In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C. Appeal of: R.L.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C. Appeal of: R.L.

DecidedNovember 12, 2014

Docket951 MDA 2014

StatusUnpublished

This text of In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C. Appeal of: R.L. (In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C. Appeal of: R.L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Adopt of: S.W.C. Appeal of: R.L., (Pa. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

J-A31006-14 & J-A31007-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W.C., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: R.L., MOTHER,

Appellant No. 963 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered May 5, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000103-2012

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: S.W.C., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: R.L.,

Appellant No. 951 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree May 5, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2013-0119

BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and STABILE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 12, 2014

R.L. (“Mother”) appeals from the contemporaneous order and decree

entered on May 5, 2014, wherein the trial court changed S.W.C.’s

permanency goal from reunification to adoption and terminated Mother’s

parental rights to the child. As the appeals flow from identical facts and J-A31006-14 & J-A31007-14

Mother combined both of her arguments into a single brief, we address the

appeals collectively and affirm.1

S.W.C. was born during May 2009 of an ongoing relationship between

Mother and C.B.C. (“Father”). York County Office of Children and Youth,

Services (“CYS”) became involved with the family during May of 2012 due to

allegations that Father sexually abused S.W.C.’s older half-sister over a four-

year period. Father was determined to be an indicated perpetrator of abuse.

On June 4, 2012, the victim, S.W.C., and another half-sibling, who

subsequently leveled allegations of abuse against Father, were placed

together in emergency shelter care. The latter allegations of abuse were

also substantiated. On June 12, 2012, the juvenile court adjudicated the

three children dependent. The children remained together in the foster

home, which is now a pre-adoptive resource. The trial court also terminated

Mother’s parental rights to S.W.C.’s half-sisters. Mother did not appeal

those orders, and their birth father relinquished his parental rights and

consented to the adoption by the foster parents.

The original permanency goal for all of the children was reunification

with Mother. In order to achieve that goal, CYS crafted a family service plan

(“FSP”) that directed Mother to maintain contact with CYS, complete a non-

offending parenting class and a parental education program, obtain a

____________________________________________

1 On the same date, the trial court terminated the parental rights of C.B.C., S.W.C.’s birth father. We address the appeal from that order separately.

-2- J-A31006-14 & J-A31007-14

psychological evaluation and comply with treatment recommendations, and

maintain a safe home. The FSP was subsequently amended to include a

requirement that Mother and her then-paramour and now husband, N.L.,

complete evaluations to address past criminal history, including N.L.’s

convictions for statutory sexual assault and corruption of minors. Mother

was directed to attend weekly therapy at Pressley Ridge and cooperate with

separate in-home services provided by Pressley Ridge. Additionally, Mother

and N.L. were directed to comply with the visitation schedule.

Initially, Mother complied with the FSP. She attended a psychiatric

evaluation, finished the intake portion of a non-offenders parenting class,

and completed general parenting classes at Family Child Resources.

Likewise, early in the process, Mother maintained consistent supervised

visitation with S.W.C., and CYS moved the supervised visitations from the

agency into Mother’s home. However, during the dependency process,

S.W.C.’s behavior during the visitations became erratic in that he displayed

aggression and defiance and engaged in tantrums. Mother struggled to

redirect the child’s activities and often countered his behavior with

excessively long time-outs. By the time that CYS ultimately sought to

change the child’s permanency goal, he no longer wanted to visit Mother.

Within three months of S.W.C.’s dependency adjudication, Mother still

failed to initiate the therapy recommended following her psychiatric

evaluation. Similarly, by February 2013, Pressley Ridge sought to terminate

its in-home-service component because Mother required intensive services

-3- J-A31006-14 & J-A31007-14

beyond its capabilities. For example, while Mother was delinquent on her

bills, she rejected attempts by the in-home service team to formulate a

budget. Moreover, N.L.’s sex-offense evaluations remained pending at that

time. Pressley Ridge characterized the family’s prognosis as “very guarded”

due to the level of trauma and the level of effort required to mend the family

relationship and develop appropriate parenting skills. CYF Exhibit 5, Pressley

Ridge Closing Summary, at 4. It recommended that Mother continue with

regular outpatient counseling services. Id. at 3.

Later, during April 2013, Mother’s therapist reported that Mother

struggled to recognize how her traumatic history with sexual abuse affected

her parenting abilities. She reported that Mother missed at least sixteen of

the fifty-three scheduled therapeutic sessions. N.L. completed some

components of his evaluation, but neither he nor Mother had finished their

respective risk assessments at that point. Likewise, the court-appointed

child advocate (“CASA”) reported that Mother started serially misinforming

S.W.C. and his sisters that she had become pregnant and suffered a

miscarriages. However, since Mother had a tubal ligation during July 2012,

her claims of pregnancy were untrue. In the ensuing months, Mother’s

therapist reported that Mother’s attendance had become more inconsistent.

At one juncture, Mother missed fourteen of twenty-four sessions.

On October 30, 2013, CYS filed a petition to change S.W.C.’s

permanency goal from reunification to adoption and filed a petition to

terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. CASA concurred in CYS’s

-4- J-A31006-14 & J-A31007-14

decision and, on January 7, 2014, it issued a comprehensive report

concluding that it was in the best interests of S.W.C. and his two siblings to

change their permanency goal to adoption and terminate Mother’s parental

rights. The court convened evidentiary hearings on January 10 and

February 27, 2014. CYS presented testimony from the case worker assigned

to the family and from the family advocate who was associated with Catholic

Charities. Mother testified on her own behalf.

On May 5, 2014, the trial court granted CYS’s petitions, terminated

Mother’s parental rights, and change S.W.C.’s permanency goal to adoption.

These timely appeals followed. Mother filed a Rule 1925(b) statement

asserting three issues that she reiterates on appeal as follows:

I. Whether the trial court erred changing the goal from reunification to adoption.

II. Whether the trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of Mother . . . pursuant to [§] 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8) of the Adoption Act.

III. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children pursuant to [§] 2511(b) of the Adoption Act.

Mother’s brief at 5.

Mother challenges the trial court’s decision to change S.W.C.’s

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI