In the Interest of: K.W., Appeal of: L.C.W.

J-S34017-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: L.C.W., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 570 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000228-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: L.C.W., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 571 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000230-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: L.C.W., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 572 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000229-2021
J-S34017-22
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 21, 2022
L.C.W. (Father) appeals from the orders involuntarily terminating his
parental rights to his three daughters: K.W., K.L.W. (a/k/a K.W.), and M.W.1
Upon review, we affirm.
K.W., K.L.W., and M.W. (Children) are the youngest of Father’s eight
children. K.W. and K.L.W. are twins, born in October 2018; M.W. was born in
May 2020. The family has been involved with the Allegheny County Office of
Children, Youth & Families (CYF) since 2001. The orphans’ court explained:
Mother and Father have a lengthy history with CYF in
Allegheny County. Their oldest child was born on August 17,
2001, and CYF referrals date back to 2001, when he was a baby
and removed from their care. Beginning in 2008, the referrals to
CYF became more “consistent,” according to the caseworker. In
March 2018, CYF received a referral that the parents’ oldest child
was locked up inside the home and was not “let out to go to school,
use the bathroom, shower or eat.” Their oldest child was removed
from their home and a corresponding Childline [report], for
unreasonably restraining or confining a child, was subsequently
indicated. CYF filed a petition for dependency on the oldest child
and three other children [not K.W., K.L.W. or M.W.] that were
residing in the home at the time. The oldest child was adjudicated
dependent and CYF withdrew the petitions on the three other
children in July 2018. Because the oldest child was dependent,
CYF remained active with the family and provided various
services, which included bus tickets to assist with transportation
needs. The caseworker testified that fifty tickets were requested
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of J.D.E., a/k/a J.W.
(Mother), who has appealed at 584 WDA 2022, 586 WDA 2022, and 587 WDA
2022. This Court consolidated Mother’s appeals on June 15, 2022, and listed
Mother’s appeal for disposition by this panel on October 3, 2022.
-2-
J-S34017-22
and provided in October 2018, which corresponded to when K.W.
and K.L.W. were born.
In late November 2019, CYF received a referral from
Children’s Hospital regarding the twins. Dr. Adelaide Eichman, a
stipulated expert in child abuse and pediatrics, testified about her
involvement with K.W. and K.L.W. at the time of their admission
to Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh on November 26, 2019. Dr.
Eichman testified that upon examination,
the twins were 13 months old. The girls were quite
small. They weighed about 11 pounds, which is
roughly the size of a two-month-old. So the girls were
very tiny in terms of height and weight. They had
badly controlled eczema on their skin. And the girls
were developmentally delayed. They were at the level
of a nine-month-old, approximately, at that point.
The twins were also found to have Vitamin D deficient
rickets, which per Dr. Eichman, is a bone condition caused by a
lack of Vitamin D in their diet prior to the hospital admission. Dr.
Eichman testified that she recommended hospitalization for two
reasons. Dr. Eichman said that the twins were so malnourished
that they exhibited signs of refeeding syndrome, due to electrolyte
abnormalities, which required the refeeding to be done slowly and
carefully. Dr. Eichman also recommended hospitalization to
ensure that the twins did not have an underlying medical condition
that was the cause of their low weight. Parents were not receptive
to the twins being hospitalized, per Dr. Eichman.
Dr. Eichman testified her medical conclusion was that the
twins did not have a medical condition that prevented them from
gaining weight and that their low weight was a result of an
inadequate diet. Mother told Dr. Eichman when the twins were
initially hospitalized, that the twins were breastfeeding every two
hours, that they were on a vegan diet but ate chicken fingers, and
Mother was giving them some kind of supplement. Dr. Eichman
testified that Mother stated “she kept herself alkalined” but Dr.
Eichman was not familiar with what kind of diet that was.
