In the Int. of: L.L.M., Appeal of: D.M.M.

J-S21004-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.L.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.M.M., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 320 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered January 27, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
2022-0200a,
CP-67-DP-000436-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: L.L.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.M.M., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 338 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered January 26, 2023
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s):
Cp-67-DP-000436-2021
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JULY 13, 2023
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21004-23
D.M.M. (Mother) appeals from the orders1 entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of York County (orphans’ court) granting the petition filed by
the York County Office of Children, Youth & Families (the Agency) to
involuntarily terminate her parental rights to L.L.M. (Child) (d.o.b. October
2021) pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(1), (2), (4), (5)
and (b), and changing the permanency goal to adoption. 2 She argues that
the orphans’ court erred in finding that the Agency provided clear and
convincing evidence to support termination and change of goal to adoption.
We affirm.
I.
A.
On December 24, 2021, the Agency received a General Protective
Service (GPS) referral alleging that Mother had given the then approximately
two-month-old Child Tylenol in her milk. That day, Mother had brought Child
to York Hospital because she “knew” Child was in pain. Hospital personnel
were concerned that drugs may be in the milk Mother brought to the hospital
because it was tacky and not smelling like milk or milk with Tylenol. Although
____________________________________________
1 Mother filed separate notices of appeal for the order terminating parental
rights and the order changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption. This Court
consolidated the cases sua sponte on March 10, 2023. (See Per Curiam Order,
3/10/23).
2 The orphans’ court also involuntarily terminated the parental rights of
unknown father.
-2-
J-S21004-23
Mother told hospital personnel that the maternal grandmother’s paramour had
physically and/or sexually abused Child, an examination did not reveal any
evidence of such abuse. York Hospital took 24-hour custody of Child due to
concerns for her welfare.
While at the hospital, Mother was allegedly “all over the place” and
assaulted hospital staff. (Application for Emergency Protective Custody,
12/27/21, at ¶ 5). The York City Police Department arrested Mother and she
was assessed for a 302 commitment and admitted to Philhaven Mt. Gretna
Psychiatric Hospital on December 30, 2021. A criminal investigation of Mother
was commenced by the York City Police Department.
On or about December 25, 2021, the Agency received a Child Protective
Service (CPS) referral alleging that results of Child’s medical testing were
positive for cocaine. That day, the Agency filed an application for emergency
protective custody because it had concerns for the safety and welfare of Child.
The emergency petition averred that Child was ready to be discharged from
the hospital and that a foster care placement had been identified. Mother had
attempted to identify relative resources for Child, but she knowingly identified
a deceased relative and the Agency either was unable to contact the other
identified relative resources or they did not respond. The same day, the
orphans’ court awarded temporary legal and physical custody of Child to the
Agency for foster care placement. Child was placed with B.G. and E.G. with
whom she continues to reside.
-3-
J-S21004-23
1.
After a January 5, 2022 shelter care hearing, the court ordered that it
would be in Child’s best interest for physical and legal custody to remain with
the Agency and that her foster care placement continue. The order further
directed that a dependency petition be filed and that supervised visitation be
arranged for Mother two times per week for two hours. The court further
ordered that a hair follicle be taken from Child and turned over to the
appropriate authorities for testinq. (See Shelter Care Order, 1/05/22).
On January 6, 2022, the Agency filed the dependency petition for Child
and on January 13, 2022, after a hearing, the court adjudicated her
dependent. The placement goal was reunification, with a concurrent goal of
adoption. The court ordered that Mother shall:
1. Cooperate with AverHealth and undergo drug and alcohol
testing;
2. Undergo a Level of Care Assessment and follow through with
any and all recommendations;
3. Undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow through with
any and all recommendations;
4. Undergo a psychiatric evaluation and follow through with any
and all recommendations;
5. Undergo a parenting capacity evaluation;
6. Cooperate with parenting classes and follow through with any
and all recommendations;
7. Cooperate with an In-Home Team and follow through with any
and all recommendations;
-4-
J-S21004-23
8. Cooperate with MH-IDD and follow through with any and all
recommendations;
9. Cooperate with [the Agency] and allow announced and
unannounced visits.
(Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 1/13/22, at 3).
2.
The April 14, 2022 status review order observed that Mother is
cooperative with the Catholic Charities and has supervised visitation with Child
two times per week for two hours. Although the visits were appropriate,
Mother reported that there was something “wrong” with Child at every visit.
She was “hyper-focused on the minor child’s vaginal area.” (Status Review
Order, 4/14/22, at 1). Mother is prepared for visits and brings a lot of items
for the foster parents, including diapers, wipes, toys, clothing and shoes. Her
visitation appearance was rated as moderate, with her compliance with
services as minimum to moderate.
Mother missed some drug screens and on February 18, 2022, she tested
positive for cocaine. Mother had an admitted cocaine relapse around March
19, 2022. She completed a drug and alcohol and a psychiatric evaluation
through White Deer Run and participated in White Deer Run of York Outpatient
Services, but was stepped up to an intensive outpatient (IOP) and there was
a possibility at that time that she would be unsuccessfully discharged. She
was only at a 37 percent call-in rate for drug and alcohol testing at Averhealth.
-5-
J-S21004-23
Mother’s specific goals continued to be finding/maintaining employment,
maintaining appropriate housing, developing healthy parenting skills and
maintaining sobriety. Her compliance with these goals was rated at minimum
to moderate, with her completing a parenting assessment on February 28,
2022. (See id. at 1-2).
The April 14, 2022 order also noted that Mother was criminally charged
with endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC) on April 6, 2022. A finding of
abuse hearing was rescheduled for May 4, 2022. Mother was still on probation
from a prior criminal case in Lancaster County, had a warrant for her arrest
and was looking at serving time. Child’s dependency was continued.
3.
A June 9, 2022 permanency review order noted that Mother was in
minimal compliance with her goals and was in prison for violation of the
probation due to the new EWOC charge, so all services were on hold and,
therefore, Mother had made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances
which necessitated the original placement. The permanency goal remained
reunification, with a concurrent goal of adoption. Child was to remain in foster
care. (See Permanency Review Order, 6/09/22).
4.
The August 17, 2022 status review order noted, in pertinent part, that
Mother was released from Lancaster County Prison and was on probation.
Although she claimed she was employed full-time at Syncreon, Mother had
-6-
J-S21004-23
not provided any information on employment or financial stability to the
Agency as ordered. Mother had found her own housing in Manchester,
Pennsylvania. She made minimal progress with Catholic Charities where she
was working on healthy coping skills and recognizing healthy relationships.
There were concerns with Mother being overly worried about the timeline of
progression and Child’s vaginal area.
Mother was only sporadically testing with Averhealth; having “no
showed” approximately 16 times and was at 69 percent for call-in. She tested
positive for marijuana on four separate occasions, although she does not have
a medical marijuana card and tested positive for creatine three times.
Mother’s goal to maintain sobriety was rated as minimum due to the positive
testing.
Mother visited with Child two times per week, but missed visits on June
21, June 28 and July 21, 2022, resulting in her being put on an attendance
contract on July 21, 2022. Since the attendance contract, Mother consistently
attended visits, bringing appropriate snacks for Child.
The order also noted that the hair follicle drug screen for Child had been
completed on January 20, 2022, and the test was positive for cocaine at a
level in excess of the highest level tested by Averhealth, and she also tested
positive for Benzoylecgonine which is a metabolite of cocaine. As a result, the
court found that Child was an abuse victim, with Mother as the perpetrator.
(See Status Review Order, 8/17/22, at 2-3).
-7-
J-S21004-23
5.
