J-S19031-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: J.V. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.V., FATHER : : : : : : No. 215 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered January 26, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Orphans' Court at No(s): No. 255 OC 2020
IN RE: B.V. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.V., FATHER : : : : : : No. 216 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered January 26, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Orphans' Court at No(s): 256 OC 2020
IN RE: J.V. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.V., FATHER : : : : : : No. 217 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered January 26, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Orphans' Court at No(s): 254 OC 2020
IN RE: B.V. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA J-S19031-21
: APPEAL OF: J.V., FATHER : : : : : : No. 218 WDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered January 26, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County Orphans' Court at No(s): 253 OC 2020
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: July 1, 2021
J.V. (Father) appeals from the January 26, 2021 orders of the Court of
Common Pleas of Clarion County (trial court) terminating his parental rights
to Be.V. (age 10), Ju.V. (age 6), Jo.V. (age 4) and Bn.V. (age 3) (collectively,
Children).1 We affirm.
I.
We glean the facts of this matter from the transcript of the goal change
hearing held on October 20, 2020, and the transcript of the termination
hearing held on January 19, 2021. Following multiple dependency cases in
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Father filed a separate notice of appeal at each docket number in the trial
court and we consolidated his appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. The trial court also terminated the parental rights of J.M.-B. (Mother) at the conclusion of the hearing. We address Mother’s appeal separately at docket numbers 252-255 WDA 2021.
-2- J-S19031-21
Armstrong and Clarion counties from 2009 onward, Clarion County Children
and Youth Services (CYS)2 took emergency physical custody of Children in July
2019. They have remained in foster care ever since.
A.
The first witness at the goal change hearing was Jackie Peters (Peters),
a supervisor at the Armstrong County Children, Youth and Family Services
(Armstrong CYF). Peters testified that Armstrong CYF had been consistently
involved with the family from 2009 until 2019 and had received 28 referrals
related to the family over that time. Armstrong CYF filed for dependency for
Children in 2009, 2015, 2017 and 2018. Peters testified that the family had
issues with housing, domestic violence between Mother and Father, instability
in their relationship and Mother’s mental health. Armstrong CYF had offered
in-home services for the family from multiple providers as well as counseling
services for two of the Children, mental health services for Mother and anger
management services for Father. In 2018, they increased the in-home
services from 18 hours per week to 23 hours per week. Families usually
receive no more than 10 hours of services per week.
Peters testified that in January 2017, Father slapped Be.V. and
threatened her with a belt, prompting Mother to obtain a temporary PFA
2 CYS, legal counsel for Children and Children’s guardian ad litem (collectively,
Appellees) filed a joint brief in these appeals.
-3- J-S19031-21
against him. Mother reported Father for domestic violence and obtained
temporary PFAs against him on multiple occasions. At one point that year,
Father and Mother voluntarily placed Children with a family in Clarion County.
They left Children with limited clothing and supplies and Be.V. and Jo.V.
needed immediate medical treatment. At that time, Armstrong CYF received
a referral because Father and Mother had not been administering Ju.V.’s
seizure medication. Armstrong CYF also learned that cable bills had been
opened in Be.V. and Ju.V.’s names.
Father completed an anger management program from February to
August 2017. The 2017 dependency case was closed in December but Father
and Mother agreed to continue working with services. However, Armstrong
CYF received two new referrals related to the family within 20 days of closing
the case. Peters testified that Father was an indicated perpetrator of physical
abuse as a result of one of the referrals because he struck Jo.V., who was one
year old, multiple times causing a nosebleed. They were also discharged from
in-home services for noncompliance.
Armstrong CYF resumed in-home services with the family, which
included more anger management treatment for Father. Children were
adjudicated dependent again in March 2018. The family’s housing remained
unstable and had problems with bedbugs and lice. The in-home services team
determined that Father and Mother both needed substantial assistance with
parenting skills and supervising Children. Peters testified that Be.V.
-4- J-S19031-21
performed a lot of the parenting tasks for her younger siblings. Father still
exhibited aggression and anger when engaging with services and with Mother,
including making threats about having a gun in the home. Despite working
with services, Peters said that in mid-2018, the home was full of garbage,
dirty dishes, diapers and flies.
