In Re: Adopt. of: E.R.H., a Minor

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 906 MDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Olson

Opinion

J-S35001-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: E.R.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: C.G., GRANDMOTHER : : : : : No. 906 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered May 29, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2023-760

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: L.N.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: C.G., GRANDMOTHER : : : : : No. 907 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered May 30, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2023-759

BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JANUARY 23, 2026

Appellant, C.G., appeals pro se from the May 30, 2025 orders denying

her petitions for adoption of her granddaughter, E.R.H., born in June of 2019,

and grandson, L.N.R., born in February of 2022 (collectively, “the Children”),

and granting the competing adoption petitions filed by Appellees, S.F.V. J-S35001-25

(“Foster Father”) and L.Y.B. (“Foster Mother”) (collectively, “Foster Parents”).

Upon careful review, we affirm.

In its opinion accompanying the subject orders, the orphans’ court set

forth the following factual and procedural history, which the record evidence

supports.

V.R. (“Mother”) and C.R. (“Father”) are the biological parents of the Children. Lebanon County Children and Youth Services (hereinafter “CYS” or “the Agency”) first became involved with the family on May 2, 2022, as a result of incarceration and drug use by Mother and Father. At that time, the Children were living with [Appellant,] the maternal grandmother. On June 1, 2022, while in the care of [Appellant], CYS received a second referral, and a safety plan was put in place.

On June 3, 2022, Father signed a voluntary placement agreement and the Children were placed into a CYS approved foster home with Foster Parents. [Appellant] applied to the Agency to be considered as a kinship placement but was rejected. [Appellant] also applied to be a kinship foster parent through the Bair Foundation and was denied. On August 1, 2022, the Children were found dependent. On September 26, 2023, CYS filed a petition for the involuntary termination of parental rights for both Mother and Father. Following a hearing, the parental rights of Mother and Father were terminated on December 18, 2023. The Children have remained in the care of Foster Parents since July 13, 2022.

On January 2, 2024, [Appellant] filed petitions for adoption of the Children. On January 4, 2024, Foster Parents filed petitions for adoption of the Children. [Appellant] also filed a complaint for custody against Mother and Father on October 27, 2023. On March 6, 2024, the court entered an order ruling that, because there was an adoption hearing scheduled regarding the two separate adoption petitions, the custody complaint was dismissed. [Appellant] filed a timely appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. While the appeal was pending, the court conducted evidentiary hearings on the contested adoption petitions on June 25, 2024, August 15, 2024, September 9, 2024, and [October] 17, 2024. The testimony covered the entire procedural history of

-2- J-S35001-25

the dependency matters which resulted in the termination of parental rights of the biological parents. The testimony also covered the current status of the Children.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/30/25, at 2-3 (cleaned up).1 Both Appellant and

Foster Parents were represented by counsel during the hearing. In addition,

the Children’s legal interests were represented during the hearing by John J.

Ferry, Jr., Esquire, and their best interests were represented by Caleb J.

Zimmerman, as guardian ad litem.

The orphans’ court aptly summarized the testimony of each and every

witness presented during the hearing, which included Dr. Ray W. Christner,

who performed a clinical psychological evaluation on Appellant; Dr. Marita

Lind, the medical director of the Child Advocacy Center at Geisinger Medical

Center; Rene Ilgenfritz, Appellant’s friend; Appellant; Foster Father; Mother;

Foster Mother; and CYS caseworkers, Linsy Moyer, Brianna Morgan, and Baily

Van Fleet-Horan. See id. at 3-13.

The court credited Dr. Lind’s testimony, the substance of which resulted

in the Children’s removal from Appellant in June of 2022. The court

summarized her testimony, as follows.

Dr. Lind was certified as an expert in the area of child abuse. Dr. Lind testified that she saw the Children when [Appellant] took them to Hershey Medical Center for concerns of sexual abuse and ____________________________________________

1 This Court subsequently affirmed the aforesaid order issued by the trial court

that dismissed Appellant’s custody complaint. See Godwin v. Leb. Cnty. Child. & Youth Servs., 331 A.3d 621 (Pa. Super. 2024) (non-precedential decision).

-3- J-S35001-25

possible physical abuse. Due to the allegations of abuse, CYS was contacted, and the Children were kept at the hospital for testing and examinations and until a safety plan could be put in place. After conducting an evaluation of the Children, Dr. Lind found no signs of sexual or physical abuse.

However, Dr. Lind did testify regarding concerns she had with the youngest child, L.N.R., who was four months old at the time. The concerns stemmed from L.N.R. being fed formula with goat milk and given water [by Appellant]. Dr. Lind explained that feeding an infant goat milk and water could cause health complications such as lowering the infant’s sodium and electrolyte levels, which can lead to seizures or issues with kidney function. At the time L.N.R. was evaluated in the hospital, his electrolytes and sodium levels were normal and there were no signs of malnutrition. However, Dr. Lind did emphasize that longer use of goat milk and water could increase the risk of health complications.

The court also heard testimony from Dr. Lind regarding concerns she had relating to [Appellant]’s emotional and mental well-being. During her testimony, Dr. Lind noted the interactions with [Appellant] as being “unusual.” She described [Appellant] as variable in her emotion, her pace of speech, and her volume throughout the entire interaction. Dr. Lind testified that [Appellant] made many unusual statements which made it difficult to obtain information and medical history for the Children. The statements Dr. Lind referenced included witches changing medical records and concerns that L.N.R.’s eyes turned black because he was possessed with evil.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/30/24, at 4-5 (cleaned up).

In addition, the court credited the testimony of the CYS caseworkers.

The court emphasized Ms. Moyer’s description of an office visit she had with

Appellant “a few days after” the Children’s placement. Orphans’ Court

Opinion, 5/30/25, at 11. Ms. Moyer explained that the purpose of the office

visit was to provide Appellant “an opportunity

. . . to present evidence that she said she had regarding the [biological]

-4- J-S35001-25

parents’ neglect” of the Children. N.T., 10/17/24, at 6-7. Ms. Moyer testified

that Appellant brought to the visit “baggies of [the Children’s] earwax and

snot, as well as reports of the Children’s bowel movements.” Orphans’ Court

Opinion, 5/30/25, at 11. The court noted Ms. Van Fleet-Horan’s testimony

that, by Appellant “documenting and saving the Children’s earwax and nasal

drip and [by her] thinking it was pertinent to [the Children’s] development,”

demonstrated that Appellant had “unreasonable beliefs” regarding the growth

and development of the Children. Id. at 13. Ms. Van Fleet-Horan testified

that this, along with CYS’s concerns regarding Appellant’s mental health, inter

alia, resulted in CYS denying Appellant’s request to be a kinship placement for

the Children during their dependencies. Id.

The court found, through the testimony of Ms. Morgan, who scheduled

supervised visits, that Appellant attended, in total, five visits wherein she

raised “multiple concerns” regarding Foster Parents’ care of the Children. Id.

at 12. Ms. Morgan testified that CYS investigated the concerns raised by

Appellant, and they were “unfounded.” Id. Further, she testified that the

investigations “became disruptive to the Children’s daily lives.” Id. The court

also emphasized that Ms. Morgan did not observe “any notable bond” between

the Children and Appellant. Id. However, she observed that a bond exists

between the Children and the Foster Parents. Id. at 12-13. As such, Ms.

Moyer testified that the Agency “consents to the Foster Parents’ petition to

-5- J-S35001-25

adopt the Children but would not consent to the petition to adopt by”

Appellant. Id. at 12 (cleaned up).

With respect to Appellant, the court found relevant, in part, her

testimony that “because of [Appellant’s] spiritual and biblical beliefs, and as

head of the family, she wants to raise the Children. She further testified that

she believes she is the best caretaker for the Children because she is a blood

relative and has traditions of the family bloodline that the Children should

grow up with.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/30/25, at 8.

Finally, the court summarized the testimony of Foster Parents, as

follows.

[Foster Father] testified that Children have lived with him and his wife since July 2022. [Foster Father] and [Foster Mother] have three other children, two biological sons and one adopted son. Foster father testified that all the children, including L.N.R. and E.R.H., get along well. Both [Foster Father] and [Foster Mother] described the Children’s interests as well as activities they like to do as a family. The Foster Parents described spending time outside, playing sports, riding bikes, camping and going to amusement parks. They also spoke about family traditions such as celebrating holidays and birthdays together as well as being involved in the church. Both [Foster Father] and [Foster Mother] testified that E.R.H. is enrolled in speech therapy through her school. [Foster Mother] testified that she ensures that the Children are receiving the proper medical care and treatment they need. Both Foster Parents have family and friends nearby or who they see often that are close to the Children and treat them as part of the family.

Additionally, both [Foster Father] and [Foster Mother] testified that the Children call them “papa and mama” and view them as their parents. [Foster Father] testified he believes it is best for the Children to remain with them because they love them like their own children and would do anything to give them the best life they could. [Foster Mother] reiterated the same belief and stated that

-6- J-S35001-25

they provide the Children with a safe environment. [Foster Mother] added that they not only provide the Children with necessities like food and clothes but also play with them and learn with them. Both Foster Parents also testified that they believe taking the Children away from them would have a negative impact on them and confuse them due to the amount of time that the Children had been with them and the bond they share.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/30/25, at 8-9 (cleaned up).

By orders dated May 29, 2025, and entered on May 30, 2025, the court

granted Foster Parents’ petitions for adoption and denied Appellant’s petitions.

The court accompanied the orders with a comprehensive opinion.

Appellant, acting pro se, timely filed notices of appeal and concise

statements of errors asserted on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i)

and (b), which this Court consolidated sua sponte. On July 21, 2025, the court

filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for review:

1. Whether the [orphans’] court erred and abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s adoption petitions and granting adoption to nominating in foster parents, despite establish in loco parentis and legal guardianship status, in violation of 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511, 2512, 5328(a)(7), and has additional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment[?]

2. Whether the [orphans’] court erred by suppressing Appellant’s religious rights and disregarding protections under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, where CYS workers and the [c]ourt and engaged in coercive, disparaging, and unequal treatment of Appellant’s faith and family traditions[?]

3. Whether Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel and meaningful advocacy, where appointed and retained counsel failed to protect Appellant’s rights, investigate evidence, challenge false allegations, or properly preserve issues for appeal, in violation of due process[?]

-7- J-S35001-25

4. Whether the [orphans’] court failed to apply the kinship preference and Act 101 of 2010, and erred in concluding that post-adoption contact and preservation of family bonds were not required or in the [C]hildren’s best interests, despite statutory mandates favoring continuity of familial relationships[?]

5. Whether the [orphans’] court erred by excluding or minimizing critical evidence, including pre-existing guardianship affidavits, medical records (e.g., goat milk formula discharge papers), and testimony regarding foster parent misconduct, thereby violating due process and Appellant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing[?]