The November 16, 2022 permanency review order found that Mother
was in minimal compliance with the permanency plan and in alleviating the
circumstances that led to Child’s placement. She changed housing without
providing the Agency with a new address, failed to report employment to the
Agency, and missed several scheduled drug tests with Averhealth, with the
one test that she successfully completed coming back positive for THC.
Mother’s call-in compliance was 57 percent since the last hearing. Once
Justiceworks was added for more consistent testing, Mother refused to test.
There were five tests scheduled between the last permanency review hearing
and the November 16, 2022 hearing, and she only tested once (on the day of
the November hearing) with a positive result for alcohol. She was not
compliant with drug treatment.
Mother was inconsistent with attendance at visitation, although she did
provide diapers, wipes, extensive clothing, shoes and gifts for Child when she
did appear. PA Child opened with Mother September 13, 2022. Since that
time, there have been 18 scheduled visits. Nine of them occurred in person,
one was held via Zoom and eight were cancelled for Mother’s failure to call to
confirm the visit despite being aware of this requirement per the visitation
contract she had signed. Mother was scheduled for a visit on the day of the
permanency review hearing, but she did not call in to confirm.
-8-
J-S21004-23
Mother’s intensive family service team through Catholic Charities closed
her file due to her non-compliance with their visitation confirmation policy.
The permanency review order noted that a November 3, 2022 permanency
meeting was held with the family, including Mother, ICPC resource and other
family members, but the family was abusive to the caseworker in the meeting.
(See Permanency Review Order, 11/14/22).
On December 7, 2022, the Agency filed the petition to terminate
parental rights. The court held a hearing on January 26, 2023.
B.
At the termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing, the Agency
reunification and permanency caseworker Elyse Nangle, Catholic Charities
intensive family services therapist Christianne Brennan, PA Child family
advocate Brittany Sunday, PA Child caseworker Valerie Acito, CASA
representative Betsy Keefer and foster mother E.G. testified on behalf of the
Agency.
1.
In addition to the foregoing facts, Ms. Nangle testified that she has been
involved with the family since the case’s commencement 13 months prior to
the TPR hearing.
Ms. Nangle testified that the Agency had offered Mother all services
available, and that overall she has not been successful because has not
actively and consistently engaged in mental health treatment, did not
-9-
J-S21004-23
complete the parenting capacity evaluation and a drug and alcohol evaluation
with a treatment provider but was discharged for non-compliance. She
completed a second drug and alcohol evaluation in November 2022 but was
inconsistent in drug and alcohol treatment and drug testing. Of the 18
scheduled tests since the last hearing, Mother attended 11 of them and had
been no shows for seven. She was at 99 percent call-in compliance so she
was aware of the scheduled tests. On February 18, 2022, Mother tested
positive for cocaine. On March 15 and 16, 2022, and November 21, 2022, she
tested positive for creatine. On July 26, 2022, July 27, 2022, August 10,
2022, August 12, 2022, and September 9, 2022, she was positive for THC
despite not having a medical marijuana card.
Ms. Nangle had excused some drug tests for Mother’s employment
because she provided the Agency with her work schedule that showed she had
to work. Mother had told the Agency she worked for Syncreon and for
Wolfgang and was doing hair on the side. However, despite Ms. Nangle’s
repeated reminders to Mother that she had been ordered to provide the
Agency with paystubs to prove that she actually worked, she failed to provide
them until the last couple of weeks before the TPR hearing.
Mother had not made any child support payments to Domestic Relations
or directly to the Child’s foster family and was not even in the Domestic
Relations system. Mother did not complete the psychiatric or threat of harm
evaluations. She had not engaged in court-ordered parenting classes or
- 10 -
J-S21004-23
trauma therapy and has been inconsistent with visitation because of her failure
to confirm the visits pursuant to the visitation contract. Due to her
inconsistency and her initial obsession with wiping Child’s vaginal area (which
had only ended approximately one month before the TPR hearing), Mother’s
visitation has remained supervised throughout the life of the case. She had
started receiving services with Pressley Ridge two weeks before the hearing
due to her unsuccessful discharge from Catholic Charities.
