Upon his release from Cove Forge in March 2019, Father attended three
appointments at T.W. Ponessa. (Id. at 24-25, 39-42.) Father claimed that,
because he did not like the care providers at T.W. Ponessa, he switched “a
few days later” to treatment at Nuestra Clinica. (Id. at 42.) Father attended
Nuestra Clinica “four or five times” before he was again arrested in May 2019.
(Id.) Father claimed to have been seeing “a lady” for mental health
counseling once a month, and that he was attempting to apply for groups, but
had not received a call back as of the date of the hearing. (Id. at 27.)
Additionally, Father claimed that he had not provided documentation of his
treatment because his caseworker had not asked for it. (Id. at 42.)
Father testified that he had stopped meeting with his parole officer
because she had threatened to arrest him, and that he had only returned
positive drug tests for opioids due to Vivitrol shots. (Id. at 29-30.) Father
claimed that due to the parole officer’s suspicion of his repeated positive
screens, he switched medically assisted treatment from Vivitrol to Suboxone.
(Id. at 44-45.). Father also stated that he stopped visiting with Child due to
his fear of arrest on the bench warrant issued for his failure to report to his
parole officer. (Id. at 32-34, 43-45.) Father denied committing domestic
violence against Mother, but stated that he had not completed domestic
violence treatment because of the long waiting lists in prison. (Id. at 45-51.)
Father expects to be released in March 2020. (Id. at 45.)
- 13 -
J. S34035/20
With respect to Section 2511(a)(2), the orphans’ court observed
The record clearly establishes that there is no realistic
prospect that Father will resolve the several aspects
of his ongoing incapacity to parent at any time in the
foreseeable future. Even had Father been poised to
be released from prison on the day of the termination
hearing, many deficits and impediments to his
parental capacity would have remained. Father had
no realistic prospect for housing which would be
adequate for [Child] and him. Father had no realistic
prospect that he would have income sufficient to
support [Child] and him. Given Father’s prolonged
evasion of his probation officer (and the likely reason
for that evasion), questions about Father’s capacity to
maintain freedom from his prior drug addiction would
remain. Father still has hills to climb to address his
mental health, domestic violence, and parenting
objectives which were established in [Child’s]
permanency plan to which Father agreed at the
adjudication/disposition hearing on September 13,
2018 – now more than a year and a half ago.
Orphans’ court opinion, 4/21/20 at 19-20.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the orphans’ court that there
exists clear and convincing evidence of record to terminate Father’s parental
rights to Child pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). See In re Adoption of
C.D.R., 111 A.3d at 1216.
Next, we consider Father’s contention that the termination of his
parental rights was improper under Section 2511(b) because there was not
sufficient evidence to support the contention that termination was in Child’s
best interests. (See Father’s brief at 16-17.) In support of this contention,
Father argues that there was no testimony from a caseworker or other witness
that the termination of Father’s rights would be in Child’s best interests. (Id.
- 14 -
J. S34035/20
at 17.) Father contends the court gave insufficient weight to the fact that the
Agency presented evidence the visits with Child are appropriate and that
Father engages with Child. (Id.)
With regard to Section 2511(b), our supreme court has stated as
follows:
[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a)
are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to
the developmental, physical and emotional needs and
welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b). The
emotional needs and welfare of the child have been
properly interpreted to include [i]ntangibles such as
love, comfort, security, and stability. . . . [T]his Court
held that the determination of the child’s “needs and
welfare” requires consideration of the emotional
bonds between the parent and child. The “utmost
attention” should be paid to discerning the effect on
the child of permanently severing the parental bond.
However, as discussed below, evaluation of a child’s
bonds is not always an easy task.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (internal case citations omitted).
“[I]n cases where there is no evidence of a bond between a parent and
child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. Accordingly, the extent of
the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the circumstances of the
particular case.” In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa.Super.
2010) (citations omitted). Additionally, when evaluating a parental bond, “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.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super.
2010) (citations omitted). This court has long recognized
- 15 -
J. S34035/20
[w]hile a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child
is a major aspect of the Section 2511(b) best-interest
analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to
be considered by the court when determining what is
in the best interest of the child.
[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can
equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and
should also consider the intangibles, such as the love,
comfort, security, and stability the child might have
with the foster parent . . . .
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d at 1219 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Upon review, we find that the record supports the orphans’ court’s
determination that the termination of Father’s parental rights was clearly in
the best interests of Child, pursuant to Section 2511(b). At the termination
hearing, Father’s own testimony did not provide evidence of a bond. He
testified that seeing Child makes him happy because she is a part of him.
(Notes of testimony, 1/9/20, at 34.) However, Father admitted that Child has
begun to act “not as close” to him as she had at the early visits, although she
will warm to him gradually towards the end of the visit. (Id. at 34-35.) When
asked whether Child called him anything, Father stated that Child “hardly
speaks.” (Id. at 35.) Father presented no additional testimony or evidence
to show any parental bond between him and Child.
Ms. Landman testified that, while visits with Father go well “as far as”
Father is appropriate with Child and engages with her, for the last month of
visits, Child is “very apprehensive” with Father and cries when he attempts to
- 16 -
J. S34035/20
hold her. (Id. at 20.) It is not until halfway through visits that Child will calm
down enough to interact with Father. (Id.).
Child was less than two years old at the time of the hearing, and had
never lived with Father. As noted, above, no concrete evidence of a bond
between Child and Father was presented. Accordingly, it was reasonable for
the court to conclude that there was no healthy bond between Child and
Father. See, e.g., J.M., 991 A.2d at 324.
Ms. Landman testified that Child resides in a foster home with her
half-sister. (Id. at 11.) Child is developmentally on target. (Id. at 11-12.)
Child is very close with her half-sister. (Id. at 13.) Child looks to her foster
mother for anything she needs, including emotional support. (Id.) Child calls
foster mother “Momma.” (Id.). Foster mother ensures Child receives medical
treatment for “frequent medical issues,” which include frequent ear infections,
tubes in her ears, and blood in her stool. (Id. at 12.)
Attorney Carnes noted that Child was very comfortable, bonded,
content, and well cared for by foster mother. (Id. at 52.) Child is very happy,
interactive, and bonded, especially with her sister. (Id.) Ultimately,
Attorney Carnes recommended that it was in Child’s best interests for Father’s
rights to be terminated. (Id. at 60.)
The orphans’ court observed:
[Child] deserves a nurturing, loving, and stable home.
[Child] enjoys a home possessing these
characteristics with her resource family, which
included her half-sister with whom she is closely
- 17 -
J. S34035/20
bonded. The record established that [Child]’s
resource parent has been attentive to [Child’s] special
health needs and that those needs have substantially
resolved. Most recently, [Child] has been
apprehensive when brought to the prison for visits
with Father. To the extent that there is a bond
between [Child] and Father, it is not a healthy bond
which is beneficial to [Child]. It is in [Child’s] best
interest that Father’s parental rights be terminated.
Orphans’ court opinion, 4/21/20 at 21.
Our standard of review requires us to accept the orphans’ court’s
findings of fact and credibility determinations where, as here, they are
supported by the record. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. Accordingly,
Father’s contention that termination of his parental rights was improper under
Section 2511(b) must fail.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the orphans’ court did not
abuse its discretion by involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to
Child pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2) and (b). Accordingly, we affirm the
orphans’ court’s March 5, 2020 decree.
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 08/31/2020
- 18 -