6. Whether the [orphans’] court erred by permitting procedural delays and unequal treatment, where Appellant was subjected to extended examination (over 6.5 hours) compared to less than one hour for Foster [Parents], and where transcript delays and briefing schedule irregularities deprived Appellant of Children’s Fast Track protections under Pa.R.A.P. 102 and 2187(b)[?]

7. Whether the [orphans’] court erred by disregarding evidence of retaliatory and coercive actions by [F]oster [P]arents and CYS and – including false PFA filings, restrictions on visitation, and interference with the [C]hildren’s familial bond – constituting violations of due process and Appellant’s right to familial association under the Fourteenth Amendment[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 1-2.2, 3

____________________________________________

2 Foster Parents and CYS filed a joint appellee brief advocating for this Court

to affirm the subject orders. In addition, Attorney Ferry filed an appellee brief on behalf of the Children in support of the orders.

3 Appellant has waived any claims relating to the United States Constitution

and the Pennsylvania Constitution for failure to include them in her concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. See In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[I]t is well-settled that issues not included in an appellant’s . . . concise statement of errors complained of on appeal are waived.”) (citing Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006)).

-8- J-S35001-25

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinions of the able orphans’ court judge, the Honorable

Charles T. Jones, Jr. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this

case, for the reasons expressed in Judge Jones’ May 30, 2025 and July 21,

2025 opinions. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Jones’ able opinions

and adopt them as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court

addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Jones’ May

30, 2025 and July 21, 2025 opinions, with the names of Appellant, Mother,

Father, the Children, and the Foster Parents redacted.

Orders affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 01/23/2026

-9- .. C . . : �·- .,.- CirculatH�2 AM

-=:·-- 41

IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF LEBANON OF LEBANON COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS’ ORPHANS' COURT COURT DIVISION DIVISION OD. o IN IN RE: RE: ADOPTIONS ADOPTIONS :

OF : Docket Docket No.: No.: 2023-759, 2023-759, and and : Docket Docket No.: No.: 2023-760 2023-760 rt E.PH ,, and and 7- iN.2: .

ORDER ORDER OF OE COURT COURT

AND NOW, AND NOW, to to wit, this [ wit, this ^A^ day day of May 2025, of May 2025, after after careful careful consideration consideration of of the the record record and and the the Briefs Briefs of of the the Parties, Parties, the the Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption by by J:rshzr terms’ r»ti% and i; of the of the Minor Minor Children, Children, L.R. L.R. and and E.H., E.H., is is GRANTED. Accordingly, GRANTED. Accordingly, the the Petition Petition of of Adoption Adoption by by #&llcak is is DENIED. DENIED.

BY THEJ^OHRT^___

j. CHARLES

cc: cc: Lebanon Lebanon County County Children Children and and Youth Youth Services Services Roberta J. Roberta J. Santiago, Santiago, Esquire Esquire -- Attorney Attorney for for John J. John J. Ferry, Ferry, Jr., Jr., Esquire Esquire - -- Legal Legal Counsel Counsel for for the the Minor nor Children Children Caleb J. Caleb J. Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Esquire Esquire - -- Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Litem Marc Anthony Marc Anthony Scaringi, Scaringi, Esquire Esquire -- Attorney Attorney for for CC IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON PLEAS COMMON PLEAS OF OF LEBANON LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS’ ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION COURT DIVISION o or J IN IN RE: RE: ADOPTIONS ADOPTIONS

OF OF : Docket Docket No.: No.: 2023-759, 2023-759, and and ; Docket Docket No.; o.: 2023-760 2023-760 , E j F"·L p.- --, [2 " ,and and -.fle

APPEARANCES APPEARANCES:

Roberta Roberta J. J. Santiago, Santiago, Esquire Esquire For For S' S and and rT •• — jl

John John J. J. Ferry, Ferry, Jr., Jr., Esquire Esquire For For the the Minor Minor Children Children

Caleb Caleb J. J. Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Esquire Esquire Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Litem

Marc Marc Anthony Anthony Scaringi, Scaringi, Esquire Esquire For C._ Fore...

OPINION OPINION BY BY JONES, JONES, JR„ JR., J.: J.:

FACTUAL FACTUAL & & PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY The The instant instant action action is is aa contested contested adoption adoption of of minor minor children children L.R. L.R. and and E.H. E.H. (hereinafter (hereinafter “Minor "Minor Children”). w..· ~ Children"). V. ":---- 1 (hereinafter (hereinafter “Mother”) "Mother) andand€'C. R. (hereinafter (hereinafter "Father”) "Father") are are the the biological biological parents parents of of the the Children. Children. Lebanon Lebanon County County Children Children and and Youth Youth Services Services (hereinafter (hereinafter “CYS”) "CYS") first first became became involved involved with with the the family family on on May May 2, 2, 2022, 2022, as as aa result result of of incarceration incarceration and and drug drug use use by by Mother Mother and and Father. Father. At At that that time, time, the the Children Children were were living living with with the the maternal maternal grandmother, grandmother, - A»ll.k "). 1 (hereinafter “" C-G.-...(hereinafter ”). On On June June 1 1,, 2022, 2022, while while in in the the care care of of 9l ^2^ kal '“dr ,CYS CYS received received aa second second referral, referral, and and aa safety safety plan plan was was put put in in place. place.

22 On June 3, 2022, 2022, Father signed signed a Voluntary Placement Placement Agreement Agreement and the Children were Children were placed placed into into aa CYS CYS approved approved foster foster home home with E1Z- with 5EU/. and and L:,Y.j5a..... (hereinafter 1-1.- (hereinafter “Foster "Foster Parents”). Parents"). -lle:' ' applied applied to to the the Agency Agency to to be be considered considered as as aa kinship kinship placement placement but but was was rejected, rejected. h\[k'' also also applied applied to be considered considered as a kindship kindship foster parent parent through the Bair Foundation Foundation and was was denied. denied. On August August 1, 2022, 2022, the Minor Minor Children Children were found dependent. dependent. On September 26, September 2023, CYS 26, 2023, CYS filed filed aa Petition Petition for for the the Involuntary Involuntary Termination Termination of of Parental Parental Rights for Rights for both both Mother Mother and and Father. Father. Following Following aa hearing, the parental hearing, the parental rights of rights of Mother and Mother and Father Father were were terminated terminated on on December December 18, 18, 2023. 2023. The The Children Children have have remained in remained in the the care care of of Foster Foster Parents Parents since since July July 13, 13, 2022. 2022. On On January January 2, 2, 2024, 2024, 6la Filed filed aa Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption of of the the Minor Minor Children. Children. On On January January 4, 4, 2024, 2024, Foster Foster Parents Parents filed filed aa Petition Petition for for Adoption of the Adoption of the Minor Children. Minor Children. A\) llah; also also filed filed aa Complaint Complaint for for Custody Custody against against the the biological Mother biological Mother and and Father Father on on October October 27, 27, 2023. 2023. On On March March 6, 6, 2024, 2024, the the Court Court entered an entered an Order Order ruling ruling that that because because there there was was an an adopting adopting hearing hearing scheduled scheduled regarding the regarding two separate the two separate adoption adoption petitions, petitions, the the custody custody complaint complaint was was dismissed. dismissed. hell..k. filed filed aa timely timely appeal appeal to to the the Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. While While the the Appeal Appeal was was pending, pending, the the Court Court conducted evidentiary hearings conducted evidentiary hearings on on the the contested contested adoption petitions adoption petitions on on June 25, 2024, June 25, 2024, August August 15, 15, 2024, 2024, September September 9, 9, 2024, 2024, and and November 17, November 17, 2024. 2024. The The testimony testimony covered covered the the entire entire procedural procedural history history of of the the Dependency Dependency Matters Matters which which resulted resulted in in the the Termination Termination of of Parental Parental Rights Rights of of the the biological parents. biological parents. The The testimony testimony also also covered covered the the current current status status of of the the Children, Children. At the At the Hearing Hearing on on June June 25, 2024, the 25, 2024, the Court Court heard heard testimony testimony from from Dr. Dr. Ray Ray Christner, aa forensic Christner, forensic psychologist. psychologist. Dr. Dr. Christner Christner testified testified regarding regarding aa mental mental health health evaluation he evaluation he conducted on h) lla conducted on n February February 3,2022 . Dr. 3,2022. Dr. Christner Christner testified testified he t/.. .was felt he fel was forthcoming forthcoming and and truthful truthful during during her her evaluation evaluation but but that that she she seemed to seemed to be be minimizing minimizing symptoms. symptoms. (Transcript (Transcript of of Proceedings, Proceedings, (hereinafter (hereinafter 3 3 “N.T.”), "N.T."), June 25, 25, 2024, 2024, at at 26.) 26.) Dr. Dr. Christner Christner also stated that also stated that hllk'appeared A^Ux^ ' appeared to to try try to to portray portray herself herself in in aa positive positive light light which he said which he said was was common common in in evaluations evaluations

that that dealt dealt with with custody custody issues. issues. (N.T. (N.T. 18-19.) 18-19.) Dr. Christner testified Dr. Christner that he testified that he believes believes •.. suffers h) lle.h. suffers from from aa stress-related stress-related disorder. (N.T. 20.) disorder. (N.T. 20.) He explained that He explained that stress-related stress-related disorder disorder can can simply mean that simply mean that sometimes sometimes stressors stressors can can be be higher higher than than an an individual’s individual's ability ability to to cope cope with with them. them. (Id.) (Id.) Additionally, Additionally, Dr. Dr. Christner Christner testified testified that there was that there was no no indication indication of of mental mental