Mother has had six different addresses since the January 2021
adjudication. Although Mother kept the Agency informed of the moves, Ms.
Nangle stated that Mother has not maintained safe, stable and appropriate
housing for her and Child. For example, she had recently moved and there
were some major concerns about the new residence because Mother was living
with a friend who had a charge in her criminal background that would require
a threat of harm evaluation for which the Agency would not pay.
Ms. Nangle noted that Mother was incarcerated from April 2022 to June
2022 for a probation violation. The court had made a finding of abuse against
Mother based on the referrals the Agency had received and the investigation
into the allegations. Mother’s criminal EWOC (Child was the victim) case was
still pending at the time of the TPR hearing, but Mother was facing the
potential of nine to 16 months’ imprisonment if convicted.
When the Agency first received the referrals in December 2021, Mother
identified an individual as Child’s father. However, after that, she identified
- 11 -
J-S21004-23
two other gentlemen before finally saying she did not know who Child’s father
was. No one has come forward as Child’s father.
Ms. Nangle observes Child monthly in her foster home. Child is doing
extremely well and meeting all milestones with her foster parents, B.G. and
E.G., who are a pre-adoptive resource. Child is spoiled and the “apple of the
eye in the home.” She refers to B.G. and E.G. as mom and dad and is very
bonded with them and her ten-year-old foster sister. Mother does provide
items like diapers, wipes and clothes when she has visits with Child, had a
little birthday party for her and texted on Christmas to see how Child was
doing. However, she does not perform any parental duties and, although Child
goes to her without issue, Ms. Nangle had not heard Child call her “mom.”
Ms. Nangle said Child has a stronger parental bond with her foster parents.
Ms. Acito observed that Child is comfortable with Mother but could not say if
there is a bond. She testified that Child is excited to see the foster family
after the visits. Ms. Keefer testified that she has visited Child at her foster
home three times and corroborated the testimony that Child is thriving there
and is very bonded with her foster parents and foster sister, who is a “little
mama” to Child. This testimony was corroborated by E.G. and Child’s legal
counsel agreed that Child is clearly bonded with her foster parents, very
comfortable in their home and considers them her parental figures.
Mother does not engage in any day-to-day care of Child and Ms. Nangle
said she was not in a position to obtain physical custody of Child. Ms. Nangle
- 12 -
J-S21004-23
testified that Mother has not made substantial progress in alleviating the
conditions that led to Child’s placement because she has not obtained and
maintained a suitable home, was not demonstrably employed until right
before the TPR hearing, had not gotten mental health treatment and was not
addressing her drug and alcohol issues despite being given a reasonable
period of time to remedy the conditions that led to Child’s removal. Mother
had not made diligent efforts toward resuming her parental duties and only
worked with some of the services offered by the Agency necessary for
reunification.
Ms. Nangle testified that the Agency believed it would be in Child’s best
interest to terminate Mother’s parental rights because consistency and
stability are key for Child, which her foster parents have given to her. The
Agency recommended that Child’s goal be changed to adoption and that she
remain with her foster parents, B.G. and E.G.
2.
Christian Services caseworker Ms. Brennan testified that they opened
services with Mother on February 16, 2022, and she generally met with Mother
once per week. The major goals that were originally set for Mother were for
her to recognize healthy versus unhealthy relationships and to utilize healthy
coping skills for anger and depression. Steps of the goal also included
addressing drugs and alcohol. Mother’s compliance was minimal to moderate
with her therapeutic goals rated as minimal.
- 13 -
J-S21004-23
Although Mother’s attendance was good at Christian Services, she had
started the IOP with another treatment agency and her compliance on the
drugs and alcohol issues was moderate. She addressed Mother’s March
positive test result for cocaine with her and Mother acknowledged the positive
test. Ms. Brennan stated that Mother would benefit from continued drug and
alcohol therapy and therapeutic mental health therapy due to her trauma
history. Although Mother has been open and honest with Ms. Brennan,
addressing underlying trauma has been a struggle.
