In the Int. of: S.C., C.C. and J.C., Minors

J-A31036-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.C., C.C., AND IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
J.C., MINORS PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: J.L., MOTHER
No. 918 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Orders Entered April 23, 2015
in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans' Court at Nos.: 28 of 2014
29 of 2014
30 of 2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2015
Appellant, J.L. (Mother), appeals the orders,1 of the Court of Common
Pleas of Mifflin County, entered April 23, 2015, that terminated her parental
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Mother improperly filed only a single notice of appeal. The trial court
issued three separate orders terminating Mother’s parental rights. We find
nothing in the record to indicate that these cases were formally
consolidated. Nevertheless, Mother filed one notice of appeal in response to
the three orders. Subsequent to Mother’s notice of appeal, the trial court
treated the appeals as if they had been consolidated. In fact, the trial court
filed only a single opinion covering all three orders.
Our Supreme Court has stated, “taking one appeal from several
judgments is not acceptable practice and is discouraged.” General Electric
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A31036-15
rights to her three daughters, S.C., C.C., and J.C. (Children). We affirm on
the basis of the trial court opinion.2
This is the trial court’s statement of the facts of this case:
S.C. was born on April 29, 2003; C.C. was born on
February 10, 2006; J.C. was born May 10, 2007. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 113:23-25.) Mother signed a voluntary
placement agreement on December 6, 2012. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 115:9-12.) Their biological father, J.C., consented to
voluntarily relinquish his parental rights to all three children on
December 02, 2014. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 4:11-13.) The
Agency petitioned to confirm consent. The Court granted the
Agency's petition to confirm consent and terminated Father’s
parental rights with orders dated March 23, 2015. Therefore,
only Mother’s parental rights were at issue during the March 23,
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Credit Corp. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 263 A.2d 448, 451 (Pa.
1970).
We do not condone Mother’s improper filing. Nevertheless, in the
interest of judicial economy we decline to remand. This is a Children’s Fast
Track case. Our Internal Operating Procedures establish this Court’s policy
of deciding Children’s Fast Track cases as expeditiously as possible. See
I.O.P. § 65.14. We note that all three arise from the same facts and all
three present the same questions for our determination. The trial court has
filed a single opinion. In all likelihood, the same cases would eventually be
presented to us, whether formally consolidated or separately appealed, at a
later date. Therefore, remand would only delay the resolution of these
appeals. Accordingly, even though the practice followed by Mother is
generally discouraged, we will treat her appeal here on an exception basis as
if the three notices of appeal had all been filed, or the cases were formally
consolidated. We have amended the caption accordingly.
2
The Children’s father, J.C. (Father), consented to the termination of his
parental rights by order entered in the trial court on March 24, 2015. The
trial court terminated the parental rights of the Children’s presumptive
father on April 29, 2015. Neither Father nor the presumptive father filed
appeals of those orders and neither is a party to this appeal.
-2-
J-A31036-15
2015 hearing. On December 17, 2014, the Agency[3] filed a
petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights.
Mother was served with the petition on January 20, 2015. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 2:17-18.) The Agency has been working with
Mother and her children since October 19, 2011, after receiving
a referral[,] from the children’s school[,] of sexual abuse. The
Agency accepted the family for in-home services on December 7,
2011. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 115:17-19.) These services
included family based services, a mental health assessment for
Mother at UCBH[4], child evaluations at Juniata River Center and
drug and alcohol assessments for Mother and her husband,
[Stepfather] (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 116:1-8.)
From this assessment, it was recommended that Mother
attend individual therapy once a week for six to twelve months,
in addition to medication management once a month for six to
twelve months. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 116:15-17.) On January
9, 2013, Mother attended her initial assessment for mental
health services and was recommended for therapy and
medication management. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 119:6-11.)
However, of the thirty-five (35) scheduled appointments, Mother
attended twenty-four (24), cancelled five (5) and did not show
for five (5) of the sessions. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 119:17-18.)
Due to inconsistent attendance, Mother’s case was closed on
September 24, 2014. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 119:18-20.)
Mother and [Stepfather] participated in a psycho-sexual
evaluation with Project Point of Light in June of 2013. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 133:23-134:1.) The evaluation revealed that
Mother had a sexual relationship with [Stepfather] when she was
twelve (12) years of age and he was eighteen (18) years of age.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 137:25-138:5.) Project Point of Light
found that [Stepfather] would be a threat to the girls, both
physically and sexually. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 135:27-[2]8.)
The evaluation also found that Mother did not have sufficient
protective capacity to ensure the safety of the girls. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 135:15-20.) As such, Project Point of Light
also found that Mother would not be an appropriate supervisor.
____________________________________________
3
Mifflin County Children and Youth Social Services Agency (Agency).
4
Universal Community Behavioral Health.
-3-
J-A31036-15
(Exhibit P1.) Mother was given the opportunity to have a
reassessment at Project Point of Light, but her file was closed
when Mother advised she would not continue with the
reassessment. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 135:9-14.)