Dr. Eichman stated that the twins did not have celiac
disease. Additionally, the eczema that they had, while a common
skin condition, was not well-controlled and as a result[,] the twins
were scratching quite a bit until it cracked and bled. Dr. Eichman
-3-
J-S34017-22
also testified that the children each functioned with the
developmental abilities of a nine-month-old, despite being
thirteen months of age. The parents reported to Dr. Eichman that
the twins “had many words;” however, Dr. Eichman had only
heard them babble. Dr. Eichman testified that the twins were
observably different, in that they were smaller and not as
developmentally advanced for their age, and a reasonable
caregiver would be able to recognize that they were not on track
with growth or development. After their admission on November
26, 2019, the twins were discharged from the hospital on
December 5, 2019, to the care of their parents. The parents met
with the nutritionist and the general pediatrics team during the
twins’ hospitalization, and they were provided with verbal and
written instructions regarding their care and feeding, per Dr.
Eichman. Additionally, multiple weight checks were scheduled for
the twins post-discharge, which included bringing them into the
office and a home nurse coming to the family home. Dr. Eichman
testified that during their hospitalization, the twins were gaining,
on average, twenty grams per day, which was viewed favorably in
the light of the feeding schedule put in place to avoid refeeding
syndrome.
Despite the instruction and education provided to the
parents, the scheduled appointments for weight checks in the
home and the doctor’s office, and the evidence that the twins were
capable of gaining weight as demonstrated during their
hospitalization, the twins were readmitted to Children’s Hospital
in January 2020. Dr. Eichmann testified that the readmission was
due to the fact that they were not showing the weight gain that
would have been expected while in Parents’ care and because the
parents had missed several of the twins’ doctors appointments.
Moreover, the eczema that had been treated with topical steroids
had not improved while in Parents’ care.
CYF obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization to
remove the twins in January 2020 and the caseworker testified
that at the time of the removal the twins appeared very small.
Mother had told CYF that she had the twins “on a vegan diet and
that she was also breastfeeding but also feeding them smoothies
with fruit, hemp seeds, walnut milk.” The caseworker testified
that despite being hospitalized twice in a two-month time frame
due to nutritional deficiencies[,] and discussions with the parents
about the severity of the twins’ presentation in November 2019[,]
-4-
J-S34017-22
Mother and Father did not seem to understand how serious the
situation was.
After the twins’ removal in January 2020, CYF put in
Homebuilders, a thirty-day intensive in-home services program,
to support the family. Homebuilders’ goal, per CYF, was to work
with the parents with scheduling and keeping appointments and
addressing the children’s needs. The parents did not appear to
gain any additional insight from these services and Homebuilders
suggested that Parents receive a neuropsychological evaluation,
as well as in-home mental health services. The caseworker
testified that the twins were placed into [a] foster home at that
time and eventually moved into a relative[’s] foster home in April
2020.
Mother had her eighth child, M.W., on May 16, 2020, and
CYF obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization that same day.
At the hospital discharge, the newborn[, M.W.,] was placed into
the same relative[’s] foster home as the twins. The twins were
adjudicated dependent on May 20, 2020. CYF filed a petition for
dependency on [M.W.,] the newborn, based on the significant
concerns the agency had with respect to the parents’ ability to
appropriately feed and follow through with medical appointments.
M.W., the newborn, was adjudicated dependent on June 25, 2020.
Between the November 2019 hospitalization and the January 2020
hospitalization, twelve Childline [reports] were filed and indicated
against Mother and Father for causing serious medical neglect,
failure to provide proper nutrition and hydration, and failure to
provide proper medical care.
[The orphans’ c]ourt need not recite the extensive findings
within the permanency review orders with respect to Mother and
Father, as they are evident within []CYF Exhibit 5 - Certified Court
orders. Without question, at the time the termination petitions
were filed by CYF on November 4, 2021, and at the time of the
termination proceedings on April 8, 2022, Mother and Father had
made minimal progress towards remedying the issues and were
in minimal compliance with the family service plan goals, despite
CYF offering and providing services and evaluations aimed at
efforts to reunify. See CYF Exhibit 5 - Certified Court Orders.