3.
Family advocate Brittany Sunday was working with Mother on her goals
to find and maintain employment, maintain appropriate housing, learn
effective parenting skills, utilize community resources and maintain sobriety.
She described Mother’s employment progress as minimal to moderate, her
efforts to obtain and maintain appropriate housing as moderate, and parenting
skills goal was minimal to moderate. Although Mother is more open to
visitation suggestions from Ms. Sunday, she was hyper-focused on concerns
about Child’s vaginal area until approximately a month before the hearing.
Ms. Sunday testified that Mother’s progress with visitation is minimal to
moderate, with her coming prepared to visits bringing diapers and toys and
interacting with Child. She said that Mother was making some progress at
maintaining sobriety because, although she did test positive for drugs, she
was honest with the treatment agency and had started the IOP with them.
- 14 -
J-S21004-23
Ms. Sunday testified that Mother started working at Syncreon at the end
of March, but she was unsure if she still worked there at the time of the TPR
hearing. When questioned by the court, Mother said that she is still employed
at Sycreon and that they told her she will have a job there after she gets out
of jail if she is convicted of EWOC.
At the conclusion of the January 26, 2022 hearing, the court found clear
and convincing evidence to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8) and 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2511(b).
Mother timely appealed and filed a contemporaneous Rule 1925(b)
statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). She argues that she was making
reasonable efforts to utilize the Agency’s services, is forming a bond with Child
and that she has alleviated the circumstances that gave rise to Child’s
removal. (See Mother’s Brief, at 9).3
____________________________________________
3 We review the orphans’ court’s order for an abuse of discretion. See In re
G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover,
“[w]e give great deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.” In re Interest of
D.F., 165 A.3d 960, 966 (Pa. Super. 2017). “We must employ a broad,
comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial
court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.” In re S.H., 879 A.2d
802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005). “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.” In re A.S., 11 A.3d
473, 477 (Pa. Super. 2010). “If competent evidence supports the trial court’s
findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite
result.” Id.- 15 -
J-S21004-23
II.
It is well-settled that the party seeking termination must provide clear
and convincing evidence to do so. See In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d
343, 358 (Pa. 2021). “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. (citation and brackets omitted). The court terminated
Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1),(2), (4), (5) and (b)
of the Adoption Act. However, “[w]e need only agree with [the trial court’s]
decision as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a) and subsection (b) in
order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” Int. of K.M.W., 238 A.3d
465, 473 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citation omitted).
We conclude that the orphans’ court correctly determined that the
Agency met its burden of proof pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(2) and (b),
which provide:
(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.
* * *
- 16 -
J-S21004-23
(b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any
efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein
which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (b).
A.
Mother argues that the evidence was not clear and convincing that she
has not or will not accomplish the goals for reunification. She maintains that
the ground for removal was her use of cocaine, which she was remedied since
her last positive drug test for cocaine was in February 2022. (See Mother’s
Brief, at 12-13). Furthermore, she argues that there was a concern about her
hypersensitivity to Child’s vaginal area when wiping, which was no longer an
issue by the time of the TPR hearing. (See id. at 13). Finally, she maintains
that she has been in drug and alcohol treatment since November 2022. (See
id.).
We first address the court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2).
To satisfy the requirements of Section 2511(a)(2), the moving
party must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or
refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care,
control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity,
- 17 -
J-S21004-23
abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied. The
grounds for termination are not limited to affirmative misconduct,
but concern parental incapacity that cannot be remedied. Parents
are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably
prompt assumption of full parental duties.
In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 443 (Pa. Super. 2021), appeal denied,
258 A.3d 1144 (Pa. 2021) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
This Court has held that “[p]arental duty is best understood in relation
to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support.”
In re Adoption of A.C., 162 A.3d 1123, 1129 (Pa. Super. 2017).
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 [the child’s]
physical and emotional needs.
