Adoption of: S.R.A., Appeal of: R.W.A., III

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 9, 2026
• Docket: 913 WDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Dubow

Opinion

J-A29013-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: S.R.A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: R.W.A., III, FATHER : : : : : No. 913 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Dated June 25, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court at No(s): 102 of 2024

IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.R.A., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: R.W.A., III, FATHER : : : : : No. 914 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered July 9, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 103 of 2024

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: March 9, 2026

Appellant, R.W.A., III (“Father”), appeals from the orders that

involuntarily terminated his parental rights to four-year-old S.R.A and three-

year-old N.R.A (collectively, “Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and

(b). Upon review, we find that the record is devoid of clear and convincing

evidence to terminate parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b) and,

therefore, we are constrained to vacate and remand for further proceedings. J-A29013-25

The following procedural and factual history is relevant to this appeal.

Children’s mother, M.A.A. (“Mother”), has an extensive history with child

welfare agencies in various counties due to illegal drug use, homelessness,

and child neglect. Mother has a total of thirteen children, eleven of whom

have been removed from her care. Mother and Father are engaged in an on-

again, off-again romantic relationship. The Westmoreland County Children’s

Bureau (“the Agency”) has been involved with the family since March of 2020

due to numerous referrals regarding Mother’s and Father’s illegal drug use,

lack of supervision of Children, and inadequate housing. Additionally, Father

has a traumatic brain injury and resulting intellectual disabilities. On June 23,

2023, the trial court adjudicated Children dependent and implemented court-

ordered supervision after the family refused to cooperate with services. On

June 28, 2023, the Agency obtained emergency custody after Children and

their older two siblings, then ranging in age from infant to nine years old, were

spotted at a local Dollar General Store without adult supervision begging for

food. Children were left outside the store in strollers with soiled diapers.

Video surveillance showed the older siblings attempting to open cans of food

in the store and one of the older siblings smoking a vape pen. Children and

their two older siblings all exhibited extremely poor hygiene. Notably,

Children tested positive for cocaine and methamphetamines, presumably from

drug residue in the home. Children were placed in foster care where they

remain.

-2- J-A29013-25

Father was ordered to comply with random drug screens, undergo a

drug and alcohol evaluation and comply with recommendations, participate in

recommended parenting classes, maintain stable, appropriate and clean

housing, and maintain a legal and verifiable source of income.

The trial court held regular permanency review hearings and

consistently found Father’s compliance to be minimal. On November 22,

2024, the Agency filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental

rights to Children. The trial court appointed Emily K. Trisoline, Esq., to serve

as legal counsel as well as guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for Children, after finding

there was no conflict in Attorney Trisoline serving in the dual role.

The trial court held hearings on May 1, 2025, and May 29, 2025. With

regards to Father, the Agency presented testimony from Jean DeFilippis,

owner of ARC Point Labs; Richelle O’Malley, part-owner of In-Clusion, LLC;

Jena Clair, visitation supervisor at UPMC Western Behavior Health at Mon-

Yough; Veronica Stein, Assistant Director of Sunrise Step-by-Step Parent

Education; Shelly Weaver, counselor at In-Clusion, LLC; and Karyl Piper,

Agency caseworker.

Ms. DeFilippis testified that her company attempted to screen Father for

drug and alcohol use 176 times and that 65 attempts were unsuccessful. She

testified that Father tested positive 34 times for cocaine and

methamphetamine. Ms. DeFilippis explained that Father’s most recent

positive screen was on April 25, 2025, a week prior to the first day of

termination proceedings. She testified that Children were tested for illegal

-3- J-A29013-25

substances one and two days after being removed from Mother’s care. S.R.A

and N.R.A. tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine, J.D.C. and

G.T.N. tested positive for cocaine. She explained that the tests showed that

Children were exposed to these substances more than once in the three-

month period prior to Children’s removal from Mother’s care.

Dr. O’Malley conducted an interactional evaluation between Father and

Children in July of 2023 when Children first came into the custody of the

Agency. Dr. O’Malley rated Father’s “insight and judgment” as “poor” due to

Father’s denial of his substance abuse and failure to understand why Children

were not in his custody. N.T. Hr’g, 5/1/25, at 40. Dr. O’Malley testified that

Father was not particularly interactive during the evaluation and failed to

identify safety risks. Dr. O’Malley recommended hands-on parenting

instruction and nutrition training.