A case was opened with Family Intervention Crisis Services
(hereinafter "FICS") for reunification services on July 8, 2013.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 78:7-8.) At the time FICS conducted its
intake assessment, it noted many concerns. FICS was
concerned with Mother’s lack of protective capacity and parental
supervision, her unresolved grief, and her history of mental and
behavioral issues. FICS was sensitive to the children’s sexually
inappropriate behavior, as an uncle in Ohio had been identified
as a sexual predator to one of the children. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 80:24-81:1.) In order to prevent inappropriate sexual
behavior among the girls, FICS thought it appropriate the
children have separate sleeping arrangements. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 80:10-13.) All three children reported to FICS that
Mother knew about the sexual behavior the children were
engaging in, and that they were disciplined for this behavior.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 79:25-80:2.) The children’s school also
affirmed that Mother was aware of this activity. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 79:22-25.) However, Mother denied knowing that there
was any sexually inappropriate behavior among the children.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 79:17-19.) Rather, Mother claims she
learned of this behavior after placement. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
153:6-12.) Mother also denies S.C.’s sexual abuse, alleging S.C.
was touched over her panties, which is simply not consistent
with the record. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 14:15-20.) FICS found
that Mother would spend a lot of [time] minimizing and denying
past occurrences. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 84:13-15.) Mother
would ignore difficult situations, hoping that they would just go
away. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 84:21-22.)
Domestic violence between Mother and [Stepfather] was
also reported by the girls. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 13:12-15.)
However, Mother denied and minimized this. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 13:12-15.) The children reported seeing their Mother
beaten up on numerous occasions, but Mother insists this never
happened. Rather than validating her children’s fears and
concerns, Mother told the children that she only fought with
[Stepfather] one time, and it was her fault. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 13:22-24.) However, the record shows that Mother filed a
Petition for Protection From Abuse against [Stepfather] on July
-4-
J-A31036-15
31, 2014. (Exhibit P4.) In the petition, she alleges [Stepfather]
attacked her, threatened to stab her cat, stabbed a knife into a
cabinet, pushed her down, jumped on top of her and further
references [Stepfather’s] illicit drug use. (Exhibit P4.) In this
petition, Mother unequivocally asserted, “I'm scared for my
children.” (Exhibit P4.) Furthermore, she references past abuse
by [Stepfather]. (Exhibit P4.) At the time of filing the petition,
Mother admitted to understanding the children’s fear of
[Stepfather]. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 97:12 -0:2.) However, on
September 10, 2014, Mother filed a Petition for Modification of
the Protection from Abuse Order and petitioned that the “order
be dropped,” as Mother did not believe in divorce and wanted to
work out her problems with [Stepfather]. (Exhibit P6.) Mother
now minimizes and negates [Stepfather’s] domestic abuse. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 13:25 -14:2.)
FICS provided numerous services to Mother in light of their
concerns. FICS offered bi-weekly to weekly visitations with the
children and extensive parenting orientations. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 82:10.) The parent education and counseling sessions
focused on Mother’s protective capacity, effective
communication, reflective listening, validating the children’s
feelings, and placing the children’s needs first. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 82:15-81:24.) Mother's use of these services was overall
inconsistent. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 98:18.) Mother refused to
attend counseling, alleging that the grief support program was
not beneficial to her. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 142:18-24.)
Mother was also resistant and defensive to any feedback
provided by FICS. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 98:19-22.) Mother
was not willing to discuss how to increase her protective
capacity, how to meet her children’s needs, how to validate her
children’s feelings and how to make decisions based on her
children’s needs rather than her own needs. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 100:18-22.) Mother did not understand her children’s
feelings and emotions. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 100:22-23.)
Mother, at times, was willing to look at herself to develop a
deeper insight, but it was always negated by denial and blame.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 92:10-16.) As such, FICS’ overall
assessment was that Mother’s sessions were unproductive. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 84:7) At the end of September 2014, Mother
advised FICS that she would no longer participate in their
services, except for visits with the girls. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
98:6 -9.)
-5-
J-A31036-15
As of November 2014, Mother attended forty-one (41) out
of forty-three (43) visits. FICS’ assessment of these visits,
however, was that Mother’s affect was flat and emotionless. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 100:21-22.) Mother struggled to manage her
emotions during visitations and struggled to place the girls’
needs above her own. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 100:18 -19.) The
girls expressed a fear of [Stepfather]; Mother refused to accept
this. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 101:1-10.) In May of 2014, Mother
went to a visit with a large mouth-sized imprint on her neck,
which led to a reaction by the girls, who believed [Stepfather]
had hurt their mother again. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 102:1-4.)
Mother’s response was that the girls had seen “hickies” before
and therefore did not believe the girls were afraid. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 102:9 -14.) Mother also failed to take notice
of J.C. self-stimulating herself while sitting on Mother's lap. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 102:8-9.) When given feedback by FICS on
these matters, Mother negated the feedback as lies and
discounted the girls’ fears and emotions. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
102:18-22.)