In early 2019, Father and Mother had not improved their living
conditions and were evicted from their home. They moved in with one of
Father’s family members in Clarion County. Peters testified that the family
had not resolved any of the issues related to housing, instability, anger
management and mental health while their case was open in Armstrong
County. The case was transferred to CYS after the move.
Judy Myers (Myers), an ongoing supervisor at CYS, testified that in
2015, there were allegations that a babysitter had sexually abused Be.V. and
Ju.V. Mother said that she had difficulty believing Be.V.’s allegations because
she had never experienced abuse herself from that individual. When a no-
contact order was entered for Children, Mother asked if she and Father could
continue to have contact with the babysitter without Children present. The
babysitter was eventually convicted for crimes related to sexual abuse of
Be.V., sentenced to prison and indicated as a perpetrator of sexual abuse.
Myers testified that Mother moved back and forth between Armstrong
and Clarion counties several times over the years, making it difficult to
establish services in either county. CYS accepted transfer of the instant
-5- J-S19031-21
dependency case from Armstrong County in March 2019. Children had been
adjudicated dependent for approximately one year. When they moved to
Clarion County, the family lived with one of Father’s relatives in a three-
bedroom home with 12 or 13 residents. They shared four twin beds between
Mother, Father, Children and three additional children. The house was in poor
repair and infested with bedbugs. Children would also sleep in a van outside.
CYS took emergency custody of Children in July 2019 after Mother took
them to Elk County and left them with strangers she had met a few days prior.
When Myers retrieved Children, she found that they were dirty and did not
have shoes. Ju.V. did not have his medication. On the drive back to Clarion,
Be.V. told Myers that she was afraid to go home because Father hits everyone.
She said that Mother was always leaving and she was not sure who her real
father was. She did not want to return to Father. Mother was charged with
child endangerment based on this incident.
Amanda Gregory (Gregory), an ongoing caseworker at CYS, testified
regarding Father and Mother’s family service plan goals for reunification with
Children. The first goal for both parents was to maintain a safe living
environment. Gregory testified that Father obtained an apartment in January
2020 but CYS did not consider it a stable living environment because he had
faced eviction three times. Father was also behind on his gas bill and kept a
gun in an unlocked closet in the bedroom. He did not lock the closet even
after CYS told him to make sure it was locked before visits with Children.
-6- J-S19031-21
Father was employed at a cleaning company and his hours fluctuated
depending on the time of year. He earned $1,100 to $1,200 per month in the
summer and approximately $640 per month in March and April. He earned
approximately $17,000 in 2019. CYS instructed Father to work with a services
provider to develop a budget but he did not follow through with that service.
Father also had a goal to develop anger management skills and he
participated in four anger management programs while the family was
involved with Armstrong CYF and CYS. He completed two of the programs
successfully, was unsuccessfully discharged from one and discontinued one
when he moved from Armstrong to Clarion county. Gregory testified that she
was still concerned about Father’s anger management skills. An in-home
services team had reported that Father frequently yelled at their staff, Mother
and Children during his visits and became angry or impatient with Children.
He had been indicated as a perpetrator of physical abuse against Jo.V. after
he completed his first anger management program.
Father and Mother both had a goal of developing their parenting skills.
Father was still enrolled in his program at the time of the hearing and had
completed four classes. Gregory testified that neither of them demonstrated
appropriate parenting skills during visits with Children. Before the hearing,
CYS held supervised visits at Father’s home to determine whether their
parenting skills would improve in the home. Gregory said that Father’s
parenting did not improve even with coaching assistance during visits. He
-7- J-S19031-21
would concentrate on cooking and cleaning but not on interacting with
Children. Father and Mother would both question Be.V. during visits about
why she did not want to talk to them or why she did not love them anymore,
which made her uncomfortable. She would be unable to sleep the nights
before and after her visits and would get stomach aches and panic attacks.
Be.V. refused to attend visits for approximately three months. When
she refused visits, there were incidents when Father and Mother would follow
Be.V. around the public pool while she was there with her foster family. On
one occasion, Mother followed Be.V. into the changing room and pulled the
curtain back, exposing her to the room. Be.V. started having anxiety and
panic attacks when visiting the pool. Be.V. consistently told the caseworkers
that she did not want to attend visits with her parents.