illness illness that that would would suggest suggest that that b\(tr could could not not be be aa part part of of the the Minor Minor Children’s Children's lives. lives. (N.T. (N.T. 21-22.) 21-22.) Dr. Dr. Christner Christner clarified clarified that that he he did did not not personally personally evaluate evaluate the the children children in in this this case. case. (N.T. (N.T. 33.) 33.) However, However, from from his his professional professional experience, experience, he he acknowledged acknowledged that that it ft would would be be aa difficult difficult and and gradual gradual process process to to reintroduce reintroduce and and place place the he Minor Minor Children Children with with All. given given the the time time the the children children have have been been in in the the care care of of the the Foster Foster Parents. Parents. (N.T. (N.T. 33-34.) 33-34.) The The Court Court also also heard heard testimony testimony from from Dr. Dr. Marita Marita Lind, Lind, the the medical medical director director of of the the Child Child Advocacy Advocacy Center Center at at Geisinger Geisinger Medical Medical Center. Center. Dr. Dr. Lind Lind was was certified certified as as an an expert expert in in the the area area of of child child abuse. abuse. (N.T. (N.T. 42-44.) 42-44.) Dr. Dr. Lind Lind testified testified that that she she saw saw the the Minor Minor Children Children when when /-llok took took them them to to Hershey Hershey Medical Medical Center Center for for concerns concerns of of sexual sexual abuse abuse and and possible possible physical physical abuse. abuse. (N.T. (N.T. 45.) 45.) Due Due to to the the allegations allegations of of abuse, abuse, CYS CYS was was contacted, contacted, and and the the Minor Minor Children Children were were kept kept at at the the hospital hospital for for testing testing and and examinations examinations and and until until aa safety safety plan plan could could be be put put in in place. place. (N.T. (N.T. 57.) 57.) After After conducting conducting an an evaluation evaluation of of both both Children, Children, Dr. Dr. Lind Lind found found no no signs signs of of sexual sexual or or physical physical abuse. abuse. (N.T. (N.T. 50-53, 50-53, 57, 57, 65.) 65.) However, However, Dr. Dr. Lind Lind did did testify testify regarding regarding concerns concerns she she had had with with the the youngest youngest Child, Child, L.R., L.R., who who was was four four (4) (4) months months at at the the time. time. The The concerns concerns stemmed stemmed from from L.R. L.R. being being fed fed aa formula formula with with goat goat milk milk and and given given water. water. (N.T. (N.T. 53-54, 53-54, IS-ll.} 75-77.) Dr. Dr. Lind Lind explained explained that that feeding feeding an an infant infant goat goat milk milk and and water water could could cause cause health health complications complications such such as as lowering lowering the the infant’s infant's sodium sodium and and electrolytes electrolytes levels, levels, which which 44 can lead can lead to to seizures seizures or or issues issues with with kidney kidney function. function. (Id.) At the (Id.) At the time time L.R. L.R. was was evaluated in evaluated in the the hospital his electrolytes hospital his electrolytes and and sodium sodium levels levels were were normal normal and there and there were no were no signs signs of of malnutrition. malnutrition. (N.T, (N.T. 62-63, 62-63, 68-69.) 68-69.) However, However, Dr. Dr. Lind Lind did did emphasize that emphasize that longer longer use use of of goat milk and goat milk and water water could could increase increase the the risk risk of of health health complications; complications. (N.T. (N.T. 76- 76- 77.) 77.) The Court The Court also also heard testimony from heard testimony from Dr. Dr. Lind Lind regarding regarding concerns concerns she she had had relating to ))IL_t» relating to ^2^^-^ 1 emotional and emotional and mental mental wellbeing. (N.T. 55-56, wellbeing. (N.T. 55-56, 59-61, 59-61, 69, 69, 79-80.) During 79-80.) During her her testimony, testimony, Dr. Dr. Lind Lind noted noted the the interactions interactions with with Axlll- asas being “unusual”. being "unusual. (N.T. (N.T. 55.) 55.) She She described as variable described Alt'as variable in in her her emotion, emotion, her pace her pace of of speech, speech, and and her her volume volume throughout throughout the the entire entire interaction. interaction. (Id.) (Id.) Ms. Ms. Lind Lind testified that testified that xlah ... made many unusual statements which made it difficult to made many unusual statements which made it difficult to obtain information obtain information and and medical medical history history for for the the Minor Minor Children. Children. (N.T. (N.T. 60, 60, 70.) 70.) The The statements Ms. statements Ms. Lind referenced included Lind referenced included witches witches changing changing medical medical records and records and concerns that concerns that L.R.’s L.R.'s eyes eyes turned turned black black. because because he he was was possessed possessed with with evil. evil. (N.T. (N.T. 56, 56, ■ 60-61.) 60-61.) The Court The Court also also heard heard from from aa friend friend of j' , Rene of /lldj', Rene Ilgenfritz. Ilgenfritz. Ms. Ms. Ilgenfritz testified Ilgenfritz testified that that she she knew w kne A)dl.k'when jdUV ’ ^hen she she cared cared for for the the Minor Minor Children Children and said and said she she never never observed observed the the children children to be malnourished to be malnourished or or neglected. neglected. (N.T. (N.T. 90.) 90.) Ms. Ilgenfritz Ms. Ilgenfritz described the interactions described the interactions she she observed between the observed between the children, children and and'’ bl1h and and stated stated:.* All' was always r,was always attentive attentive to to the the children. children. (N.T. (N.T. 89.) 89.) Ms. Ms. Ilgenfritz Ilgenfritz did did state state that that she she no no longer longer sees sees }-llk'' often often because because 9ll was was currently currently working working multiple multiple jobs jobs and and moved moved around around often. often. (N.T (N.T 93-94.) 93-94.) The hearing The hearing continued continued on on August August 8, 8, 2024, 2024, at at which which time time the Court heard the Court heard testimony from testimony from /Al\k ' lla} - testified testified that that she she lived lived with with the the Minor Minor

Dell kJ" provided provided nearly nearly six six and and aa half half hours hours of of testimony. testimony. However, However, much much of of the the testimony testimony focused focused around old aro(id old grievances grievances and and complaints complaints related related to to how how CYS handled the CYS handled the case, rather than case, rather than facts facts probative probative to to disposition of aa disposition of the the best best interest interest of of the Minor Children. the Minor Children. Therefore, Therefore, the the Court Court has has attempted attempted toto concisely concisely summarize the summarize the relevant relevant points points of/Sb^W’ ofA)))/l) bs J ss testimony. testimony. 5 5 Children. from from birth until until CYS CYS intervened. intervened. She explained that that her her daughter daughter was was unable unable to to care care for for the the Minor Minor Children Children due due to to incarcerations incarcerations and and drug drug use. use. (N.T., (N.T., August August 15, 15, 2024, 2024, at at 114-1 15.) 114-115.) hltk testified testified that that is is when when she she took took on on the he responsibilities responsibilities of of providing providing for for the the Minor Minor Children’s Children's physical physical and and emotional emotional needs needs as as well well as as their their spiritual spiritual needs. needs. (N.T. (N.T. 114.) 114.) She She explained explained the the parental parental duties duties she she performed for the Minor Minor Children while under under her her case included feeding, feeding, clothing, clothing, and and comforting, comforting, taking taking E.H. E.H. to to school, school, as as well well as as taking taking the the Minor Minor Children Children to to

doctors doctors'’ appointments appointments. (N.T. (N.T. 11 121-122.) 4- 1 121-1 114-117, 22 .) ll(ck further further stated stated she she was was the the main main financial financial support support for for the the Minor Minor Children Children at at the the time. time. (Id.) (Id.) She She also also spoke spoke about about E.H.’s E.H.'s speech speech issues issues and and how how she she got got her her enrolled enrolled in in speech speech therapy. therapy. (N.T. (N.T. 117.).) At 117 At the the time time that that the the Minor Minor Children Children were were placed placed with with the the Foster Foster Parents, Parents, E.H. E.H. had had just just turned turned three three years years old, old, and and L.R. L.R. was was four four months months old. old. /.llk j also also testified testified that that when when the the Minor Minor Children Children were were placed placed in in the the foster foster home, home, she she immediately immediately contacted contacted CYS CYS to to become become aa kinship kinship resource for them. resource for them. (N.T. (N.T. 134.) 134.)T 6llc stated stated CYS CYS disapproved disapproved her her as as aa kinship kinship option option and and stated stated the the reasons reasons that that were were listed listed included included mental mental health health and and lack lack of of parenting parenting skills/care skills/care for for newboms. newborns. (N.T. (N.T. 160-161.) 160-161.)

p\.llck.._was questioned questioned regarding regarding the the goat goat milk milk formula frmula o she she was was feeding feeding L.R. L.R. She She testified testified that that she she tried tried multiple multiple different different formulas formulas but but L.R. L.R. would would not not eat eat them them or or would would get get sick sick from from them. them. (N.T. (N.T. 136-138.) 136-138.) /)lle ‘ further further stated stated that that

during during COVID- COVID-19 there there were were formula formula recalls recalls and and shortages shortages which which made made getting getting regular regular formula formula difficult. difficult. She She then then got got aa recommendation recommendation from from aa friend friend for for aa recipe recipe that that used used goat goat milk. milk. She She also also stated stated she she was was feeding feeding L.R. L.R. rice rice cereal cereal with with water water and and milk milk based based on on recommendations recommendations from from aadoctor. doctor. (N.T. (N.T. 142.) 142.)/)l(ah - testified testified she she was was feeding feeding L.R. L.R. the the goat goat milk milk formula formula for for about about 66 weeks weeks before before CYS CYS became became involved involvedand and that that she she did did not not see see any any negative negative effects effects on on L.R. L.R. (N.T. (N.T. 143.) 143.)

66 /\lle], acknowledged acknowledged that that she she was was aware aware of of the the risks risks or or potential potential side side effects of effects of giving giving an an infant infant goat goat milk milk formula formula such such as as lithium lithium levels levels and and liver liver issues. issues. (N.T. 247.) (N.T. 247.) However, However, she she was was not not taking taking steps steps to to check check the the newborn’s newborn's levels levels at at home. home. (Id.) (Id.) Aj? 7\

7 7 being placed Children being Minor Children the Minor references the she references which she in which up in set up she set page she GoFundMe page GoFundMe placed (N.T. 271-278.) kidnapping". (N.T. out kidnapping”. "flat out being “flat as being CYS as by CYS by 271-278.)

kelLk- testified she was testified she currently residing was currently in aa two-bedroom residing in two-bedroom home home which she which is leasing she is on aa month-to-month leasing on basis. (N.T. month-to-month basis. 207.) She 104-105, 207.) (N.T. 104-105, that stated that She stated

has resided she has she resided in the home in the for about home for year and about aa year has prepared and has room for prepared aa room for the Minor the Minor 104, 207-209.) (N.T. 104, Children. (N.T. Children. 207-209.) .A)ll testified that because testified that of her because of spiritual her spiritual

and the head as the and as beliefs, and biblical beliefs, and biblical the family, of the head of she wants family, she to raise wants to the Minor raise the Minor the best she isis the believes she she believes that she testified that further testified She further 229-230.) She (N.T. 229-230.) Children. (N.T. Children. best has traditions and has relative and blood relative she isis aa blood because she Children because Minor Children the Minor for the caretaker for caretaker traditions (N.T. 305- with. (N.T. up with. grow up should grow Children should Minor Children the Minor that the bloodline that family bloodline the family ofthe of 305- 306.) 306.) from the testimony from heard testimony Court heard the Court 2024, the September 9,9, 2024, on September Hearing on the Hearing At the At the '- Parents, 1 FosterParents, Foster ...•. , · A------- - M.5.rd M_.Shl/ testifiedthat testified that 2022. (N.T., July 2022. since July wife since his wife and his him and with him lived with have lived Children have Minor Children the Minor the (N.T., 2024,atat323-324.) September9,9, 2024, September 323-324.) Tak%.E havethree have threeother other (N.T. 332.) son. (N.T. adopted son. one adopted and one sons and biological sons two biological children, two children, 332.) [F / (Id.)Both well.(Id.) alongwell. getalong E.H.,get andE.H., L.R.and includingL.R. children,including thechildren, allthe thatall testifiedthat testified Bothh slzlcl._- . U) describedthe described Minor Children’s theMinor interests asaswell Children's interests wellasas describedspending Parentsdescribed FosterParents TheFoster family.The doasasaafamily. liketotodo they like activitiesthey whatactivities what spending amusementparks. goingtotoamusement andgoing campingand bikes,camping ridingbikes, sports,riding playingsports, outside,playing timeoutside, time parks. familytraditions aboutfamily spokeabout alsospoke Theyalso 454-455.)They 451-452,454-455.) 351,451-452, 339,351, 335-336,339, (N.T.335-336, (N.T. traditions involvedininthe beinginvolved wellasasbeing togetherasaswell birthdaystogether andbirthdays holidaysand celebratingholidays suchasascelebrating such the 452-453.)Both 335-337,452-453.) (N.T.335-337, church.(N.T. church. Bou Gs6- @l 5s.. " testified testified 450.)NN 342,450.) 340,342, (N.T.340, school.(N.T. herschool. throughher therapythrough speechtherapy enrolledininspeech E.H.isisenrolled thatE.H. that i testifiedthat testified sheensures thatshe thatthe ensuresthat MinorChildren theMinor arereceiving Childrenare theproper receivingthe proper Parentshave FosterParents BothFoster 448-449.)Both (N.T.448-449.) need.(N.T. theyneed. treatmentthey andtreatment careand medicalcare medical have

88 family family and friends near by or who they see. often often that are close to the Minor Minor Children and and treat them them as as part part of of the family. family. (N.T. (N.T. 337-338, 453-454.) 337-338, 453-454.) Additionally, f@s h- Additionally, both Ites lk±cs-hs testified that the Minor testified Children call Children call them them “papa "papa and and mama” mama" and and view them as view them their parents. as their parents. (N.T. (N.T. 343, 377- 343, 377- 378, 378, 464.) 464.) 5 F/ testified testified he he believes believes it it is is best best for the Minor for the Minor Children to Children to remain remain with with them them because because they they love love them them like like their their own own children children and and would would do do anything anything to to give give them them the the best best life life they they could. could. (N.T. (N.T. 334-335, 334-335, 465) 465) ’ L'( B R reiterated reiterated the the same same belief belief and and stated stated that that they they provide provide the Minor Children the Minor Children with with aa safe safe environment. environment. (N.T. (N.T. 465.) L- Y 465.)L(_ idded dded that they not that they not only only provide provide the the Minor Minor Children Children with with necessities necessities like like food food and and clothes clothes but but also also play play with with them them and learn and learn with with them. them. (Id.) (Id.) Both Both Foster Foster Parents Parents also also testified testified that that they they believe believe taking taking the the Minor Minor Children Children away away from from them them would would have have aa negative negative impact impact on on them them and and confuse confuse them them due due to to the the amount amount of of time time that that the the Minor Minor Children Children have have been been with with them them and and the the bond bond they they share. share. (N;T. (N.T. 378, 378, 468) 468) The The Court Court also also heard heard testimony testimony from from v..• the the Minor Minor Children’s Children's biological biological mother. /k_. mother. iVl estified estified regarding her substance regarding her substance abuse abuse issues issues and and stated stated that that it it caused caused aa strain strain on on her her relationship relationship with with her her mother, mother, /lck-- (N.T. (N.T. However,MK.■* A\xllY''ave since rebuilt their 384.) 384.) However, *·tated that that her her and and have since rebuilt their relationship relationship and and are are in in aa good good place place now. now. (Id.) (Id.)y \/K / testified thatAllle.k.- testified that supported supported her her while while she she was was pregnant pregnant with with E.H. E.H. and and lived lived with with her her after after E.H. E.H. was was

bom born to to assist assist with with caring caring for for the the newborn. newborn. (N.T. (N.T. 385-387 385-3871 \/ statedr stated fllk was hll.' was the walking, the one walking, and one that that taught and potty taught E.H. potty training. E.H. the training. (N.T. provided provided E.H. E.H. with the majority majority of (N.T. 388-389.) 388-389.) Furthermore, with aa sense sense of of things things such Furthermore, of security security and V. such as as holding

and comfort holding aa bottle,

comfort and and would bottle, testified that testified would be be the the that

one one to to step step in in when VK when)/ Jtruggled struggled with with her her addiction. addiction. (N.T. (N.T. 389, 389, 391 .) 391.) \/R /. further further testified testified regarding regarding the the birth birth of of L.R. L.R. and and that that /llk was was again again present present for for support support and and provided provided care care for for the the newborn. newborn. (N.T. (N.T. 397-398.) 397-398.) 99 She She also explained that that she was was incarcerated shortly after L.R. L.R. was was bom born and that that

hyllak- stayed stayed a^lV^ J at:/..s apartment apartment to to care care for for the the Minor Minor Children. Children. (N.T. QN.T. 399.) VR 399.) X/ PR was was asked asked about about the the formula formula L.R. L.R. was was being being fed fed as as aa newborn. newborn. I She She indicated indicated that that -she she started breastfeeding breastfeeding L.R. L.R. but but then then switched switched to to formula formula at at one one

point. point. (N.T. (N.T. 401.X/2- 401.\/· - explained explained that that the the infant infant was was on on multiple multiple different different

formulas formulas and and nev r nev ;r had had any any issues issues with with them. them. (N.T. (N.T. 401-403.) 401-403.) However, However, while while she she

was incarcerated; was incarcerated �z::,l\�\.-- '· made her made her aware aware that that she she switched switched L.R. L.R. to to aa

homemade homemade goat goat riilk r recipe recipe due due to to the the formula formula shortage shortage during during COVID-19. COVID-19. (N.T. (N.T. 404-405.) 404-405.) !

V? • testified testified she believes ))(Ts"-'- petition she believes petition to to adopt adopt the the Minor Minor Children Children should should 1 le e granted granted because because they they are are blood blood relatives relatives and and she she has has always always provided provided and and can d for cared for them. them. (N.T. (N.T. 412, 412, 418.) 418.) ( stated stated ifit ~)llak-. Petition Petition to to Adop Adopl was was granted, granted, she she would would keep keep her her distance until/)llk distance until 'i thought thought itit was was ap ropriate for apropriate for \/ \/ and and the the Minor Minor Children Children to to have have contact contact again. again. (N.T. (N.T. 412- 414.) 1\/P^- 412.414.) further testified 1/further testified that that she she believes believes the the Minor Minor Children Children would would bb; p negatively negatively impacted impactedififthey they were were not not to see ' ' �i:_.I l .. . to see :J • again. again. I (N.T. (N.T.420.) 420.)Howe Howe^er, rer,she shealso alsoacknowledged acknowledgedthatthatititwould wouldbebedifficult difficultforforthe theMinor Minor

Children Children toto leave [the Foster leave[the Foster Parents Parents due due toto the the amount amount of oftime time spent spent with wit them. them. (N.T. 421.) N.}...- testified (N.T. 421.) testified that that /\)lkk has has had had little Litle toto no no role role inin the the Minor MinorChildren’s Children'slives lives since since CYS CYS intervened intervenedininJune June of of2022. 2022. (N.T. (N.T.419.) 419.)The Thelast last time tine A-DIsaw saw the theMinor MinorChildren Childrenwas wasApril April 1, 2024. 1, 2024. (N.T. (N.T.42 1.) 421.) At Atthe the hearing hearing on on October October 17, 17, 2024, 2024, the the Court Court heard heard testimony testimony from fromthree three Children Childrenand andYouth YouthServices Services(CYS) (CYS)caseworkers. caseworkers.First, First,the theCourt Courtheard heardfrom fromLinsy Linsy Moyer. Moyer.Ms.Ms.Moyer Moyertestified testifiedthat thatshe shewas wasthe theone onethat thatplaced placedthe theMinor MinorChildren Childreninin their theircurrent currentFoster FosterHome Homewithwittoy th rsdg (N.T., October 17, (N.T.,October 17, 2024, 2024, atat4.) 4.)Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyertestified testifiedthat thatthe theMinor MinorChildren Childrenwere wereininthe thecare careof of hello'when whenCYS CYSfirst firstgot gotinvolved. involved.(Id.) (Id.)Ms. Ms.Moyer Moyerfurther furthertestified testifiedthat thatshe shewas was 10 10 called called to to the the Hershey Hershey Hospital Hospital due due to to staff staff concerns concerns of of aa lack lack of of an appropriate an appropriate caregiver caregiver for for the the Minor Minor Children. Children. (N.T. 5-6.) (N.T.5-6.) Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer also also testified testified regarding regarding an an office office visit visit she she had had with with hplke.k where where hllkY ibrought brought in in aa journal journal which which contained contained baggies baggies of of earwax earwax and and snot, snot, as well as as reports well as reports of of the the Minor Minor Children’s Children's bowel bowel movements. movements. (N.T. (N.T. 6-8.) 6-8.) Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer testified testified that that CYS CYS made made hjl\ck aware aware of of the the process process of of becoming becoming aa kinship kinship resource. (N.T. resource. (N.T. 8.) 8.) However, However, CYS CVS ultimately ultimately denied denied her her due due to to their their concerns concerns of of

mental mental health health and and concerns concerns of of financial financial ability, ability, lack lack of of parental parental skills skills with with newborns, newborns, and and uncertainty uncertainty with with housing. housing. (N.T. (N.T. 8-10, 8-10, 13-14.) 13-14.) CYS CYS gave gave Bll.' ’ ifurther further instructions to instructions to seek seek kinship kinship through through other other resources resources and and /l\~chose chose the the Biar Biar Foundation but Foundation but was was denied denied by by them them as as well. well. (N.T. (N.T. 10-11.) 10-11.) Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer testified testified that that from from her her knowledge knowledge she she was was denied denied by by the the Biar Biar Foundation Foundation due due to to h)llaJ not not completing the completing the application application and and for for harassing harassing the the agency agency with with many many phone phone calls. calls. (N.T. 14-15.) (N.T. 14-15.) . . Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer further further testified testified that that when when she she first first became became involved involved with with the the Minor Children, Minor Children, they they were were too too young young and and had had not not bonded bonded with with anyone anyone yet. yet. (N.T. (N.T. 17- 17- 18.) She 18.) She explained explained that that L.R. was only L.R. was only aa couple months at couple months time and the time at the and E.H. E.H. would would run to anyone. run to anyone. (Id.) (Id.) However, However, Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer stated stated that that as as the the Minor Minor Children Children got got older, older, she started she started to to see see the the bond bond form form between between the the Minor Minor Children Children and and the the Foster Foster Parents. Parents. (N.T. (N.T. 18.) 18.) Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer did did testify testify regarding regarding reports reports that that were were made made toto CYS CYS against against the Foster the Foster Parents. Parents. (N.T. (N.T. 11-12.) 11-12.) However, However, Ms. Ms. Moyer Moyer explained that some explained that some of the of the reports did reports did not not rise rise to to the the level of concern level of concern to to conduct an investigation, conduct an investigation, and and that that others others were investigated were investigated but but found found to be invalid. to be invalid. (Id.) Ms. Moyer (Id.) Ms. testified that Moyer testified that the the Foster Foster Parents and Parents and their their home home were were approved approved by by CYS. CYS.?2(N.T. (N.T. 12.) 12.) She She further further stated stated that that