The Agency made a referral to Psychologist David G. Ray
to conduct a psychological evaluation on Mother and
[Stepfather] to assess their psychological functioning and
parental capacity as well as the bond Mother has with S.C., C.C.,
and J.C. Mr. David G. Ray testified regarding his psychological
evaluation of Mother and his observation of her with the
children, based on his report dated September 18, 2014. In
evaluating Mother, Mr. Ray conducted three clinical interviews
with her and administered a battery of tests and questionnaires.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 8: 18-20.) He also interviewed S.C.,
C.C., and J.C. on June 17, 2014 and observed two supervised
visits between Mother and the three children on June 10, 2014
and June 17, 2014. (Exhibit P1.) Mr. Ray also observed the
children with their foster parents. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 9: 11-
14.) Based on the interviews and Mother’s history, he concluded
that Mother has several diagnoses, including Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS and Personality Disorder
NOS, Mixed Personality Disorder, with a history of Depression
and Bipolar Disorder. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 19:7-18.) It was
his opinion that Mother displays a decided lack of empathy and
has a high need to be needed. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 42:8-10.)
He further opined that Mother’s wants and needs tend to come
first. (Exhibit P4.) Mother’s coping style is to deny and to
-6-
J-A31036-15
project and rationalize blame. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 11: 10-
11.)
Mr. Ray testified that Mother lacks insight into the multiple
horrific traumas that the children have experienced. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 11:12-16.) Mother fails to comprehend how
her behavior and actions affect her children. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 11: 17 -19.) In turn, Mother lacks the capacity to parent
her children and is unable to afford an environment that will
provide for the health, welfare and safety of the children.
Mother feels like she is the victim and refuses to take
responsibility for her actions. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 12: 18-
20.) The children have multiple traumas and the oldest suffers
from sexual trauma, yet Mother denies and minimizes this. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 13:8-10.)
An evaluation of [Stepfather] reveals, like Mother, he sees
himself as a victim and takes absolutely no responsibility for his
actions, by minimizing and diminishing blame. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 20:11-20.) Mr. Ray testified that he has grave concerns
about [Stepfather]. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 20: 11-12.) He
described [Stepfather] as an extremely self-centered individual
who exhibits manipulative and narcissistic traits and an
underdeveloped conscience. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 20:20-23.)
Mr. Ray concurred with Project Point of Light’s opinion that
[Stepfather] should not be around the children. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 25:19-21.)
Mr. Ray opined that S.C., C.C. and J.C. have extreme
serious mental health problems that are exacerbated by the
uncertainty in their life. (Exhibit P1.) As such, Mr. Ray stressed
that there is a strong need for permanency for these girls. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 31: 23-31:1.) According to Mr. Ray, S.C. is
a hurting, angry young lady who does not like men. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 29:2-4.) At a young age, S.C. was molested
by an uncle and her sister. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 29:22-24.)
S.C. was also present during the tragic house fire that resulted
in the death of her sister. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 30:2-3.)
Shortly thereafter, her parents divorced and S.C. has since
watched her Mother repeatedly beaten by [Stepfather]. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R.30:9-11.) These events have manifested into
complex trauma, which, under Mother’s care, had not been dealt
with. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 30 :18-19.) A psychological
evaluation revealed that S.C. harbors a relatively large number
-7-
J-A31036-15
of problematic thoughts, feelings and behaviors. (Exhibit P4.)
S.C. has been diagnosed, by her therapist, with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder, Oppositional/Defiant Disorder and Learning
Disability. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 29:20-22.) As a result of the
diagnoses, Mr. Ray emphasized S.C.’s need for proper parenting
and structure. (Exhibit P1.) He held that the biggest issue
holding S.C. back from healing is a sense of permanency. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 30:24-31:1.) He opined that, S.C. is in need
of a warm, loving, safe environment, where she is validated.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 32:22-24.) Mother has refused to
validate S.C.’s trauma. (Exhibit P1.)
Like S.C., C.C.’s therapist diagnosed C.C. with Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder with complex trauma. (Exhibit P1.)
Mr. Ray described C.C. as a talkative young child who lacks
boundaries. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 33:12-13.) C.C. talked at
length with Mr. Ray about seeing her Mother and [Stepfather]
watch porn and have sexual relations. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
33:24-34:1.) C.C. further reported seeing her Mother beaten
and choked. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 32:9-11.) She told Mr. Ray
that she watched [Stepfather] choke her Mother and then have
sexual relations with her. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 34:2-3.)
When asked what C.C. enjoyed about her visits with Mother,
C.C. responded that she liked the food. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
34:15-19.) Mr. Ray testified that C.C. needs an environment
where she can continue to heal, to feel safe and secure and feel
validated. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 35:14-18.)
J.C. suffers from Complex Trauma and Reactive
Attachment Disorder. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 37:8-9.) J.C.
reported that she does not feel safe at Mother’s home. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 36:11-15.) Testimony provided that J.C. has
peed herself, prior to visits with her Mother. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 34:19-21.) J.C. also confirms being exposed to
heterosexual and homosexual pornography in Mother’s home.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 37:3-4.) While J.C. acted out sexually,
prior to her placement, this behavior has decreased. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 37:23-25.) According to Mr. Ray, in order to
thrive, J.C. needs a warm, secure, safe, loving and structured
home. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 38:10-13.) It was Mr. Ray’s
opinion that all three girls have suffered serious psychological
trauma and appear to have significant delays which are now
being remediated in terms of their educational and overall
knowledge. (Exhibit P1.)
-8-
J-A31036-15
At the time the children were placed in foster care, there
were delays in terms of age appropriate behaviors as well as
serious disinhibition and dysregulation of behavior. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 15:17-22.) Since being placed in a foster
home, which Mr. Ray described as warm, loving and secure, the
girls have markedly changed, for the better. (Exhibit P1.) Mr.