Ms. Clair testified that she supervised visits between Father and Children

and offered parenting classes to Father. Ms. Clair testified that Father

attended 31 out of 65 visits and 12 of 18 parenting sessions. Ms. Clair testified

that she had concerns regarding Father’s ability to focus, retain information,

and maintain attention towards Children for long period of time. Ms. Clair

testified that Father would play with Children appropriately and when Father

was consistently visiting with them, Children would exhibit an “increased level

of affection” towards Father. Id. at 113. Ms. Clair testified that Father would

cuddle with Children during some visits and Children would occasionally cry

when visits ended.

-4- J-A29013-25

Ms. Stein testified that her agency began to work with Father in

November 2024 to offer services to assist with Father’s traumatic brain injury,

including parenting classes and supervised visitation. Ms. Stein testified that

Father attended 7 out of 13 visits. She reported that Father made minimal

progress and that she would have safety concerns if Father’s visits were

changed to unsupervised.

Ms. Weaver testified that her agency was contracted twice to provide

“non-offender treatment”1 to Father and to offer general counseling and to

work with Father on “healthy relationships within the family unit and with the

kids.” Id. at 166. Father was non-compliant, attending 10 out of 31 offered

sessions. Father was unsuccessfully discharged twice.

Ms. Piper testified that, in totaling the number of visits offered by the

three agencies, Father attended 87 out of 183 visits. She testified that Father

has made no progress to resolve any of the issues which brought Children into

foster care. Ms. Piper testified that the Agency is recommending termination

of Father’s parental rights.

Ms. Piper testified that Children are placed together in a pre-adoptive

home with their older sibling. Ms. Piper testified that the foster parents are

meeting Children’s needs and that Children are involved in an early head start

program. She testified that Children are up to date with all necessary medical

appointments and attend school regularly. Ms. Piper testified that the foster

____________________________________________

1 It is unclear from the record what “non-offender treatment” refers to.

-5- J-A29013-25

family meets all of Children’s “needs developmentally, physically, and

emotionally” and Children are all “observed to have a close relationship with

their foster families[.]” Id. at 208. Ms. Piper testified, “[a]ll [C]hildren are

observed to be happy, healthy. They’re doing well. . . . Previously on occasion

there would be some behavioral concerns after visits [but] since the parents

are visiting minimally, if at all, there have been no behaviors reported.” Id.

at 209. She testified that Children “often cry and hide when they know it’s

time to go for a visit” with parents. Id. at 210. Ms. Piper stated that Children

have a “strong” relationship with their foster parents and are “happy” in the

home. Id. at 212.

On June 24, 2025, the court issued an order and opinion involuntarily

terminating Father’s parental rights to Children pursuant to Sections

2511(a)(2) and (b) of the Adoption Act.2 Children’s GAL agreed with this

disposition.

Father timely appealed. Father complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The

trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion relying on its June 24, 2025 order and

opinion.

Father raises a sole issue for our review: “Whether the trial court erred

in finding by clear and convincing evidence that [the Agency] met its burden

under 23 Pa.C.S. [] § 2511(b)?” Father’s Br. at 4.

2 The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother, who pursued a separate appeal at Docket Nos. 915 WDA 2025, 916 WDA 2025, 917 WDA 2025, and 918 WDA 2025.

-6- J-A29013-25

In cases involving the involuntary termination of parental rights, this

Court’s review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s conclusion is

supported by competent evidence. In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580,

591 (Pa. 2021). When we review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a

petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, we must accept the findings

of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if the record supports

them. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). “If the factual findings

are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an

error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). “Absent an abuse

of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial

court’s decision, the decree must stand.” In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276

(Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). We may not reverse merely because

the record could support a different result. T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. We give

great deference to the trial courts “that often have first-hand observations of

the parties spanning multiple hearings.” Id. Moreover, “[t]he 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 M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation

omitted). It is axiomatic that “[p]arents enjoy a fundamental right to make

decisions regarding the care, custody and control of their children. It cannot

be denied that significant and permanent consequences for both the parent

and child can follow the termination of parental rights, as there is an

undeniable importance in a child’s relationship with a biological parent.”

-7- J-A29013-25

L.A.K., 265 A.3d at 591 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, “[i]n

recognition of the gravity attendant to the termination of parental rights, the

moving party must establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing

evidence; that is, evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as

to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of

the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Id. at 592 (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, governs

termination of parental rights, and requires a bifurcated analysis. “[I]nitially,

the focus is on the conduct of the parent.” In re Adoption of A.C., 162 A.3d

1123, 1128 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). As discussed above, “[t]he

party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that

the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated

in Section 2511(a).” Id. (citation omitted). If the court determines that the

parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, the court

then engages 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.” Id. (citation omitted). Notably, we need only agree

with the court’s decision as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well

as Section 2511(b), to affirm the termination of parental rights. In re K.Z.S.,

946 A.2d 753, 758 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Instantly, Father fails to raise a challenge to Section 2511(a) in his brief

to this Court and, therefore, we deem any challenge to be waived.

-8- J-A29013-25

Accordingly, we review the order pursuant to Section 2511(b) only. See

Interest of: J.R.R., 229 A.3d 8, 12 (Pa. Super. 2020) (explaining that a

failure to raise a challenge to Section 2511(a) in an appellate brief will result

in waiver and prompt this Court to review Section 2511(b) only).

With respect to Section 2511(b), our Supreme Court has recently

explained that the “primary consideration must be the child’s developmental,

physical and emotional needs and welfare.” Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085,

1105 (Pa. 2023) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); some quotation marks

omitted). “Notably, courts should consider the matter from the child’s

perspective, placing [his or] her developmental, physical, and emotional

needs and welfare above concerns for the parent.” Id. This determination

must be made on a case-by-case basis with the court considering each child’s

special needs. Id. at 1105-1106. Our Supreme Court has interpreted the

“emotional needs and welfare of the child . . . to include intangibles such as

love, comfort, security, and stability.” T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). “One major aspect of the needs and

welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond

between parent and child with close attention paid to the effect on the child

of permanently severing any such bond.” In re Adoption of N.N.H., 197

A.3d 777, 783 (Pa Super. 2018) (citation omitted). The fact that a child has

a bond with a parent “does not preclude the termination of parental rights.”

In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014). Rather, the trial court must

-9- J-A29013-25

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. Id. at 898. In other words, “[c]ourts

must determine whether the trauma caused by breaking that bond is

outweighed by the benefit of moving the child toward a permanent home.”

T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 253. “Moreover, by 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.”

K.T., 296 A.3d at 1110–11 . “Therefore, to grant termination when a parental

bond exists, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the bond is not

necessary and beneficial.” Id. at 1114.

“The Section 2511(b) inquiry must also include consideration of other

important factors such as: the child’s need for permanency and length of time

in foster care []; whether the child is in a preadoptive home and bonded with

foster parents; and whether the foster home meets the child’s developmental,

physical, and emotional needs, including intangible needs of love, comfort,

security, safety, and stability.” Id. at 1113.

Father avers that the trial court erred when it terminated his parental

rights pursuant to Section 2511(b). Father’s Br. at 10. Father argues that

the evidence shows that a bond exists between himself and Children and that

- 10 - J-A29013-25

the Agency failed to demonstrate the impact of severing that bond. Id. at 13.

Father contends that terminating his parental rights to Children “would

destroy a necessary and beneficial relationship[.]” Id.

Our review of the trial court’s Section 2511(b) analysis reveals that the

court focused entirely on Father’s failure to engage in services and lack of

progress toward reunification, rather than the needs and welfare of each child

to determine if termination of Father’s parental rights was in Children’s best

interest. The court failed to make any findings regarding each child’s bond

with Father and, if any bond exists, the impact of severing it; each child’s need

for permanency; each child’s bond with their foster family; and each child’s

needs and welfare within the foster home. Moreover, the record is lacking

with clear and convincing evidence in this regard.

Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate the orders terminating

Father’s parental rights to Children. We remand for the court to hold a hearing

forthwith upon remittal of the certified record for the parties to present

evidence regarding the “developmental, physical and emotional needs and

welfare” of each child pursuant to Section 2511(b), including evidence

regarding parent-child bond. The trial court shall then conduct a proper

analysis pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b), as described supra.

Orders vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this

decision after receipt of the certified record, which we direct the Prothonotary

to remit immediately. Jurisdiction relinquished.

- 11 - J-A29013-25

DATE: 03/09/2026

- 12 -