At the time of the termination hearing, the twins (K.W. and
K.L.W.) were three and a half years old and had been in care
twenty-seven consecutive months. M.W. was almost two years
-5-
J-S34017-22
old and had been in care her entire life, twenty-three consecutive
months. Not subject to the instant matter, Mother and Father’s
oldest child resided outside of the home, and the three older
sisters resided in the care of Parents, all four of whom are
dependent.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/27/22, at 2-8 (record citations and footnotes
omitted).
The orphans’ court conducted the termination hearing on April 8, 2022.
The Children were represented by legal counsel “appointed by court order,
after [the orphans’] court conducted a conflict analysis.” Id. at 2. CYF
presented testimony from Dr. Eichman; CYF caseworker, Ashley Hobbs;
licensed psychologist, Dr. Terry O’Hara; and licensed psychologist Dr. Beth
Bliss. Father, Mother, and the Children’s maternal grandmother testified in
opposition to termination. By orders dated April 8, 2022, and entered April
19, 2022, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights pursuant to
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2),(5),(8) and (b). Father timely appealed.2 Both
Father and the orphans’ court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Father presents the following questions for review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
law in granting the petition[s] to involuntarily terminate Father’s
parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2)?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
law in granting the petition[s] to involuntarily terminate Father’s
parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(5) and (8)?
____________________________________________
2Father filed separate notices of appeal for each child. This Court consolidated
the appeals sua sponte. Order, 5/31/22.
-6-
J-S34017-22
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
law in concluding that CYF met its burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights
would best serve the needs and welfare of the children pursuant
to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?
Father’s Brief at 10-11.
In considering Father’s issues,
our standard of review requires [us to] accept the findings of fact
and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are
supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported,
appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an
error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, an
abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing
court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a
decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon
demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality,
prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
As [the Supreme Court] discussed in In re: R.J.T., [9 A.3d 1179,
1190 (Pa. 2010)], there are clear reasons for applying an abuse
of discretion standard of review in these cases. [U]nlike trial
courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific
determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are
observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often
presiding over numerous other hearings 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 S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (some citations
omitted).
-7-
J-S34017-22
CYF has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its
asserted grounds for termination were valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276
(Pa. Super. 2009). “[T]he 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. Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, “the court must
engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights.” In re
L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). Initially, the focus is on the
conduct of the parent pursuant to § 2511(a). Id.
Section 2511(a)
With respect to grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), we need
only agree “as to any one subsection in order to affirm
the termination of parental rights.” In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 478 (Pa. Super.
2010). Instantly, we address the second subsection, which provides for
termination when
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. § 2511(a)(2).
Subsection 2511(a)(2) “emphasizes the child’s present and future need
for ‘essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical
or mental well-being.’” In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa. Super. 2008)
-8-
J-S34017-22
(citation omitted). Grounds for termination under subsection (a)(2) are not
limited to affirmative misconduct. Id. “Where the parent does not exercise
reasonable firmness in declining to yield to obstacles, h[is parental] rights
may be forfeited.” Id. at 83. Grounds for termination under § 2511(a)(2)
may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties.
In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2021). We have long recognized
that a parent is required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt
assumption of full parental responsibilities. In re Adoption of M.A.B., 166
A.3d 434, 443 (Pa. Super. 2017).
Father argues the orphans’ court erred in finding grounds for
termination under Section 2511(a)(2) because there was insufficient proof
“that repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal exists.”
Father’s Brief at 21. Father claims he “met his goals that were established by
both the agency and the [c]ourt [].” Id. at 15. He references his goals of
attending Children’s medical appointments, visiting with Children, and
“understand[ing] actually what had happened to the children.” Id. at 23
(citing N.T., 4/8/22, at 38). Father states, “CYF presented no evidence that
indicated that the parents did not attend the medical appointments” or “did
not attend visits.” Id. at 24. He concludes: “Thus, Father completed this
goal.” Id. Father also references his testimony with respect to his
“understanding the Children’s medical issues,” and “some deficiencies by the
parents that were remedied.” Id. at 25. Again, he claims he “completed this
-9-
J-S34017-22
goal.” Id. He adds “this family has had stable and appropriate housing for
eight years.” Id. (citing N.T., 4/8/22, at 170). He emphasizes that he and
Mother have “raised multiple children together,” and have a “stable and
healthy romantic relationship.” Id. at 25 (citing N.T., 4/8/22, at 128). He
also emphasizes that he and Mother have no criminal history, “substance
abuse issues or mental health problems”3 and “are both medically healthy.”
Id. at 26 (citing N.T., 4/8/22, at 128-129). Finally, Father refers to evidence
demonstrating he can “properly parent” Children, including his “involvement
with Arsenal for parenting assistance” and working “with a developmental
therapist to learn the best parenting[.]” Id. at 26 (citing N.T., 4/8/22, at
175). Father concludes that he met his parenting goals, and “[t]hat, along
with Father’s understanding of the feeding issue, show that termination should
not be granted.” Id. at 27.
To the contrary, CYF argues:
The parents do not have the judgment or insight to progress to an
understanding and acknowledgement of [C]hildren’s medical
condition and an acceptance of the responsibility for it. The
parents did not progress to more frequent periods of unsupervised
____________________________________________
3 With respect to mental health, CYF caseworker Ashley Hobbs testified “the
family started working with Mercy Behavioral Health in March of 2020,” and
continued “for about a year.” N.T., 4/8/22, at 50. She also stated that in
August 2021, “a service was identified called ABS, which is Adaptive
Behavioral Services. It’s a culturally competent service that could provide
telehealth appointments for mental health therapy focused around trauma-
related incidents. And this was offered to [Father and Mother].” Id. Ms.
Hobbs testified that neither parent participated with ABS, and never
acknowledged “to any service provider or the agency that they have problems
and need treatment.” Id.
- 10 -
J-S34017-22
visitation but had visitation decreased due to their actions. They
barely cooperated with the services offered to them and denied
any problems.
Participant Brief at 21.
Children’s counsel agrees with CYF, stating that the record “is replete
with competent, clear and convincing evidence to sustain” termination.
Appellee Brief at 14. Counsel further states:
While Father has made progress on his court ordered goals, the
primary reason [C]hildren came into care continue[s] to exist.
The evidence in the record supports the [orphans’] [c]ourt’s
findings that Father will not be able to rectify the issues that
[caused C]hildren to remain in care within a reasonable time.
Id.
As indicated by CYF and Children’s counsel, the record belies Father’s
argument. The orphans’ court addressed both parents’ shortcomings:
With respect to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(2), the orphans’
c]ourt found that CYF clearly and convincingly proved the requisite
grounds. Goals were set forth for Mother and Father in order to
remedy the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal that caused
[C]hildren to be without proper parental care necessary for their
physical and mental well-being. These goals included parenting,
visitation, cooperation with service providers and the agency, and
of significant import[], some demonstrated accountability and
understanding of what happened that lead to the twins’ severe
malnutrition and developmental delays.
Mother and Father’s efforts on addressing the goals
throughout this case could be best described as stagnant. At each
and every permanency review hearing, the [orphans’ c]ourt found
that Mother and Father made “minimal progress” towards
alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original
placement. Parents both appeared to be perpetually stuck and
would regularly revisit the reasons why [C]hildren were removed
and adjudicated dependent despite the orphans’ c]ourt, at each
- 11 -
J-S34017-22
hearing, encouraging the parents to address the goals and
ordering services to assist their efforts towards reunification.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/27/22, at 12-13.