Ray observed the [girls’] behaviors with their foster parents and
found that the girls were calm and relaxed. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 40:24-41:1.) Mr. Ray opined that each of the girls have
developed a healthy, secure attachment with their foster
parents. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 47:23-25.) He believes that
this will set the stage for healing to begin. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 48:10-15.)
(Trial Court Opinion, 4/23/15, at 1-8).
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b), by orders entered April 23, 2015.
Mother timely filed her notice of appeal and statement of errors complained
of on appeal on May 21, 2015.
Mother raises the following two questions on appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in ordering involuntary termination of
Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(2), (a)(5)
and (a)(8) when there was a lack of clear, convincing, and
sufficient evidence in support of those grounds for termination?
2. Did the trial court err in ordering involuntary termination of
Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(b) as serving
each child’s needs and welfare, when there was a lack of clear,
convincing and sufficient evidence that the severing of the
mother/child bond was in each child’s best interest?
(Mother’s Brief, at 6).
Our standard and scope of review are well-settled:
In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our
scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence
-9-
J-A31036-15
presented as well as the trial court’s factual findings and legal
conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will
reverse the trial court’s order only if we conclude that the trial
court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked
competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge’s
decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict.
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).
Further, we have stated:
Where the hearing court’s findings are supported by
competent evidence of record, we must affirm the hearing court
even though the record could support an opposite result.
We are bound by the findings of the trial court which
have adequate support in the record so long as the
findings do not evidence capricious disregard for
competent and credible evidence. The trial court is free to
believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is
likewise free to make all credibility determinations and
resolve conflicts in the evidence. Though we are not
bound by the trial court’s inferences and deductions, we
may reject its conclusions only if they involve errors of law
or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial court’s
sustainable findings.
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).
In this case, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). In order to affirm
the termination of parental rights, this Court need only agree with any one
subsection of Section 2511(a). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 863 A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004).
Requests to have a natural parent’s parental rights terminated are
governed by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, which provides, in pertinent part:
- 10 -
J-A31036-15
§ 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.
* * *
(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,
- 11 -
J-A31036-15
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.
It is well settled that a party seeking termination of a parent’s rights
bears the burden of proving the grounds to so do by “clear and convincing
evidence,” a standard which requires evidence 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.” In
re T.F., 847 A.2d 738, 742 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). Further,
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 the Interest of K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations
omitted).
The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section
2511(a)(2) was long ago stated in the case of In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636,
331 A.2d 172 (1975). There the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced
that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), that the petitioner for
involuntary termination must prove “[t]he repeated and continued
incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal of the parent has caused the child to
- 12 -
J-A31036-15
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.” Id., at 173.
The Adoption Act provides that a trial 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 Act does not make
specific reference to an evaluation of the bond between parent and child but
our case law requires the evaluation of any such bond. See In re E.M., 533
Pa. 115, 620 A.2d 481 (1993). However, this Court has held that the trial
court is not required by statute or precedent to order a formal bonding
evaluation performed by an expert. In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533
(Pa. Super. 2008).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude
that there is no merit to the issues Mother has raised on appeal. The trial
court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court
Opinion, filed 4/23/15, at 9-14) (concluding that: (1) Agency established by
clear and convincing evidence that sufficient grounds for involuntary
termination of Mother’s parental rights existed under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5) and (a)(8); and that (2) clear, convincing and
sufficient evidence existed under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) that terminating
- 13 -
J-A31036-15
Mother’s parental rights would best serve each Child’s developmental,
physical and emotional needs). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the
trial court’s opinion.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/23/2015
- 14 -
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
In the Interest ofr S.C. PARENTAL ACTION NO. 28 of2014
In the Interest of: C.C. PARENTAL ACTION NO. 29 of 2014
In the Interest of: J.C. PARENTAL ACTION NO. 30 of2014
;;J;>, ·s>1-~: ~~ r/d3j/ s:?f9=t
Patricia A. Gardner, Esquire Michael S. Gingerich, Esquire
20 North Wayne Street Rear 27 North Brown Street
Lewistown, PA 17044 Lewistown, PA 17044
Counsel for Mifflin County Children. Counsel for Mother
& Youth Social Services
...,..,
Stuart A. Cilo, Esq. ...,..,
29 West Third Street
c:::.,.,
N ::,.: r
Lewistown, PA 17044
Guardian. ad litem
rJ OPINION
;fIi ~-
::;- rr; r l'l
:j::o-_;:"; 6:5
nrr,
go
z
-;
-<
Barron, David, W.,1 Aprill~ 2015 - Mifflin County Children and Youth Social Services ("the
Agency" hereafter) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the natural mother, J.L. ("Mother"
hereafter), with respect to her three children, S.C., C.C., and J.C. A termination hearing was held
March 24, 2015. This opinion is in support of the Court's Order, entered same date, terminating Mother's
parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
S.C. was born on April 29, 2003; C.C. was born on February 10, 2006; J.C. was born
May 10, 2007. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 113:23-25.) Mother signed a voluntary placement agreement on
December 6, 2012. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 115:9-12.) Their biological father, J.C., consented to
voluntarily relinquish his parental rights to all three children on December 02, 2014. (Tr. Proceedings
1
Assisted by Alina M. Jolly., Judicial Law Clerk.