* Parties Parties entered entered aa stipulation stipulation regarding regarding the the home home study study that that was was completed completed for for the the Foster Foster Parents Parents that that indicated that indicated that they they were were approved. approved. The The Family Family Approval Approval was was conducted conducted by by Florence Florence Wesley Wesley from from the the Pennsylvania Statewide Pennsylvania Statewide Adoption Adoption and and Permanency Permanency Network. Network. 11 11 the agency agency consents consents to the Foster Foster Parent’s Parent's Petition to Adopt Adopt the Minor Minor Children but but would not not consent consent to the Petition to Adopt by Adopt by /lk. 'N.T. N.T. 39.) 39.) The The Court Court also heard testimony from from CYS CYS casework, casework, Brianna Morgan Morgan regarding regarding her her responsibility responsibility of of setting up up visits between between biological biological parents parents and and Minor Minor stated8)))llak?' Children. Children. (N.T. (N.T. 47.) 47.) Ms. Ms. Morgan Morgan stated ’ began 'egan to to reach reach out out in in November November of2022 to to set set up up visits with with the the Minor Minor Children Children but but was was denied denied by by CYS CYS at at the the time time due due to to concerns concerns revolving revolving around around the the kinship kinship denial. denial. (N.T. (N.T. 49.) 49.) kl.k then then reached reached out out again again in in the the spring spring of 2023 and of2023 and was was allowed allowed to to join join the the biological biological mother mother for for visits. visits. (N.T. (N.T. 49-50.) 49-50.) /llaY began began to to attend attend the the full full hour hour visits visits in in June June 2023 2023 but but was was later later asked asked to to only only attend attend the the first first thirty thirty minutes. minutes. (N.T. (N.T. 50-51, 50-51, 56.) 56.)

Morgan Morgan testified testified that that /llaY attended attended four four visits visits before before she she was was no no longer longer permitted permitted back back due due to to not not complying complying with with the the thirty-minute thirty-minute restrictions. restrictions, (N.T. (N.T. 51, 51, 58-59.) s8-59.) hlla.k... was l no was also no longer longer allowed a so allowed to to attend attend the the visits visits due due to to the the multiple multiple concerns concerns /lla would would raise raise regarding regardingthe the Minor Minor Children. Children. (N.T. (N.T. 56.) 56.) Ms. Ms. Morgan Morgan explained explained that that all all the the concerns concerns raised by By)ltek ' •iwere raised by were unfounded, unfounded, but but that that each each caused caused an an investigation investigation to to be be done, done, which which became became disruptive disruptive to to the the Minor Minor Children’s Children's daily daily lives. lives. (N.T. (N.T. 56-58.) 56-58.) Additionally, Additionally,Ms. Ms. Morgan Morgantestified testifiedregarding regardingthe the observations observationssheshemade madewhile while attending attendingvisits visitswith wit lllh_ and and the theMinor MinorChildren Childrenafter afterthe theAdoption AdoptionPetition Petition was was filed. filed. Ms. Ms. Morgan Morganstated stated that thatthe theMinor MinorChildren Childrenstruggled struggledwith withtransitions transitionsinto into the thevisits visitsand andneeded neededthe theFoster FosterMother Mothertoto help helpget getthem them into into the theroom room and andget getthem them settled. settled. (N.T. (N.T. 60-61.) 60-61.) Ms. Ms. Morgan Morgantestified testified that that during during the the first first visit, visit,L.R. L.R. cried criedthe the majority majority of ofthe the time time until until he he fell fell asleep. asleep. (N.T. (N.T. 67.) 67.) E.H. E.H. stayed stayed on onthe the other otherside sideof of the the room room but but eventually eventually wanned warmed up up toto 7bllok ’ .. (Id.) (Id.) At At the the second secondvisit visit L.R. L.R. cried criedless lessand andE.H. E.H.sat satand andcolored coloredwith All, I with A)2.(N.T. Childrenand - (N.T. 68.) 68.) Ms. Ms. Morgan Morgan further further stated stated that that atatthe the 12 12 end of the visits the Minor Minor Children were were always always happy to go back to Foster Parents. Parents.

(Id.) (Id.) Ms. Ms. Morgan Morgan testified testified that that she she observed observed aa bond bond between between the the Minor Minor Children Children and and the the Foster Foster Parents Parents and and that that the the Minor Minor Children Children refer refer to to the the Foster Foster Parents Parents as as “mama "mama

and and papa”. papa". (N.T. (N.T. 62.) 62.) She She further further stated stated that that the the Minor Minor Children Children do do not not refer refer to te hell.I nn anyway. anyway. (Id.) (Id.) CYS CYS caseworker caseworker Bailey Van Van Fleet-Horan also also testified. testified. Ms. Ms. Van Van Fleet- Fleet- Horan’s Horan's position position is is to to oversee oversee caseworker’s caseworker's reports reports for for investigations, investigations, including including

overseeing overseeing kinship kinship resources. resources. (N.T. (N.T. 95-96.) 95-96.) Ms. Ms. Van Van Fleet-Horan Fleet-Horan testified testified that that CYS CYS originally originally denied l'pl asas aa kinship denied l^clVd< kinship option option due due to to mental mental health health concerns concerns and and concern concern for for lack lack of of parenting parenting skills skills of of aa newborn, newborn, as as well well as as no no housing housing being being approved approved by by the the agency. agency. (N.T. (N.T. 96-97.) 96-97.) Upon Upon cross-examination, cross-examination, Ms. Ms, Van Van Fleet- Fleet- Horan Horan stated stated that that /Ile 1 was not asked about her child’s upbringing because was not asked about her child's upbringing because the the agency agency determined determined she she was was unable unable to to care care for for newborns newborns based based on on the the Minor Minor Children Children in in this this case. case. (N.T. (N.T. 106-107.) 106-107.) Those Those concerns concerns included included the the lack lack of ofnutrition nutrition L.R. L.R. was was receiving. receiving. (N.T. (N.T. 107.) 107.) Ms. Ms. Van Van Fleet-Horan Fleet-Horan explained explained CYS CYS was was also also concerned concerned about about the the unreasonable unreasonable beliefs beliefs } ll.k - had on die development and 'had on the development and

growth growth of ofchildren children that that age. age. (Id.) (Id.) She She clarified clarified these these concerns concerns through through the the example example of/llz_documenting and saving the Minor Children's earwax and nasal — documenting and saving the Minor Children’s earwax and nasal drip drip and and thinking thinking ititwas waspertinent pertinentto to their their development. development. (Id.) (Id.)

At Atthe the conclusion conclusionof ofthe thehearing hearingon onNovember November 17, 17, 2024, 2024, Counsel Counsel was was ordered ordered toto file file briefs briefs due due by byDecember December 9,9, 2024. 2024. Furthermore, Furthermore, this this Court Court acknowledged acknowledgedthat that no no decision decision regarding regarding the the adoption adoption will will be be made made until until after after the the Superior Superior Court Courthas has decided decided the the above-captioned above-captioned appeal. appeal. On On December December 24, 24, 2024, 2024, the the Superior Superior Court Court Remanded Remandedthe theCase Caseback backto tothe the1Trial rial Court Courtafter afterAffirming Affinningthe thetrial trial court’s court'sdecision decision dismiss/)ll/. totodismiss Complaint Complaintfor forCustody. Custody. On OnDecember December4,4,2024, 2024, Grandmother Grandmotherfiled filedaaMotion MotiontotoRequest RequestExtension Extensionfor for Filing FilingBriefs Briefsuntil untilall alltranscripts transcriptswere werecompleted. completed.This ThisMotion Motionwas wasGranted Grantedand andthe the 13 13 deadline to file file briefs briefs on on this matter was was extended to to fourteen (14) (14) days after all all transcripts transcripts were were lodged lodged with with the the Court. Court. The The final final transcript transcript of of proceedings proceedings was was filed filed

on on January January 27, 27, 2025. 2025. On On February February 10, 10, 2025, 2025, Foster Foster Parents Parents filed filed aa Brief Brief in in Support Support

of of their their Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption of of the the Children. Children. Also Also on on February February 10, 10, 2025, 2025, the the Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Litem filed filed aa Brief Brief regarding regarding the the Contested Contested Adoption. Adoption. On On February February 11, 11,

2025, 2025, /llc filed filed aa Brief Brief in in Support Support of of her her Petition Petition to to Adopt. Adopt. On On February February 12, 12,

2025, 2025, the Attorney for for the the Children filed a Memorandum Memorandum in Support Support of the Petition for for Adoption Adoption by by the the Foster Foster Parents. Parents.

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION On On January January 2, 2, 2024, 2024, and and January January 4, 4, 2024, 2024, dShV {SFV a. 18 _ -J j, Foster -- _ — », Foster Parents Parents to to the the Minor Minor Children, Children, and and Mlcllk , , maternal maternal grandmother grandmother of of the the Minor Minor Children, Children, filed filed contesting contesting Petitions Petitions for for Adoption Adoption of of the the Minor Minor Children. Children. The The Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Li tern in in this this case case stated stated in in his his brief brief that that he he had had the the opportunity opportunity to to view view the the home home of the ofthe Foster Foster Parents Parents and and the the home home of of1 h/.k . Additionally, Additionally, he he had had the the opportunity opportunity to to see see the the Minor Minor Children Children interact interact with with both both the the

Foster Parents and9l\{ Foster Parents , . The The Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Litem was was also also present present during during the the four four days days of oftestimony testimony in in this this case. case. In In his his brief, brief, the the Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Litem concludes concludes itit isis in in the the best best interest interest of ofthe the Minor Minor Children Children for for the the Court Court to to grant grant the the Foster Foster Parent’s Parent's Petition Petition for for Adoption. Adoption. Counsel Counsel for for the the Minor Minor Children Children was was also also present present at at the the hearings hearings relating relating to to the the contested contested adoption adoption and and stated stated in in his his Memorandum Memorandum of ofSupport Support that that he he believes believes itit isis in in the the best best interest interest of ofthe the Minor Minor Children Children to to be be adopted adopted by by Foster Foster Parents. Parents. Adoptions Adoptions in in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania are are governed governed by by 23 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 2101 2101 et et seq, seq, the the “Adoption "Adoption Act”. Act. The The Act Act establishes establishes various various procedures procedures that that must must be be followed followed and and provides provides for for the the testimony testimony and and investigation investigation required required in in regard regard to to an an Adoption Adoption Petition. Petition. Pursuant Pursuant to to the the Adoption Adoption Act, Act, “[t]he "[t]he court court shall shall hear hear testimony testimony in in support support

14 14 of the of the petition and such petition and such additional additional testimony as itit deems testimony as deems necessary necessary to to inform inform itit as as to to the the desirability desirability of the proposed ofthe proposed adoption.” adoption." 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2724(a). 23 Pa.C.S. 2724(a). Section Section 2724 2724 sets sets

forth forth that, that, in in evaluating evaluating an an adoption adoption petition, petition, “the "the court court shall shall decide decide its its desirability desirability

on on the the basis basis of ofthe the physical, physical, mental mental and and emotional emotional needs needs and and welfare welfare of ofthe the child.” child."