The record supports the orphans’ court’s determination that Father
evidenced an incapacity to properly parent Children. For example, Ms. Hobbs
testified that both parents were referred for mental health evaluations as
recently as January 2022, but never acknowledged “to any service provider or
the agency that they have problems and need treatment.” N.T., 4/8/22, at
50. Ms. Hobbs opined:
[O]ver the course of over two years, neither of the parents have
taken any form of responsibility for any missed, no-showed,
rescheduled doctors’ appointments that essentially led their
children to come into care. Over the two years that I have worked
with them, there really has been minimal progress with respect to
that.
And with respect to even acknowledging [] other services, if a
service does not occur, it’s the [provider’s] fault. It’s not the
parents’ fault. They do not know how to take responsibility for
even minor things that a person can take responsibility for. And
that would … cause these children to be potentially in harm’s way
moving forward as they get older. There’s a concern that their
educational needs are not going to be met. There’s a concern that
their medical needs will not be met. And any of their other basic
needs may not be met due to the [parents’] lack of responsibility
and acknowledgement across the board, not just specifically the
reasons that the kids came into care.
Id. at 64-65.
The parties stipulated to Dr. O’Hara’s expertise in child and forensic
psychology. Dr. O’Hara performed individual and interactional evaluations of
Father in July 2020. Id. at 98. At that time, Dr. O’Hara concluded Father’s
- 12 -
J-S34017-22
“insight and judgment” was poor, “based on a variety of factors, including lack
of cooperation with services but, moreover, his lack of insight with respect to
the findings from” the Children’s Advocacy Center at Children’s Hospital of
Pittsburgh. Id. at 106. Dr. O’Hara testified:
I’m really limited in what I can say about the parties now. I
haven’t seen them in approximately two years. But at the time of
the evaluations, it was my perspective that mental health
treatment and the services that I outlined in my reports were
strongly advisable for both [Father and Mother].
Id. at 107.
Father was evaluated two years later, in 2022, by Dr. Bliss. The parties
also stipulated to Dr. Bliss being an expert in child and forensic psychology.
Id. at 117. Dr. Bliss performed individual evaluations of Father and Mother;
she first saw Father on February 11, 2022. Id. at 119. Dr. Bliss testified that
initially, neither parent “showed up” for their appointments. Id. at 118. Dr.
Bliss performed an interactional evaluation with Father and the Children. Id.
Dr. Bliss testified:
In the testing that [Father] had completed, it was shown,
he had basically denied having pretty much any problems at all in
any of the areas at all to a degree that’s much lower than typical
or normal and is usually indicative of defensiveness and
guardedness. In the interview, he didn’t really report any
problems at all, which could certainly be true, but also could have
been due to defensiveness.
And one observation that I made was, it was unusual how
often he remembered very specific dates to events, to the point
where either he has an excellent memory, excellent recall of
dates, pretty much every single date he listed out. That is
sometimes something that can be seen with people as a form of
deception. They present -- they try to provide as much
- 13 -
J-S34017-22
information as possible to make it look more accurate than it
actually is.
Id. at 121-22. Dr. Bliss opined that Father’s “judgment and insight in
parenting [was] low.” Id. at 122.
The above evidence supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that Father
“had a goal to cooperate with service providers and CYF and … failed to make
any modicum of progress … throughout the life of the case.” Orphans’ Court
Opinion, 6/27/22, at 21. Accordingly, the court concluded that Father’s
repeated and continued incapacity to parent caused the Children to be without
essential care, and the incapacity could or would not be remedied. 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2). We discern no error in the orphans’ court’s
termination of Father’s parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2).
Section 2511(b)
Father also argues the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights
under Section 2511(b), which requires the orphans’ court to “give primary
consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare
of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Father asserts the court improperly
disregarded evidence of the bond between him and the Children, and the
“psychological detriment to the [C]hildren if their bond with their Father is
severed.” Father’s Brief at 15-16.
CYF recognizes the Children “are bonded to [Father] and the foster
parents.” Participant Brief at 21. However, CYF argues that any detriment to
the Children from termination “would be ameliorated by [Children’s] loving,
- 14 -
J-S34017-22
close and stable relationship with the foster parents.” Id. Similarly, Children’s
counsel argues that termination serves Children’s needs and welfare, stating
“[t]here is no evidence that the [C]hildren would suffer extreme emotional
consequences should contact with Father cease.” Appellee Brief at 14. Upon
review, we agree that the evidence supports the orphans’ court’s decision
regarding the Children’s best interests.
“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.” In
re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). When the court considers a
child’s needs and welfare, the “extent of any [parental] bond analysis ...
necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re
K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. 2008).
[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. Additionally, this
Court stated that the trial court should consider the importance of
continuity of relationships and whether any existing parent-child
bond can be severed without detrimental effects on the child.
In re A.S., 11 A.3d at 483 (citations omitted).
Father’s argument regarding the “psychological detriment to the
children” is not persuasive. We acknowledge Ms. Hobbs’ testimony that
Father’s interactions with Children are appropriate, and Father engages in
- 15 -
J-S34017-22
developmentally appropriate play during visits. N.T., 4/8/22, at 66. Ms.
Hobbs agreed that Father’s “visits [with Children] go well.” Id. at 67. She
also testified that the Children were bonded with their other siblings. Id. at
68. Nonetheless, the orphans’ court concluded:
The court does believe Mother and Father when they express their
love for these three children. However, the twins have been in
care twenty-seven consecutive months and the younger child has
been in care since birth. The [c]ourt accepts the very credible
testimony of Dr. O’Hara and Dr. Bliss, and agrees that that
termination meets the needs and welfare of these children and
termination is in the Children’s best interest. These parents had
two individual evaluations by separate evaluators roughly
eighteen months apart and these evaluations
demonstrated that neither Mother nor Father were any
further along in gaining the necessary judgment and
insight to parent these children. Furthermore, Mother and
Father failed to present any credible testimony or evidence to
overcome the evidence that overwhelmingly supported this
conclusion. This [c]ourt found that any potential negative
impact would be mitigated by the fact that the [Children]
have been in relative placement this entire time and have
exposure and contact with additional, extended family
members, who also love and support them. For these
reasons, the [c]ourt did not commit an error of law or abuse of
discretion in finding that termination best met the needs and
welfare of these children.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/27/22, at 29-30 (emphasis added). The record
supports the orphans’ court’s findings.
As discussed, Dr. Bliss conducted individual and interactional
evaluations of Father, Mother, the Children and the foster parents. When
asked whether the Children were “able to be reunified with [Father and
Mother?],” Dr. Bliss answered, “no.” N.T., 4/8/22, at 131. Children have lived
with the foster parents, who are a pre-adoptive resource, since 2020. Dr.
- 16 -
J-S34017-22
Bliss testified that the Children are bonded with the foster parents, and
observed their interaction to be positive and appropriate. Id. at 127-28.
Ms. Hobbs testified that the foster parents meet the Children’s emotional
and developmental needs. Id. at 63. She also stated:
I have observed a clear and definite bond and attachment
between the foster parents and the [C]hildren. … The girls seem
very comfortable with the foster parents. They’re very happy
when they’re around them. They smile, they go to them if they
need something. They’ll ask questions and say, auntie or uncle,
can you get me this, can you do that. They often are sitting on
their laps or playing with them during my visits. And they’re very
attentive to their needs when they need something.
Id. at 62-63. Ms. Hobbs added that the foster parents meet the Children’s
medical and educational needs, and opined that termination of Father’s
parental rights would serve the Children’s needs and welfare. Id. at 64-65.
Consistent with the foregoing, we discern no error in the termination of
Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/21/2022
- 17 -