1
/Jv
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
T.P.R. 4:11-13.) The Agency petitioned to confirm consent. The Court granted the Agency's petition to
confirm consent and terminated Father's parental rights with orders dated March 23, 2015. Therefore,
only Mother's parental rights were at issue during the March 23, 2015 hearing. On December 17, 2014,
the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother was served with
the petition on January 20, 2015 (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 2:17-18.)
The Agency has been working with Mother and her children since October 19, 2011, after
receiving a referral from the children's school of sexual abuse. The Agency accepted the family for in-
home services on December 7, 2011. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 115:17-19.) These services included
family based services, a mental health assessment for Mother at UCBH, child evaluations at Juniata River
Center and drug and alcohol assessments for Mother and her husband, Lane. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
116:1-8.)
From this assessment, it was recommended that Mother attend individual therapy once a week for
six to twelve months, in addition to medication management once a month for six to twelve months. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 116:15-17.) On January 9, 2013, Mother attended her initial assessment for mental
health services and was recommended for therapy and medication management. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
119:6-11.) However, of the thirty-five (35) scheduled appointments, Mother attended twenty-four (24),
cancelled five (5) and did not show for five (5) of the sessions. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 119:17-18.)
Due to inconsistent attendance, Mother's case was closed on September 24, 2014. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 119:18-20.)
Mother and Lane participated in a psycho-sexual evaluation with Project Point of Light in June of
2013. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 133:23-134:1.) The evaluation revealed that Mother had a sexual
relationship with Lane when she was twelve (12) years of age and he was eighteen (18) years of age. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 137:25-138:5.) Project Point of Light found that Lane would be a threat to the girls,
2
/3
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
both physically and sexually. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 135:27-8.) The evaluation also found that Mother
did not have sufficient protective capacity to ensure the safety of the girls. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
135: 15-20.) As such, Project Point of Light also found that Mother would not be an appropriate
supervisor. (Exhibit Pl.) Mother was given the opportunity to have a reassessment at Project Point of
Light, but her file was closed when Mother advised she would not continue with the reassessment. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 135:9-14.)
A case was opened with Family Intervention Crisis Services (hereinafter "FICS") for reunification
services on July 8, 2013. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 78:7-8.) At the time FICS conducted its intake
assessment, it noted many concerns. FICS was concerned with Mother's lack of protective capacity and
parental supervision, her unresolved grief, and her history of mental and behavioral issues. FICS was
sensitive to the children's sexually inappropriate behavior, as an uncle in Ohio had been identified as a
sexual predator to one of the children. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 80:24-81: I.) In order to prevent
inappropriate sexual behavior among the girls, FICS thought it appropriate the children have separate
sleeping arrangements. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 80:10-13.) All three children reported to FICS that
Mother knew about the sexual behavior the children were engaging in, and that they were disciplined for
this behavior (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 79:25-80:2.) The children's school also affirmed that Mother was
aware of this activity. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 79:22-25.) However, Mother denied knowing that there
was any sexually inappropriate behavior among the children. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 79:17-19.) Rather,
Mother claims she learned of this behavior after placement. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 153:6-12.) Mother
also denies S.C. 's sexual abuse, alleging S.C. was touched over her panties, which is simply not
consistent with the record. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 14:15-20.) FICS found that Mother would spend a lot
of minimizing and denying past occurrences. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 84:13-15.) Mother would ignore
difficult situations, hoping that they would just go away. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 84:21-22.)
3
I'+-
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
Domestic violence between Mother and Lane was also reported by the girls. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 13:12-15.) However, Mother denied and minimized this. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 13:12-15.) The
children reported seeing their Mother beaten up on numerous occasions, but Mother insists this never
happened. Rather than validating her children's fears and concerns, Mother told the children that she only
fought with Lane one time, and it was her fault. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 13:22-24.) However, the record
shows that Mother filed a Petition for Protection From Abuse against Lane on July 31, 2014. (Exhibit P4.)
In the petition, she alleges Lane attacked her, threatened to stab her cat, stabbed a knife into a cabinet,
pushed her down, jumped on top of her and further references Lane's illicit drug use. (Exhibit P4.) In
this petition, Mother unequivocally asserted, "I'm scared for my children." (Exhibit P4.) Furthermore,
she references past abuse by Lane. (Exhibit P4.) At the time of filing the petition, Mother admitted to
understanding the children's fear of Lane. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 97:12-0:2.) However, on September
10, 2014, Mother filed a Petition for Modification of the Protection from Abuse Order and petitioned that
the "order be dropped," as Mother did not believe in divorce and wanted to work out her problems with
Lane. (Exhibit P6.) Mother now minimizes and negates Lane's domestic abuse. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
13:25-14:2.)
FICS provided numerous services to Mother in light of their concerns. FICS offered bi-weekly to
weekly visitations with the children and extensive parenting orientations. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 82:10.)