Gregory testified that Father and Mother separated and reconciled
several times over the course of the case and both were currently married to
other people. At the time of the goal change hearing, Father and Mother had
resumed their relationship for approximately three months. At the prior
review hearing in June 2020, they were ordered to attend either couples
counseling or co-parenting counseling. They had a single couples’ counseling
session in October 2020.
Gregory said Be.V. wanted to be adopted by her current foster family.
She was excelling academically in her foster home, had perfect attendance at
-8- J-S19031-21
school and attended therapy weekly.3 Ju.V. had some behavioral issues while
the case was pending, including stealing money and destroying his shoes and
toys. On one occasion, he carried a sharp metal nail file in his pocket and said
that he needed it to protect himself in case Father and Mother tried to kidnap
him. He had nightmares about kidnapping and was attending therapy
biweekly but was doing well in school. Jo.V. was in the Head Start program
and was doing well with her foster family, but she would have attitude
problems after visits with Father and Mother.
Bn.V. was also doing well in her foster home but would exhibit behaviors
like fighting and biting after returning from visits with Father and Mother.
Bn.V. had stopped biting others after adjusting to her foster home but the
behavior resumed when she began visiting with Father and Mother. She was
receiving speech therapy. Gregory testified that when Bn.V. was placed at 15
months old, she did not talk at all. At the time of the goal change hearing,
she would only speak one word at a time.
3 Be.V.’s therapist testified at the hearing and said that Be.V. had anxiety surrounding visits with Father and Mother and was distressed regarding the incidents at the pool. Mother participated in one therapy session with Be.V. but did not obtain a release from her own therapist to collaborate for further joint sessions with Be.V. Be.V. did not want to attend therapy with Mother and told her therapist that she did not believe her parents could change. She said she wanted to be adopted by her foster family so that she could have a stable home environment.
-9- J-S19031-21
Gregory testified that all of the Children were thriving in foster care with
families who were willing to adopt them. Their foster families encouraged
them to visit with each other. They had been in foster placement for 15
months at the time of the hearing. Gregory said that Father and Mother had
minimally met the goals for reunification by completing anger management
and parenting programs but were still unable to apply what they had learned
in visits with Children. She did not believe they had benefited from counseling
and mental health services.
Amber Everett (Everett) of JusticeWorks Youth Care testified regarding
her work as Father and Mother’s visiting coach and as Father’s parent
educator. From February through August 2020, she met with Father and
Mother before and after supervised visits to discuss Children’s needs and
review the visit. She testified that Father still needed a lot of coaching and
assistance, and he struggled to engage with Children and plan ways to address
their needs. He did not retain coaching information between visits and needed
the same redirection at each visit. Father did bring food for the visits and
craft projects for Children to work on. Father continually blamed Mother for
Children’s removal from the home. He would yell at Everett during their
sessions and was unable to manage his anger. Father and Mother would not
ensure Children took bathroom breaks during the visits and would become
frustrated with Bn.V. when she soiled herself as a result. Everett testified that
Father and Mother both needed her assistance during the majority of the
- 10 - J-S19031-21
supervised visits and neither of them would use the parenting skills they had
been taught without coaching.
Hannah Seigworth (Seigworth), a case aide at JusticeWorks Youth Care,
supervised the visits that took place at Father’s home beginning in September
2020. She testified that she had to remind Father to lock the closet where he
kept his gun multiple times. On one occasion, Father attempted to discipline
Ju.V. by picking him up by his armpits, causing Ju.V. to run away and look
afraid. Father and Mother would argue and yell at most visits and did not
supervise Children closely. Children would run into other rooms or outside of
the yard and Seigworth would have to direct Father and Mother to locate them.
Based on her observations at the home visits, she believed it would be a safety
risk for Father and Mother to have unsupervised visitation with Children. She
did not see any progress in their parenting skills over the nine supervised
visits she conducted at the home.
Be.V. testified that she was happy in her foster home and wanted to
remain there. She said that she does not like visiting with Father and Mother
and that Father yells at her during the visits. She said that Children did not
get enough attention when they lived with Father and Mother and that she
had to act like a mother to her younger siblings. She said that when they
lived with Father’s relative, Father and Mother would leave for weeks at a time
and they would not know when they would be coming back. She believed that
if Children were returned to Father and Mother that they would be returned to
- 11 - J-S19031-21
foster care within five months. She said that Father and Mother had not
changed and that she wanted to stop visiting with them and be adopted.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court changed the permanency
goal for Children from reunification to adoption and ordered that they have no
further visitation with Father and Mother. CYS subsequently filed petitions to
terminate Father’s parental rights.