Id. Id. The Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior Court has Superior Court has found found that that “[i]n "[i]n adoption adoption matters, matters, the the

paramount concern isis the paramountconcern the best best interest ofthe interest of child.7 In the child.” In re reAdoption Adoption of ofA.S.H., A.S.H., 674 674

A.2d A.2d 698, 698, 700 700 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1996.) 1996.) This This “best "best interests” interests" determination determination isis made made on on aa

case-by-case case-by-casebasis basisand andrequires requiresthe theweighing weighingof ofall allfactors factorswhich whichbear bearupon uponaachild's child's

physical, physical, intellectual, intellectual, moral, moral, and and spiritual spiritual well-being. well-being. Id, Id. The the Superior SuperiorCourt Courthas has warnedthat, warned that,“when "whencourts courtsfailfailtotoprovide childrenwith providechildren withaapermanent, permanent,safe, safe,stable stableand and

loving lovinghome, home,thetheresult resultisis‘all 'alltoo toooften, often,catastrophically catastrophicallymaladjusted maladjustedchildren’”. children".InIn rereAdoption Adoptionof ofK.B., K.B.,atat1174. 1174.

While Whilethe thepreservation offamily preservationof familyisisaaconsideration, consideration,“the "thegoal goalof ofpreserving preserving

the thefamily familyunit unitcannot cannotbebeelevated elevatedabove aboveall allother otherfactors factorswhen whenconsidering consideringthe thebest best

interests interestsof ofthe thechildren childrenbut butmust mustbebeweighed weighedininconjunction conjunctionwith withother factors."InIn otherfactors.”

rereAdoption Adoptionof ofK.B., K.B.,311 311A.3d A.3d1166, 1166,1174, 1174,appeal appealdenied, denied,319 A.3d 319 A.3d506 506(Pa. (Pa.Super. Super. 2024).Consequently, 2024). Consequently,the thePennsylvania PennsylvaniaSuperior SuperiorCourt Courthas hasheld heldthat thatititisisananabuse abuseofof

discretion forthe discretionfor orphans'court theorphans’ courttotorely relyexclusively exclusivelyononthe thebiological biologicalnature natureofofa a

relationship relationshipandandcontact contactwith withthetheblood bloodrelative relativewhen whenconsidering consideringananadoption adoption

petition, petition,rather ratherthan thanconsidering consideringthe theentire entirerecord recordtotodetermine determinewhat whatisisininthe thebest best

interests interestsofofa achild. Id.Again, child.Id. Again,although althoughthe theexistence existenceofofa abiological biologicalrelationship relationshipis is

a arelevant relevantfactor factortotoconsider considerwhen whenevaluating evaluatingananadoption adoptionpetition, petition,it itisisnot nota a

controlling controllingone. Id.,citing one.Id., Adoptionofof D.M.H.,682 citingAdoption 682A.2d A.2d315, 315,319 319(Pa. (Pa.Super. Super.

1996). 1996).Furthermore, Furthermore,existence existenceofofemotional emotionalbond bondbetween betweenchild childand andone oneofof

prospective prospective custodial custodial parents parents is is anan important fact inin making important fact making best bestinterest interest

determination determinationininadoption adoptionproceeding. proceeding.2323Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§ $2902(a). 2902()-

1515 The The proceedings proceedings in in an an adoption adoption hearing hearing are are unique unique and and involve involve parties, parties, experts, experts, investigators investigators and and non-parties non-parties to to aa greater greater extent extent than than in in custody custody hearings, hearings,

but but ultimately ultimately are are subject subject to to the the same same standard, standard, that that being being the the best best interest interest of of the the

child. child. In In re re B.L.L., 787 787 A.2d A.2d 1007, 1007, 1015 1015 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2001), 2001), citing citing In In re re Adoption Adoption ofof

A.S.H., A.S.H., 674 674 A.2d A.2d 698 698 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1996). 1996). Even Even though though this this matter matter isis an an adoption adoption case, case,

itithas has proceeded proceededmore more like like aa custody custody case. case. In In the the end, end, the the Court Courtmust mustmakemakeaadecision decision

based based on on the the best best interest interest of ofthe the child. child. Therefore, Therefore, itit isis not not inappropriate inappropriate to to borrow borrow the the factors factors considered considered in in custody custody cases, cases, in in particular, particular, the the need need for for stability stability and and continuity continuity in in the the child s education, child's education, family family life, life, and and community community life, life, the the availability availability

of ofextended extended family, family, the the child’s child's sibling sibling relationship, relationship, the the history history of ofdrug drug or or alcohol alcohol

abuse abuse of of aa party party or or member member of of aa party’s party's household, household, and and mental mental and and physical physical

condition conditionof ofaaparty party or ormember memberof ofaaparty’s party'shousehold. household. 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§§5328(a)(4), 5328(a)(4), (5), (5),(6), (6),(14), (19),(15). (15).

InInthe theinstant instantcase, case,the theMinor MinorChildren Childrenhave haveresided residedwith withFoster FosterParents Parentssince since

June June4,4,2022. 2022.The TheCourt Courtheard heardtestimony testimonyfrom frommultiple multiplewitnesses witnessestotothe thedistinct distinctbond bond

that thatexists existsbetween betweenthe theMinor MinorChildren Childrenand andFoster FosterParents. Parents.Both BothL.R. L.R.and andE.H. E.H.refer refer

totothe theFoster FosterParents Parentsasas“papa” "papa"and and“mama”. "mama".Throughout Throughoutthe theproceedings, proceedings,the theFoster Foster

Parents Parentsshowcased showcasedthe thefamily familyunity unityand andbond bondthey theycreated createdfor forthe theMinor MinorChildren. Children. The TheFoster FosterParents Parentsdescribed describedtraditions traditionsand andactivities activitiesthey theydo doasasaafamily familysuch suchasas biking bikingand andgoing goingtotoamusement amusementparks parksasaswell wellasasbeing beinginvolved involvedininchurch churchprograms. programs. The TheFoster FosterParents Parentsalso alsotestified testifiedtotothe theclose closebond bondthe theMinor MinorChildren Childrenhave havewith withtheir their biological biologicalchildren childrenand andadopted adoptedson. son.Testimony Testimony was was also alsopresented presentedthat thatFoster Foster Parents Parentsextended extendedfamily, family,and andfriends friendstreat treathe theMinor MinorChildren Childrenasaspart partofofthe thefamily. family. The TheCourt Courtheard heardtestimony testimonyregarding regardingthe theMinor MinorChildren Childrenbeing beingenrolled enrolledininschool school and andE.H. E.H.receiving receivingspeech speechtherapy. therapy.

While Whilethere therewas wastestimony testimonyregarding regardinga aprior priorbond bondbetween betweenE.H. E.H.and and ••••. hd, Ila.khaskashadhadlittle A?/J Uy ? littletotononoinvolvement involvementwith withthe theMinor MinorChildren Childrensince since 1616 June June of of 2022. 2022. Since Since that that time, time, h).l\ has has only had minimal only had minimal supervised supervised visits visits with with the the Minor Minor Children. Children. At At such such visits, visits, CYS caseworkers testified CYS caseworkers testified that the Minor that the Minor Children usually had Children had a hard hard time time transitioning transitioning and leaving Foster and leaving Foster Mother. Mother. CYS caseworkers also also testified testified that that they did did not not observe any any notable bond between the Minor Minor Children Children and and hlk • b Furthermore, Furthermore, the last time/bltcv the last timeA^^JtoJkf-"-! saw the saw the Minor Minor Children Children was was April April 1 1,, 2024. 2024.

The The Court Court also also heard heard testimony testimony from from CYS CYS caseworkers caseworkers regarding regarding concerns concerns

for forAl/k-.t.'4..s,, ss mental mental health health and and lack lack of of parental parental skills skills with with newborns, as well newborns, as well as as unstable unstable housing housing and and financial financial concerns. While -llz'-- has concerns. While has not not been been diagnosed diagnosed with with aa mental mental illness, illness, testimony testimony was was presented presented from from multiple multiple witnesses witnesses relating relating to to troubling troubling behavior behavior and and statements. statements. Alt.k also also reiterated reiterated some some of of the the concerning concerning behavior behavior and and statements statements during during her her testimony. testimony.°3#lkk'' testified testified that that she she was was aware aware of of the the risks risks of of feeding feeding an an infant infant goat goat milk milk formula formula but but was was not not taking taking steps steps to to monitor monitor if if the the formula formula was was having having any any-negative effects effects on on the the child. child. Furthermore, Furthermore, at at the the time time of of the the hearing, hearing, /(kk testified testified that that she she had had been been residing residing at at her her current current home home for for about about aa year. year. However, her housing However, her housing and and financial financial situation situation was was unstable throughout throughout CYS CYS involvement involvement in in this case. case. In In contrast contrast to to the the evidence evidence establishing establishing the the love, love, support, support, and and care care that that the the Foster Foster Parents Parents have have provided provided for for the the Minor Minor Children Children for for nearly nearly three three years, years, . 6I\oke. failed failed to to present present any any evidence evidence of of aa beneficial beneficial relationship relationship between between her her and and Minor Minor Children Children beyond beyond the the mere mere fact fact of of genetics. genetics. While While we we do do not not doubt doubt that that x... .._ /l^U^loves h-/lFloves the the Minor Minor Children Children and and has has been been there there in in the the past past to to care care for for them them when when the the biological biological parents parents were were unable, unable, /5l/.I has has had had little little to to no no role role in in the the Minor Minor Children’s Children's lives lives since since they they were were placed placed with with Foster Foster Parents Parents in in June June of of 2022. 2022.