Id. (citation omitted).
The orphans’ court explains that:
[C]ocaine being found in Mother’s system and in L.L.M.’s system
is what gave rise to the dependency case. And, Mother had last
tested positive for cocaine on February 18, 2022, which was
almost a year prior to the change in goal to adoption. [However,]
Mother had tested positive multiple times for THC (having no
medical marijuana card) and as recently as September of 2022.
Moreover, Mother tested positive for creatine more than once.
And, finally, while Mother had a ninety-nine percent compliance
with calling in and attended eleven drug tests, Mother also had
seven no-shows for drug testing. Stated differently, when it came
to showing up for actual drug testing, Mother failed to present for
testing 39% of the time. It is difficult to detect drugs, especially
cocaine, when a person does not submit to 40% of the testing.
Even if Mother had successfully conquered cocaine, which the
Court does not believe occurred given Mother’s failure to present
for testing 39% of the time in the testing period immediately prior
- 18 -
J-S21004-23
to termination coupled with her multiple positives for creatine over
the course of testing and as recently as November 21, 2022,
L.L.M. was removed from Mother’s care due to drugs yet Mother
continued to use the illicit substance of THC for which she had no
medical marijuana card. Given the genesis and history of the
case, Mother’s history of not showing up for drug testing up until
the termination hearing, coupled with all of Mother’s other
failures, combined with the fact that L.L.M. had already been in
placement for going on thirteen months, compelled the Court to
conclude that more time would not have permitted Mother to
remedy any of the myriad causes of removal.
We note that, “the focus of dependency proceedings is on
the children’s safety, permanency, and well-being—not on
Mother’s conduct.” In re N.C., 2006 PA Super 285, 909 A.2d 818,
[824] (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted). Mother had almost
thirteen months to demonstrate that she had remedied the causes
of removal. More time would not have benefitted Mother and
focusing on the best interests of the child, L.L.M.’s need for
permanency did not allow for any more time to be granted to
Mother to remediate the cause of removal. …
(Orphans’ Ct. Op., at 21-22) (emphasis in original). The record supports the
court’s conclusion.
The Agency filed the initial application for emergency protective custody
in December 2021 due to then two-month-old Child and Mother testing
positive for cocaine. Child was adjudicated dependent in January 2022 and
has remained dependent since that time, with her being out of Mother’s
custody for approximately 13 months and living with the same foster parents,
B.G. and E.G., at the time of the TPR hearing. Mother’s goals for reunification
were established at the January 13, 2021 dependency proceeding and have
remained the same throughout the life of the case. (See Order of Adjudication
and Disposition, 1/13/21, at 3); (N.T. Hearing, at 55-57). Despite being
- 19 -
J-S21004-23
provided with all available Agency services, Mother continued to be unable to
address the circumstances that brought Child into the Agency’s care,
exhibiting a repeated and continued refusal to provide for Child’s physical well-
being. (See N.T. Hearing, at 61-62). Her compliance with her reunification
goals of remedying her substance abuse issues, obtaining stable housing,
providing a verifiable income source (until immediately before the hearing)
and attending trauma therapy were rated as minimal to moderate throughout
the life of the case despite the Agency providing her with all available services.
(See Status Review Order, 4/14/22); (Permanency Review Order, 6/09/22);
(Permanency Review Order, 8/17/22, at 2-3); (Permanency Review Order,
11/16/22, at 2-3); (Status Review Order, 1/26/23, at 2-3); (N.T. Hearing, at
55-57, 61-62).
Specifically, Mother only attended 11 of the 18 drug tests scheduled
between November 11, 2022, and January 26, 2023, despite being aware of
when she was scheduled for testing. (See N.T. Hearing, at 6, 7, 19, 55, 62).