B.
Gregory testified again at the termination hearing held on January 19,
2021. Children had been in placement for 18 months. She testified that since
visitation with Father and Mother had ceased, Be.V. no longer had stomach
aches, panic attacks or trouble sleeping. She had been less depressed and
anxious and decreased her therapy sessions from weekly to monthly. Ju.V.
was no longer afraid of being kidnapped by Father and Mother. He had moved
to a new foster home and adjusted well without behavioral problems. He
attended weekly therapy. Jo.V. had no behavioral issues in her foster home.
She referred to her foster parents as mom and dad and her foster siblings as
her brother and sisters. Bn.V. had only two instances of biting since visitation
ceased when she would normally bite for a couple of days after each visit.
She had continued with weekly speech therapy. Children’s foster parents were
all able to adopt Children and they had weekly visits with each other.
Gregory testified that Father and Mother did not make any additional
progress on their reunification goals after the goal change hearing. They
- 12 - J-S19031-21
attended four additional couples’ counseling sessions but were still fighting
with each other. Father had kept his apartment clean since the hearing but
had not worked with the budgeting counselor or verified whether he was
current on his utility bills. He had earned approximately $15,600 in 2020.
Father and Mother had not had contact with Children since the hearing.
Gregory reported incidents where they parked outside of Be.V.’s foster home
and only left when CYS threatened to call the police. They also followed Be.V.
on Halloween when she was trick-or-treating, which made her feel unsafe.
Gregory concluded that Father and Mother had not made sufficient progress
on any of their goals and recommended termination of their parental rights.
She did not believe termination would have a negative effect on Children and
said that it would be in their best interests to remain with their foster families.
Mother also testified at the termination hearing. She said that she
attended counseling every week by video-chat and had remained current on
her medication. She said that she had beds and clothes for Children at her
home but CYS had not inspected her residence since the goal change hearing.
She and Father were not in a romantic relationship but had continued couples’
counseling. She testified that she left her job at Subway because she could
only work 25 hours per week without losing her benefits. She said that
Children always showed affection during past visits and were happy to see
her, but that Be.V. had mixed emotions about visiting. She said that she
parked outside of Be.V.’s foster home when she was visiting an office nearby
- 13 - J-S19031-21
and only approached her on Halloween to say hello and take a picture. She
did not want her parental rights to be terminated and believed that it would
not be in Children’s best interests.
Tina Morgan (Morgan), a parent educator from the Jefferson-Clarion
Early Head Start program, testified that she had weekly visits with Father
beginning in July 2019 to work on educational, nutritional, health and
parenting skills. She said Father was open-minded and willing to learn and
he never missed a visit or yelled at her. Once she started attending visits with
Children at CYS and JusticeWorks, she said that Father would always cook for
them, help with homework and spend quality time with them. She said he
would get frustrated because he did not get enough quality time with Children.
Morgan said that Mother attended approximately ten of the visits when she
was working with Father but she did not work with Mother on a weekly basis.
She did not believe that they co-parented well but said that with counseling,
they may be able to learn. She worked with Father over the phone until
November 2020 but she stopped attending visits in March 2020 due to the
pandemic.
Father also testified that he had maintained his apartment for over a
year, had three bedrooms and was current on rent and utilities. He said that
his guns have trigger locks and he had two locks on the closet where they are
stored. He had worked at his cleaning job for approximately seven years and
earned $11 per hour. He said that he did not know that he could continue the
- 14 - J-S19031-21
budget counseling voluntarily after the goal change hearing. He completed
an anger management course in 2020 and continued to see his counselor
every other week. He stopped participating in parenting classes with
JusticeWorks after the goal change hearing but said that the visits with
Children went well prior to the goal change. He said he was frustrated during
the visits because they were too short to have a meal, complete homework
and spend quality time with all of the Children. He attends couples’ counseling
every other week with Mother. He did not want his parental rights to be
terminated and requested the Children be returned to his care.