It isis important ·It important to to note note that that throughout/pl\l> throughout /ipjl testimony, testimony, the the Court Court observed observed clear clear puffing puffing and and self¬ self- serving serving statements statements which which weighed weighed against against her her credibility. credibility. (N.T. (N.T. 170-174, 170-174, 186-187,280-281 186-187, 280-281, 284-285 284-285, 298- 298- 300.) 300.) 17 17 Furthermore, Furthermore, Dr. Dr. Christner testified testified that that any reunification of the Minor Minor Children with with All.k—.would would need need to to be be done done carefully carefully and and gradually. gradually. With With the the long long history history of of this this case, case, the the Court Court finds finds that that the the Minor Minor Children Children deserve deserve permanency permanency and and stability stability now. now. For For nearly three years years now, now, the Foster Foster Parents have provided for for the physical, physical, emotional, emotional, educational, educational, and financial financial needs needs of the Minor Minor Children. Children. At At that that time the Minor Minor Children Children were were placed placed with with Foster Foster Parents, Parents, E.H. E.H. was was three three (3) (3) years years old old and and

L.R. L.R. was was four four (4) (4) months months old. old. Therefore, Therefore, L.R. L.R. has has been been with with Foster Foster Parents Parents for for almost almost his his entire entire life life and and knows knows no no other other parents. parents. As As for for E.H., she has E.H., she has lived lived with with Foster Foster Parents Parents for for very very formative formative years years of ofher her life life and and has has formed formed aa connection connection with with them them as as parental parental figures. figures. Additionally, Additionally, both both L.R. L.R. and and E.H. E.H. refer refer to to Foster Foster Parents Parents as as “Mama "Mama and and Papa”. Papa". This This Court Court strongly strongly believes believes that that removing removing the the Minor Minor Children Children from from the the Foster Foster Parents Parents would would have have aa negative negative impact impact on on their their lives lives and and emotional emotional wellbeing. wellbeing. The The Court Court also also believes believes itit would would do do great great harm harm to to the the Minor Minor Children Children to to unnecessarily unnecessarily severe severe the the strong strong bond bond that that has has been been developed developed with with the the Foster Foster Parents Parents as as well well as as the the Foster Foster Parents’ Parents' other other children. children. Therefore, Therefore, this this Court Court finds finds itit in in the the best best interest interest of of the the Minor Minor Children Children to to be be adopted adopted by by the the Foster Foster Parents, Parents, A ' ... - CONCLUSION CONCLUSION _ .

For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, the the Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption by by f' le zcsks „ of of the the Minor Minor Children Children isis granted. granted. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the Petition Petition of ofAdoption Adoption by by /Itek isis denied. denied. A A concomitant concomitant order order will will be be entered entered consistent consistent with with the the foregoing. foregoing.

18 18 Circulated Circulated 01/09/2026 01/09/2026 01:34 01 :3 PM PM,

IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF LEBANON OF LEBANON COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS'8COURT ORPHANS COURT DIVISION DIVISION

IN RE: IN RE: ADOPTIONS ADOPTIONS Docket Docket No.: No.: 2023-759, 2023-759, and and OF OF Docket Docket No.: No.: 2023-760 2023-760

J < L, ', and and CHILDREN’S FAST CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK TRACK

ORDER ORDER OF OF COURT COURT

AND AND NOW, NOW, to to wit, wit, this this c^^^dav ¢I'day of of July July 2025, 2025, after after careful careful consideration consideration of the of the record, record, it it appears appears to to the the Court Court that that the the issues issues raised raised by by Appellant, Appellant, C C: --·.- , Concise .. Concise Statement Statement of of Errors Errors Complained Complained of of on on Appeal Appeal have have been been previously addressed previously addressed in in our our Order Order and and Opinion Opinion dated dated May May 30, 30, 2025. 202S. The Court The Court hereby hereby directs directs the the Clerk Clerk of of Orphans’ Orphans' Court Court of of Lebanon Lebanon County County to to transmit the transmit the record, record, together together with with this this Order Order and and the the attached attached Opinion, Opinion, to to the the Pennsylvania Superior Pennsylvania Superior Court Court for for its its review, review, pursuant pursuant to to Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1931, 1931, no no later later than July than July 25, 25, 2025. 2025.

BY THE COURT!

CHARLES

cc: cc: Lebanon County Lebanon County Children Children and and Youth Youth Services Services Roberta J. Roberta J. Santiago, Santiago, Esquire Esquire John J. John J. Ferry, Ferry, Jr., Jr., Esquire Esquire Caleb J. Caleb J. Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Esquire Esquire // // 466 466 Jonestown Jonestown Road, Road, Jonestown, Jonestown, PA PA 17038 17038 · V P.O. Box 120, /P.O.Box 120, Myerstown, Myerstown, PA PA 17046 17046 IN IN THE THE COURT OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF LEBANON OF LEBANON COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

ORPHANS’ ORPHANS' COURT COURT DIVISION DIVISION

IN IN RE: RE: ADOPTIONS ADOPTIONS Docket Docket No.: No.: 2023-759, 2023-759, and and OF OF Docket No.: Docket No.: 2023-760 2023-760

EK ' ri and ,and CHILDREN'S FAST CHILDREN’S FAST TRACK TRACK L i aV Ni, - , APPEARANCES:: APPEARANCES � e

LES AHDM � Roberta J. Santiago, Roberta J. Santiago, Esquire Esquire Fori For L S.pA • " >

L.'f.k - -�], r )

John J. Ferry, John J. Jr., Esquire Ferry, Jr., Esquire For For the the Minor Children Minor Children ,, " c # Caleb Caleb J. J. Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Esquire Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem 6 Esquire Liten 4= r t 44, Self-Represented Litigant Self-Represented Litigant OPINION OPINION BY BY JONES, JONES, JR., J.; JR,,J; The following The Opinion addresses following Opinion addresses the the issues issues raised Appellant, CG_ m by Appellant, raised by c n(hereinafter (hereinafter "hIuY"), ’ ”) } in in her Concise Statements her Concise Statements of of Matters Matters Complained of on Complained of on Appeal Appeal included included in in her her Notice Notice of Appeal to of Appeal to the Superior Court. the Superior Court. The The Notice Notice of Appeal Appeal was was filed filed with the the Lebanon County Court of Common County Court Common Pleas on June on June 30, 2025. 30, 2025. Appellant Concise Statement Appellant's Concise Statement of of Matters Complained of Matters Complained of on on Appeal Appeal raises raises seven (7) seven (7) specific specific issucs, issues, pertaining pertaining to our decision to our decision entered entered on on May May 30, 30, 2025, 2025, regarding regarding the the contested contested adoption adoption of of minor minor children children L.R. and E.H. L.R. and (hereinafter E.H. (hereinafter “Minor Children”). Minor Children") FACTUAL FACTUAL & & PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY V kIL (hereinafter “Mother”) an (hereinafter "Mother") and sci ' ■' .--- — (hereinafter (hereinafter Father”) are Father") are the the biological biological parents of the parents of the Minor Minor Children. Children. Lebanon County Children Lebanon County Children

image and and Youth Youth Services Services (hereinafter (hereinafter “CYS”) "CYS") first first became became involved involved with with the the family family on on May 2, 2022, May 2, 2022, as as aa result result of of incarceration and drug incarceration and drug use use by by Mother Mother and and Father. Father. At At that that time, time, the the Children Children were were living living with with the the maternal maternal grandmother, grandmother, ll9Ila u• On On June June 1, 1, 2022, 2022, while while in in the the care care of of ll- ,CYS received a second referral, and a , CYS received a second referral, and a safety safety plan plan was was put put in in place. place. On June On June 3, 3, 2022, 2022, Father Father signed signed aa Voluntary Voluntary Placement Placement Agreement Agreement and and the the Children were placed Children, placed into into a CYS CYS approved foster home home with wnu $PU. A tZ ut.BR_ II ...j - —e.---» p- j (hereinafter (hereinafter “Foster "Foster Parents”). Parents"). On On August August 1, 1, 2022, 2022, the the Minor Minor Children were Children were found found dependent. dependent. On On September September 26, 26, 2023, 2023, CYS CYS filed filed aa Petition Petition for for the Involuntary the Involuntary Termination of Parental Tennination of Parental Rights Rights for for both both Mother Mother and and Father. Father. Following aa hearing, Following hearing, the the parental parental rights of Mother rights of Mother and and Father Father were were terminated terminated on on December 18, December 18, 2023. 2023. The The Children Children have have remained remained in in the the care care of of Foster Foster Parents Parents since since July July 13, 13, 2022. 2022. On On January January 2, 2, 2024, 2024, Pl' filed filed aa Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption of of the the Minor Minor Children. Children. On On January January 4, 4, 2024, 2024, Foster Foster Parents Parents filed filed aa Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption of of the the Minor Children. Minor Children. All.k also filed also filed a Complaint Complaint for for Custody Custody against against the the biological Mother biological Mother and and Father on October Father on October 27, 27, 2023. 2023. On On March March 6, 6, 2024, 2024, the the Court Court entered an entered an Order Order ruling ruling that that because there was because there was an adoption hearing an adoption hearing scheduled scheduled regarding the regarding the two two separate separate adoption adoption petitions, petitions, the the custody custody complaint complaint was was dismissed. dismissed. ),le.k filed filed aa timely timely Appeal Appeal to to the the Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. On On December 24, December 24, 2024, 2024, the the Superior Superior Court Court remanded remanded the the case case back back to to the the trial trial court court after affirming after affirming the the trial trial court’s court's decision decision to to dismiss dismiss hl\.l's ' Complaint Complaint for for Custody. Custody.

While the While Appeal was the Appeal was pending, pending, the Court conducted the Court conducted evidentiary evidentiary hearings on hearings on the contested the contested adoption petitions on adoption petitions on June 25, 2024, June 25, 2024, August August 15, 15, 2024, 2024, September September 9, 9, 2024, and November 2024, and November 17, 17, 2024. 2024. The The testimony testimony covered covered the the entire entire procedural procedural history history of the of the Dependency Dependency Matters Matters that that resulted resulted in in the the termination termination of of parental parental rights rights of of the the 33 biological biologicalparents. parents.The Thetestimony testimonyalso alsocovered coveredthe thecurrent currentstatus statusof ofthe theChildren. Children.AA detailed detailedsummary summaryof the relevant ofthe relevanttestimonial testimonialevidence evidenceelicited elicitedduring duringthe theevidentiary evidentiary

hearings hearings isisincluded includedin inthe the Court CourtOrder Orderand and Opinion Opinion dated datedMay May30, 30, 2025, 2025, attached attached

hereto heretoas asExhibit ExhibitA. A.