Although we agree with Mother that she last tested positive for cocaine on
February 18, 2022, over the course of the year, she failed to comply with her
reunification goals that she remain drug-free and complete drug and alcohol
testing. She tested positive for marijuana six times and for creatine three
times. (See id. at 7, 62-63). Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from
drug and alcohol treatment at White Deer Run and had not completed the
- 20 -
J-S21004-23
program at Colonial House by the time of the termination hearing. (See N.T.
Hearing, at 56).
Additionally, Mother failed to provide paystubs supporting her claims of
employment until approximately two weeks before the TPR hearing. (See id.
at 7-8, 60). She did not obtain the necessary evaluations regarding her
mental health, nor did she follow through with parenting classes or trauma
therapy. Her compliance with Christian Services’ therapeutic goals of
recognizing healthy versus unhealthy relationships, utilizing healthy coping
skills for anger and depression and addressing drugs and alcohol issues was
minimal to moderate, and she was unsuccessfully discharged from the
Catholic Charities in-home team and started with Pressley Ridge two weeks
prior to the TPR hearing. (See id. at 9, 13, 56).
Mother’s visitation with Child has been inconsistent due to her failure to
call in to confirm the visits and they remained supervised throughout the life
of the case due to her inconsistency. (See id. at 8, 56-57, 61). Mother did
not provide for Child’s day-to-day care or provide financial support for Child’s
placement. (See id. at 60-61, 64-65). While we are aware that Mother
provided personal care items and toys for Child at her visits with Child and
attends doctor appointments, as observed by the court, this is not fulfilling
her parental duties of providing care and control of Child.
According to Ms. Nangle, Mother did keep the Agency apprised of her
address whenever she moved, but she has failed to maintain safe, stable and
- 21 -
J-S21004-23
appropriate housing for her and Child, with her latest residence being with a
friend who had a prior criminal charge that required a threat of harm
evaluation. (See id. at 10, 59-60). Family advocate Ms. Sunday described
Mother’s employment progress as minimal to moderate, her efforts to obtain
and maintain appropriate housing as moderate and parenting skills goal as
minimal to moderate. (See id. at 19-20). Finally, Mother’s criminal charges
remained outstanding, the projected sentence of which would leave Child
without her parent for at least another nine to 16 months following Mother’s
sentencing. (See id. at 11, 58).
Based on the foregoing, the Agency provided clear and convincing
evidence that Mother has failed to complete the objectives set by the court
and the Agency for reunification, and that this continued refusal has caused
Child to be without essential parental care that will not be reasonably and
promptly remedied . The orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the Agency presented sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to
support termination based on Section 2511(a)(2).
B.
Having determined that the court properly found that termination of
Mother’s parental rights was appropriate under subsection 2511(a)(2), we
now consider whether termination is in Child’s best interest pursuant to
subsection 2511(b).
With respect to Section 2511(b), our analysis focuses on the
effect that terminating the parental bond will have on the child.
- 22 -
J-S21004-23
In particular, we review whether termination of parental rights
would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional
needs and welfare of the child. It is well settled that intangibles
such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the
inquiry into needs and welfare of the child.
One major aspect of the “needs and welfare” analysis
concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond that the
child has with the parent, with close attention paid to the effect
on the child of permanently severing any such bond. The fact that
a child has a bond with a parent does not preclude the termination
of parental rights. Rather, the trial court must examine the depth
of the bond to determine whether the bond is so meaningful to
the child that its termination would destroy an existing, necessary,
and beneficial relationship. Notably, where there is no evidence
of a bond between the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer
that no bond exists.
It is sufficient for the trial court to rely on the opinions of
social workers and caseworkers when evaluating the impact that
termination of parental rights will have on a child. The trial court
may consider intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and
stability the child might have with the foster parent.
Int. of K.M.W., supra at 475 (case citations and most quotation marks
omitted).
At the hearing, the orphans’ court observed:
To the extent that there is a bond between mom and [Child], I
think it’ s a comfortable bond in that she knows you, but I don’t
think that it rises to the level of a full parental bond. I think the
parental bond that [Child] has by the uncontroverted testimony in
this case is that she is fully and complete[ly] bonded as Mother
and Father with [E.G. and B.G.] and she’s fully bonded and
integrated into that family.