The parent education and counseling sessions focused on Mother's protective capacity, effective
communication, reflective listening, validating the children's feelings, and placing the children's needs
first. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 82:15-81 :24.) Mother's use of these services was overall inconsistent.. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P .R. 98: 18.) Mother refused to attend counseling, alleging that the grief support program
was not beneficial to her. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 142:18-24.) Mother was also resistant and defensive to
any feedback provided by FICS. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 98:19-22.) Mother was not willing to discuss
4
I~
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
how to increase her protective capacity, how to meet her children's needs, how to validate her children's
feelings and how to make decisions based on her children's' needs rather than her own needs. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 100:18-22.) Mother did not understand her children's' feelings and emotions. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 100:22-23.) Mother, at times, was willing to look at herself to develop a deeper
insight, but it was always negated by denial and blame. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 92:10-16.) As such,
FICS' overall assessment was that Mother's sessions were unproductive. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 84:7)
At the end of September 2014, Mother advised FICS that she would no longer participate in their services,
except for visits with the girls. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 98:6-9.)
As ofNovember 2014, Mother attended forty-one (41) out of forty-three (43) visits. FICS'
assessment of these visits, however, was that Mother's affect was flat and emotionless. (Tr. Proceedings
T.P.R. 100:21-22.) Mother struggled to manage her emotions during visitations and struggled to place
the girls' needs above her own. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 100:18-19.) The girls expressed a fear of Lane,
Mother refused to accept this. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 101:1-10.) In May of 2014, Mother went to a visit
with a large mouth sized imprint on her neck, which led to a reaction by the girls, who believed Lane had
hurt their Mother again. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 102:1-4.) Mother's response was that the girls had seen
"hickies" before and therefore did not believe the girls were afraid. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 102:9-14.)
Mother also failed to take notice of J.C. self-stimulating herself while sitting on Mother's lap. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 102:8-9.) When given feedback by FICS on these matters, Mother negated the
feedback as lies and discounted the girls' fears and emotions. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 102:18-22.)
The Agency made a referral to Psychologist David G. Ray to conduct a psychological evaluation
on Mother and Lane to assess their psychological functioning and parental capacity as well as the bond
Mother has with S.C., C.C., and J.C. Mr. David G. Ray testified regarding his psychological evaluation
of Mother and his observation of her with the children, based on his report dated September 18, 2014. In
5
I~
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
evaluating Mother, Mr. Ray conducted three clinical interviews with her and administered a battery of
tests and questionnaires. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 8: 18-20.) He also interviewed S.C., C.C., and J.C. on
June 17, 2014 and observed two supervised visits between Mother and the three children on June 10, 2014
and June 17, 2014. (Exhibit Pl.) Mr. Ray also observed the children with their foster parents. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 9: 11-14.) Based on the interviews and Mother's history, he concluded that Mother
has several diagnoses, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Mood Disorder NOS and Personality
Disorder NOS, Mixed Personality Disorder, with a history of Depression and Bipolar Disorder. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 19:7-18.) It was his opinion, that Mother displays a decided lack of empathy and has
a high need to be needed. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 42:8-10.) He further opined that Mother's wants and
needs tend to come first. (Exhibit P4.) Mother's coping style is to deny and to project and rationalize
blame. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 11: 10~11.)
Mr. Ray testified that Mother lacks insight into the multiple horrific traumas that the children have
experienced. (Tr. Proceedings T.P .R. 11: 12-16.) Mother fails to comprehend how her behavior and
actions affect her children. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 11: 17-19.) In turn, Mother lacks the capacity to
parent her children and is unable to afford an environment that will provide for the health, welfare and
safety of the children. Mother feels like she is the victim and refuses to take responsibility for her actions.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 12: 18-20.) The children have multiple traumas and the oldest suffers from
sexual trauma, yet Mother denies and minimizes this. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 13:8-10.)
An evaluation of Lane reveals, like Mother, he sees himself as a victim and takes absolutely no
responsibility for his actions, by minimizing and diminishing blame. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 20:11-20.)
Mr. Ray testified that he has grave concerns about the children's step-father. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 20:
11-12.) He described Lane as an extremely self-centered individual who exhibits manipulative and
narcissistic traits and an underdeveloped conscience. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 20:20-23.) Mr. Ray
6
/7
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
concurred with Project Point of Light's opinion that Lane should not be around the children. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 25:19-21.)
Mr. Ray opined that S.C., C.C. and J.C. have extreme serious mental health problems that are
exasperated by the uncertainty in their life. (Exhibit Pl.) As such, Mr. Ray stressed that there is a strong
need for permanency for these girls. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 31: 23-31: 1.) According to Mr. Ray, S.C. is
a hurting, angry young lady who does not like men. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 29:2-4.) At a young age,
S.C. was molested by an uncle and her sister. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 29:22-24.) S.C. was also present
during the tragic house fire that resulted in the death of her sister. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 30:2-3.)
Shortly thereafter, her parents divorced and C.C. has since watched her Mother repeatedly beaten by
Lane. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.30:9-11.) These events have manifested into complex trauma, which, under
Mother's care, had not been dealt with. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 30:18-19.) A psychological evaluation
revealed that S.C. harbors a relatively large number of problematic thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
(Exhibit P4.) S.C. has been diagnosed, by her therapist, with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,
Oppositional/Defiant Disorder and Learning Disability. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 29:20-22.) As a result of
the diagnoses, Mr. Ray emphasized S.C. 's need for proper parenting and structure. (Exhibit Pl.) He held
that the biggest issue holding S.C. back from healing is a sense of permanency. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
3 0 :24-31: 1.) He opined that, S. C. is in need of a warm, loving, safe environment, where she is validated.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 32:22-24.) Mother has refused to validate S.C. 's trauma. (Exhibit Pl.)