On OnFebruary February 10, 10,2025, 2025,Foster FosterParents Parentsfiled filedaaBrief Briefin inSupport Supportof oftheir theirPetition Petition

for for Adoption Adoption of ofthe the Children. Children. Also Also on on February February 10, 10, 2025, 2025, the the Guardian Guardian Ad Ad Litem Litem

filed filed aaBrief Briefregarding regardingthe the Contested ContestedAdoption. Adoption. On OnFebruary February 11, 11, 2025. 2025. /l]._d filed filed aa Brief Brief in in Support Support of ofher her Petition Petition of ofAdoption. Adoption. On On February February 12, 12, 2025, 2025, the the Attorney Attorney for for the the Children Children filed filed aa Memorandum Memorandum in in Support Support of of the the Petition Petition for for

Adoption Adoption by bythe theFoster FosterParents. Parents. Following Followingthetheevidentiary evidentiaryhearings hearings on onthe thecontested contestedadoption adoptionpetitions petitionsand andthe the parties’ parties' submissions submissions of of briefs briefs on on their their respective respective positions, positions, this this Court Court entered entered an an .... Order Order and and Opinion Opinion on on May May 30, 30, 2025, 2025, denying denying Appellants Appellant __ ---- Petition Petition of of

Adoption Adoption of of the the Minor Minor Children Children and and granted granted the the Petition Petition for for Adoption Adoption by by Foster Foster Parents, On June Parents, -.---..-.On June 30, 30, 2025, 2025, Appellant Appellant filed filed aa timely timely Notice Notice of ofAppeal Appeal and and Concise Concise Statement Statement of ofMatters Matters Complained Complained of ofon on

Appeal. Appeal. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Appellant’s Appellant's Concise Concise Statement Statement raises raises seven seven (7) (7) issues issues on on appeal. appeal. The The first first matter matter Appellant Appellant complains complains of ofon on appeal appeal is is that that the the trial trial court court committed committed an an error error of of

law law and/or and/or abused abused its its discretion discretion when when the the Court Court found found that that adoption adoption by by Foster Foster Parents Parents was was in in the the best best interest interest of ofthe the Minor Minor Children. Children. The The second second matter matter Appellant Appellant raises in raises in her her Concise Concise Statement Statement is is that the trial that the trial court court erred erred in in finding finding that that CYS CYS made made reasonable reasonable efforts efforts to to reunify reunify the the family. family. The The third hird matter matter Appellant Appellant complains complains of ofon on appeal appeal is is that that the the Court Court abused its its discretion discretion by by failing failing to to consider consider the the bond bond between between the the Minor Minor Children Children and A.lla' The The fourth fourth issue issue Appellant Appellant complains complains of of on on appeal appeal is is that that the the trial trial court court failed failed to to properly properly consider consider },llt's Petition Petition for for 44 Custody Custody or or visitation. visitation. The The fifth fifth matter matter Appellant Appellant raises raises in in her her Concise Concise Statement Statement is is that the trial that the trial court court permitted permitted her her legal legal counsel counsel to to provide provide negligent negligent representation. representation. The sixth The sixth issue issue Appellant Appellant raised raised is is that that the the trial trial court court subjected subjected Appellant Appellant to to discrimination or discrimination or bias bias regarding regarding religious religious principles principles and and practices. practices. The The last last matter matter Appellant Appellant complains complains of of on on appeal appeal is is that that the the trial trial court’s court's actions actions violated violated Act Act 101 of 101 of 2010. 2010. I. I. The trial court court applied applied the the best best interest standard standard when making its its decision decision which includes which includes taking taking into into consideration consideration the the bond bond between between the the Minor Minor Children and Children and Appellant. Appellant. It It appears to the appears to the Court Court that that the the issues issues one one and and three three raised raised by by Appellant Appellant on on Appeal, relating Appeal, relating to to the the best best interest interest standard standard and and the the bond bond of of the the Minor Minor Children Children and and Appellant, have Appellant, have been been previously previously addressed addressed in in our our Order Order and and Opinion Opinion dated dated May May 30, 30, 2025 (Exhibit 2025 (Exhibit A). A). II. The II. The trial trial court court found found credible credible testimony testimony that that CYS CYS made reasonable made reasonable reunification efforts. reunification efforts. Appellant claims Appellant claims that that the the trial trial court court erred erred in in finding finding that that CYS CYS made made reasonable reasonable efforts efforts to to reunify reunify the the family. family. During During the the hearings, hearings, the the Court Court heard heard testimony testimony from from CYS CYS workers workers regarding regarding visits visits between between Alla and and the the Minor Minor Children. Children. CYS CYS caseworkers explained explained that that }ll_} began to to attend attend visits with the Minor Minor Children’s Children's biological biological parents. parents. The caseworkers caseworkers also also ex b)//ts plained whyJ^x/L^JiLL. lained p why _

visits visits eventually eventually stopped stopped as as aa result result of ' own actions of lll.Town actions such such as as not not complying complying with with time time restrictions restrictions and actions that and actions that were were disruptive disruptive to to the the Minor Minor Children's daily Children’s daily lives. lives. Therefore, Therefore, the the Court Court found found that that testimony testimony supported supported aa finding finding that that CYS CYS made made reasonable reasonable effects effects to to reunify reunify the the family. family. HI- III. Appellant’s Appellant's issue issue as as it it relates relates to to her her custody custody petition petition is is moot. moot. As to As Appellant’s claim to Appellant's that the claim that the Court Court failed failed to to properly properly consider consider /5)ll.J's. Petition Petition for for Custody, Custody, the the issue issue is is moot moot as as the the Superior Superior Court Court issued issued aa 5 5 decision decision on on December December 24, 24, 2024, 2024, affirming affirming the the trial trial court’s court's decision decision to to dismiss dismiss} ’ J3 Complaint (jllab omplaint for for Custody. Custody. IV. IV. Appellant’s Appellant's issue issue regarding regarding the the trial trial court’s court's involvement involvement in in her her counsel’s counsel's alleged alleged negligent negligent representation representation isis without without merit. merit. Appellant’s Appellant's Concise Concise Statement Statement also also raises raises the the issue issue that that the the trial trial court court permitted permitted Appellant’s Appellant's legal legal counsel counsel to to provide provide negligent negligent representation representation is is without without merit. merit. It It is is not not within within aa Court's Court's purview purview to to dictate dictate or or raise raise issues issues regarding regarding an an individual’s individual's chosen chosen legal legal counsel's counsel's representation. representation. The The Court's Court's role role is is to to ensure ensure aa fair fair legal legal process, process, not not to to interfere interfere with with aa party's party's choice choice of ofrepresentation representation or or the the way way their their chosen chosen counsel counsel handles handles the the case. case. Furthermore, Furthermore, the the trial trial court court notes notes that that courts courts are are prohibited prohibited from from discriminating discriminating against against parents parents based based on on their their religion religion in in custody custody or or adoption adoption cases. cases. Religious Religious preference preference did did not not enter enter the the Court’s Court's consideration consideration when when entering entering its its Order Order and and Opinion. Opinion. More More specifically, specifically, the the trial trial court court applied applied the the traditional traditional test test used used in in adoption adoption cases cases -- determining determining what what is is in in the the best best interest interest of of the the child. child. V. V. The The trial trial court court did did not not violate violate Act Act 101 101 of of 2010. 2010. With With respect respect to to Appellant’s Appellant's last last issue issue raised raised on on appeal, appeal, Appellant Appellant claims claims that that the the trial trial court court violated violated Act Act 101 101 of of2010 (42 (42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 6301 6301 etseq.). et seq.). Act Act 101 101 of2010 of2010 amended amended the the Adoption Adoption Act Act to to provide provide the the option option for for adoptive adoptive parents parents and and birth birth relatives relatives to to enter enter into into an an enforceable enforceable voluntary voluntary agreement agreement for for ongoing ongoing communication communication or or contact contact between between the the child child and and the the birth birth relative relative or or between between the the adoptive parent adoptive parent and and the the birth birth relative. relative. The agreement must The agreement must be be one one that: that: (1) (1) is is in in the the best best interest interest of of the the child; child; (2) (2) recognizes recognizes the the parties' parties' interests interests and and desires desires for for ongoing ongoing communication, communication, or or contact; contact; (3) (3) is is appropriate appropriate given given the the role role of of the the parties parties in in the the child's life; child's life; and and (4) ( isis subject subject to approval by to approval by the the court. court. Act Act 101 101 provides provides that that the the agreement agreement shall shall be be filed filed with with the the court court that that finalizes finalizes the the adoption, adoption, and and that that the the court court shall shall approve approve the the agreement agreement if if itit finds finds that that the the agreement agreement has has been been entered entered knowingly knowingly 66

--- and voluntarily and voluntarily by by all all parties parties and and is is in the best in the best interest of the interest of the child. child. In In the the instant instant case, Foster case, Foster Parents Parents testified testified that that they they do do not not wish wish to to enter enter into into aa contact contact agreement agreement as it as it relates to the relates to the biological biological family family of the Minor of the Minor Children. Children. The The clear clear language language of of Act Act 101 of 101 of 2010 2010 states states that that it it is is aa voluntary voluntary agreement. agreement. Moreover, Moreover, the the Act Act provided provided that that the court the court shall shall only only approve approve such such agreement agreement if it finds if it finds that that the the agreement agreement has has been been entered into entered into knowingly and and voluntarily voluntarily by by all parties. parties. As As not all parties not all parties were were willing willing to enter into to into a contact contact agreement, agreement, the trial trial court court did did not not violate Act Act 101 of 2010. 2010. This Court carefully This Court carefully considered considered the the testimony testimony from from multiple multiple evidentiary evidentiary hearings on hearings on the the contested contested adoption petitions and adoption petitions and the the record record as as aa whole whole when when it came it came to its to its determination determination that that it it is is in in the best interest the best of the interest of the Minor Minor Children Children to to be be adopted adopted by the Foster by the Foster Parents, Parents, .. _ _ „ _i s. s. The The Court Court would also would also note note that that for for nearly nearly three three years years now, now, the the Foster Foster Parents Parents have have provided for provided for the physical, the physical, emotional, educational, and emotional, educational, and financial financial needs needs of of the the Minor Minor Children. Children. At At the time the time the the Minor Minor Children Children were were placed placed with with Foster Foster Parents, Parents, E.H. E.H. was was three three (3) (3) years old and years old and L.R. L.R. was was four four (4) ( months old. With months old. With the the long long history history of of this this case, case, the the Court finds Court finds that that the the Minor Minor Children Children deserve deserve permanency and stability permanency and stability now. now. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, and and in in our our Opinion Opinion dated dated May May 29, 29, 2025, 2025, this this Court denied Court denied Appellant, Appellant, I1 - ---...-.. -----. Petition of Petition of Adoption Adoption of of the the Minor Minor Children and granted Children granted the Petition Petition for Adoption Adoption by Foster Parents, Parents, :•

Upon careful review Upon careful review of of the the record, record, the the Court Court remains remains steadfast steadfast in in its its decision decision and submits and submits this this Opinion Opinion for for review review by by the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Superior Court. Court.

7 7