I think when it comes to having [Child] in a home,
specifically her home, she’s already there. So that is - to even
compare those two and put them on the same scale, I don’t think
is accurate. I think there is a bond that [Child] has with the [foster
family] that’s the parental bond. I believe there is a familiarity
bond with … biological Mother.
- 23 -
J-S21004-23
(N.T. Hearing, at 94-95). The record supports the orphans’ court’s
observation.
Ms. Nangle testified that she observes Child monthly in her foster home
where she is doing extremely well and meeting all milestones. (See N.T.
Hearing, at 63). Child refers to her foster parents as mom and dad and is
very bonded with her ten-year-old foster sister. (See id. at 63-64). Although
Child would go to Mother without issue, she did not refer to Mother as “mom”
and Ms. Nangle stated that Child had a stronger bond with her foster parents.
(See id. at 67). Ms. Acito stated that it is not clear that Child has any bond
with Mother, although Child appears to be comfortable with her. (See id. at
23). She testified that Child was excited to see her foster family after
returning from visitation with Mother. (See id. at 24). CASA representative
Ms. Keefer corroborated the testimony that Child is thriving and is obviously
very bonded with her foster parents and foster sister. (See id. at 83-84).
Ms. Nangle testified that termination of parental rights to free Child for
adoption would be in Child’s best interest because she needs the consistency
and stability that the foster family has given her. (See id. at 66).
Hence, the record supports the orphans’ court’s finding that the Agency
witnesses established that the termination of Mother’s parental rights would
best serve Child’s interest pursuant to Section 2511(b) and we find no abuse
- 24 -
J-S21004-23
of discretion in its decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child and
to change her goal to adoption.4
____________________________________________
4 The Supreme Court’s recent case, Interest of K.T., --- A.3d ---, 2023 WL
4092986 (Pa. filed June 21, 2023), further bolsters our disposition. K.T. re-
emphasized the “pivotal language” of Section 2511(b) which “clearly
mandates” that courts “shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. ... This of course
requires the court to focus on the child and consider all three categories of
need and welfare.” K.T., --- A.3d at ---, 2023 WL 4092986 at *13. In doing
so, K.T. specifically directs courts “to consider the matter from the child’s
perspective, placing her developmental, physical, and emotional welfare
above concerns for the parent.” Id. (citation omitted; emphases added).
It further noted that courts considering an involuntary termination petition
“must keep the ticking clock of childhood ever in mind. Children are young
for a scant number of years and we have an obligation to see to their healthy
development quickly. Id. --- A.3d at ---, 2023 WL 4092986 at *15 (citation
omitted; original emphasis).
K.T. also emphasized that when it examines whether termination of parental
rights “will destroy a necessary and beneficial relationship, thereby causing a
child to suffer extreme emotional consequences,” Id. --- A.3d at ---, 2023 WL
4092986 at *16 (quotation marks and citation omitted), the court is able to
properly prioritize the child’s needs:
[B]y evaluating the impact of severance to determine if it will
impose more than an adverse or detrimental impact, courts
correctly refine their focus on the child’s development and mental
and emotional health rather than considering only the child’s
“feelings” or “affection” for the parent, which even badly abused
and neglected children will retain.
Id.K.T.’s emphasis on a child’s development and mental and emotional needs
over her “feelings” or “affection” toward her natural parent offers further
support for the involuntary termination of D.M.M.’s parental rights. Although
Child has exhibited some positive feelings for Mother, the termination will not
destroy a necessary and beneficial relationship, resulting in Child suffering
extreme emotional consequences. The testimony was consistent that Child’s
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 25 -
J-S21004-23
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/13/2023
____________________________________________
developmental, physical and emotional welfare will best be served by her
foster parents with whom she is bonded and who provide her with the
permanency and security necessary for her to thrive.
- 26 -