Like S.C., C.C.'s therapist diagnosed C.C. with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder with complex
trauma. (Exhibit Pl.) Mr. Ray described C.C. as a talkative young child who lacks boundaries. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 33:12-13.) C.C. talked at length with Mr. Ray about seeing her Mother and Lane
watch porn and have sexual relations. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 33:24-34: 1.) C.C further reported seeing
her Mother beaten and choked. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 32:9-11.) She told Mr. Ray that she watched
7
/¥
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
Lane choke her Mother and then have sexual relations with her. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 34:2-3.) When
asked what C.C. enjoyed about her visits with Mother, C.C. responded that she liked the food. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 34:15-19.) Mr. Ray testified that C.C. needs an environment where she can continue
to heal, to feel safe and secure and feel validated. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 35:14-18.)
J.C. suffers from Complex Trauma and Reactive Attachment Disorder. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
37:8-9.) J.C. reported that she does not feel safe at Mother's home. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 36:11-15.)
Testimony provided that J.C. has peed herself, prior to visits with her Mother. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R.
34: 19-21.) J.C. also confirms being exposed to heterosexual and homosexual pornography in Mother's
home. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 37:3-4.) While J.C. acted out sexually, prior to her placement, this
behavior has decreased. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 37:23-25.) According to Mr. Ray, in order to thrive,
J.C. needs a warm, secure, safe, loving and structured home. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 38:10-13.) It was
Mr. Ray's opinion that all three girls have suffered serious psychological trauma and appear to have
significant delays which are now being remediated in terms of their educational and overall knowledge.
(Exhibit Pl.)
At the time the children were placed in foster care, there were delays in terms of age appropriate
behaviors as well as serious disinhibition and dysregulation of behavior. (Tr. Proceedings T .P.R. 15: 17-
22.) Since being placed in a foster home, which Mr. Ray described as warm, loving and secure, the girls
have markedly changed, for the better. (Exhibit Pl.) Mr. Ray observed the girls behaviors with their
foster parents and found that the girls were calm and relaxed. (Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 40:24-41: 1.) Mr.
Ray opined that each of the girls have developed a healthy, secure attachment with their foster parents.
(Tr. Proceedings T.P.R. 47:23-25.) He believes that this will set the stage for healing to begin. (Tr.
Proceedings T.P.R. 48:10-15.)
8
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
DISCUSSION
The court must undergo a two-step analysis when deciding whether to terminate an individual's
parental rights. First, the court must determine whether the petitioner proved with clear and convincing
evidence one of the grounds for termination stated in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a). Next, the court must assess
the children's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare in accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 251 l(b) and the best interests of the child standard. The court must consider each case's individual
circumstances and the parent's explanations to determine whether the "totality of the circumstances"
justifies terminating the parent's rights. In re B.NM, 856 A.2d 847, 853 (Pa. Super. 2004).
In its petition for involuntary termination of parental rights, the Agency alleges grounds for
termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(2), 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(5) and 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(8).
The Court will first address the termination grounds found in all three alleged sections. Then it will
separately determine whether terminating Mother's parental rights serves the children's best interests.
I. Termination Grounds
A. Termination Pursuantto 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251l(a)(2)
Section 251 l(a)(2) authorizes the court to terminate a parent's rights if:
"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."
23 Pa. C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(2).
Here, the Agency by clear and convincing evidence established the termination grounds found in §
251 l(a)(2), relative to Mother. As stated above, Mother was not motivated to attend counseling sessions
as recommended by FICS, or to cooperate with any of their recommendations. The children's fears and
concerns desperately need to be validated. The children need an environment that is safe and secure
9
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
where they can continue to heal from the complex trauma they have suffered. Mother is oblivious to the
extensive needs of her children and is unable to provide an environment that provides for the children's
health, welfare and safety. All three girls have reported that they do not feel safe at Mother's home.
Mother's own testimony provided that should the children return to her home, the possibility of them
being physically abused by Lane will always be there. This is not a risk the Court is willing to take.
Despite numerous services offered to Mother, she has refused assistance. The record indicates that
Mother's decided lack of empathy and her inability to comprehend how her behavior and actions affect
her children, make Mother incapable of fulfilling her role as a competent parent. Mother continues to
deny and minimize the domestic abuse in the home. She also continues to deny that the children were
ever exposed to porn in the home. Mother has had two years to correct her behaviors, and she has chosen
to continue in her incapacity and neglect of the children. Mother has played games with CYS and
admittedly tells them what they want to hear. For this reason, Mr. Ray testified that there are no services
that could be provided to Mother that would enable her to remedy her incapacity.
The court does not need to wait until a more convenient time for the parent to become involved.
In re E.M., 908 A.2d 297, 304 (Pa. Super. 2007)(stating that "parental rights are not preserved" by
waiting for a more "convenient" or "suitable" time for the parent while others perform their duties).
Accordingly, the Court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to § 251 l(a)(2).
B. TerminationPursuantto 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5)
Section 251 l(a)(S) permits the court to terminate parental rights when:
"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
10
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would
best serve the needs and welfare of the child."
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(S).
The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds found in
§ 251 l(a)(S), relative to Mother. At the time of the hearing, the children had been in foster care for
approximately twenty-seven months. Mother made minimal to no progress towards her parenting
objectives between the time that S.C., C.C., and J.C. were found dependent in December 2012 and the
time the Agency petitioned for the termination of her parental rights in December 2014. Mother testified
that she decided not to attend counseling because the audience was not similar to her, yet failed to seek
out any other counseling groups. While Mother appeared willing to listen at times, she never followed
through or changed her behaviors. Mother's own testimony provided that the conditions have remained
the same in her household. Gravely, Mother testified that she often told FICS what they wanted to hear.
Mother was defensive and resistant to any services or feedback provided by FICS, and testified that she
would not do any of the offered services. Both Project Point of Light and FICS terminated services for
Mother because of her decision to not complete the programs and counseling offered to her.
As such, the Court finds Mother has not and will not remedy the conditions which led to the
removal and placement of her children. The children need an environment that is safe and secure where
they can continue to heal from the complex trauma they have suffered. Mr. Ray's assessment of Mother
indicates that Mother will never be able to be a competent parent because she is not able to create a sense
of stability and security for her children. Despite the services offered to Mother, she reverts to a victim
mentality and puts her needs above the needs of her children. As Mother did not remedy her parental
capacity or her behaviors that led to the neglect of the children and their placement in foster care, the
Court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to§ 251 l(a)(S).
11
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
C. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8)
The court may terminate a parent's parental rights under § 2511 ( a)(8) if:
"The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a
voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve 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
serve the needs and welfare of the child."
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(8).
The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds found in
§ 251 l(a)(8), relative to Mother. As noted above, at the time of the hearing, the children had been in
foster care for approximately twenty-seven months Again, Mother's lack of empathy, her inability to
place the needs of her children above her own needs, her poor decision making and her failure to meet the
parenting objectives, over the span of two years, proves to the Court that the conditions which led to the
children's removal continues to exist. Mother admits there is a potential for abuse if the children were
allowed to return home. Yet, in light of numerous reports by the children of domestic and sexual abuse in
the home, Mother continues to deny and minimize these occurrences. She is oblivious to the extensive
needs of her children. Rather than fix her behaviors, Mother has played a game with CYS, telling them
what she thinks they want to hear. It is apparent to the Court that Mother has chosen to continue in her
incapacity and neglect of the children and terminating her parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of S.C., C.C. and J.C. who are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted in their foster home. As such,
the court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to §251 l(a)(8).
II. The Children'sBest Interests
Having found the Agency established with clear and convincing evidence the termination grounds
stated in§§ 251 l(a)(l), 251 l(a)(S) and 251 l(a)8), the Court must determine whether terminating
Mother's parental rights serves the children's best interests. As mentioned, the court must give "primary
12
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
determination" to the child's "developmental, physical, and emotional needs." 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(b).
This analysis involves an examination of "intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability." In re
C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006). The court must assess the bond the children have with the
parents and whether termination would sever "existing, necessary, and beneficial relationship[s]." In re
K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008)(citing In re. CS., 761 A.2d 1197, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2000).
The court must pay "close attention" to the effect severing the bond with the parent has on the children.
In re L.M, 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). However, the children's needs and welfare are the most
important factors. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 760.
In this case, the Agency established terminating Mother's parental rights serves the children's best
interests. Mr. Ray found that all three children have an insecure disorganized attachment to Mother and
these attachments are not beneficial to them. All three girls reported that they did not feel safe in
Mother's home. Mr. Ray determined that the fear ofreturning to Mother is causing the children
significant emotional harm and dysregulation of behavior. Therefore, he opined that the children's needs
and welfare would best be served by severing the children's relationship with mother and moving towards
adoption. The children need permanency in their lives. While Mr. Ray anticipates that the termination of
parental rights will cause some psychological trauma for the children, the long term effects of permanency
far outweigh the effects of terminating Mother's parental rights. The Court finds that severing an insecure
bond that is having a current negative impact on the children is in their best interests. The trauma
described by Mr. Ray may or may not develop and, from the Court's view, does not warrant the continued
existence of the present negative attachment to Mother.
The Court acknowledges that Mother has attended most of the visits with her children and that
Mother loves and cares about the children, but S.C., C.C., and J.C. would be deprived of a permanent,
healthy, safe, and secure parent/child relationship if Mother's rights were maintained. It is clear from the
13
Circulated 12/10/2015 04:33 PM
testimony of Mr. Ray that the children feel safe and secure with their foster parents, and the children have
developed a positive attachment to them. Therefore, the Court finds terminating Mother's parental rights
serves the children's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.
CONCLUSION
This Court finds the Agency met its burden, relative to Mother, by proving through clear and
convincing evidence the grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights found in 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§§251 l(a)(2), 251 l(a)(S), and 251 l(a)(8). Further, terminating Mother's parental rights is clearly in the
best interests of S.C., C.C., and J.C.
BY THE COURT:
'~~
DAVID W. BARRON
PRESIDENT JUDGE
14