Following reception of the evidence, the trial court granted the petitions
to terminate Father’s parental rights.4 Father filed timely notices of appeal
and he and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal,
Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating his
parental rights to Children pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1), (2) and (5) of
the Adoption Act and in failing to address Children’s best interests under
Section 2511(b) in the order terminating his parental rights or its subsequent
opinion.
4 The trial court granted the petitions orally on the record at the conclusion of
the hearing and the written orders were docketed on January 26, 2021.
- 15 - J-S19031-21
II.
“The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for
termination delineated in [the subsections of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)].” In re
Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 942 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting In re
L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Clear and convincing evidence
is that which is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier
of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the
precise facts in issue.” In re D.L.B., 166 A.3d 322, 326 (Pa. Super. 2017)
(citation and quotation marks omitted). The orphans’ court may then enter a
final decree of involuntary termination if it is in the child’s best interests as
outlined in Section 2511(b). Id.5
The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Father’s
parental rights pursuant to subsections 2511(a)(1), (2) and (5). When
5 We review such a decree for an abuse of discretion. In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). Moreover, “[w]e give great deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.” In re Interest of D.F., 165 A.3d 960, 966 (Pa. Super. 2017). “We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.” In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005). “The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence.” In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 477 (Pa. Super. 2010). “If competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result.” Id.
- 16 - J-S19031-21
reviewing a trial court’s order terminating parental rights, we need only agree
as to one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), to affirm
the order. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc).
Accordingly, we proceed to our analysis of the trial court’s findings under
subsection 2511(a)(2):
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: ***
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2). Under Section 2511(a)(2), parents are required to
make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full
parental responsibilities. In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 340 (Pa. Super. 2002).
The grounds for termination of parental rights under subsection 2511(a)(2)
due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied are not limited to
affirmative misconduct; those grounds may include acts of refusal as well as
incapacity to perform parental duties. Id. at 337.
Because subsection 2511(a)(2) focuses on the child’s need for essential
parental care, control or subsistence, a parent’s sincere efforts to perform
parental duties may be insufficient to remedy parental incapacity under this
subsection. In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[W]hen a
- 17 - J-S19031-21
parent has demonstrated a continued inability to conduct his . . . life in a
fashion that would provide a safe environment for a child, whether that child
is living with the parent or not, and the behavior of the parent is irremediable
as supported by clear and competent evidence, the termination of parental
rights is justified.” Id. at 1118 (citation omitted).
Father argues that he has never refused to provide essential parental
care to Children and that he has complied with the goals set forth by CYS in
his family services plan. He argues that he obtained stable housing,
maintained employment, worked with all required services and attended all
supervised visits while Children were in placement. However, the record
reveals that Father’s efforts at meeting his goals were minimal, and despite
years of services provided by Armstrong and Clarion counties, he remains
incapable of providing for Children’s essential parental needs.
Armstrong CYF and CYS were involved with the family beginning in 2009
and Children were adjudicated dependent in 2009, 2015, 2017 and 2018. At
the time of the termination hearing, Children had been in foster care for
approximately 18 months. At one point the family was participating in in-
home services for 23 hours per week, which was far above what an average
family would receive during a dependency case. By the time of the goal
change hearing, Father had only attended four parenting classes and had not
successfully completed his program. More importantly, the service providers
and caseworkers who supervised his visits with Children testified that despite
- 18 - J-S19031-21
ongoing assistance and coaching, Father was unable to appropriately interact
with Children and meet their needs during his limited supervised visits. He
would concentrate on cooking and cleaning but not interacting with Children
and he had to be coached on the same behaviors repeatedly. Seigworth
believed that it would be a safety risk to allow Father to have unsupervised
visitation with Children.
A primary goal for Father was to attend anger management classes and
develop his anger management skills, as domestic abuse and fighting between
Father and Mother was an ongoing issue throughout the dependency
proceedings. Father attended four anger management programs and
completed two of them successfully. Nevertheless, Father was indicated as a
perpetrator of physical abuse for an incident in which he struck Jo.V. in the
face after he had already successfully completed one anger management
program. Everett and Seigworth testified that he continued to yell and act
aggressively toward Children, Mother and service providers during the
supervised visits. While Morgan testified that Father was cooperative and
willing to learn during her parenting sessions, she did not observe the visits
that took place from March 2020 onward. She also stated that Father and
Mother could not co-parent successfully by the time of the termination
hearing. Finally, Father and Mother began couples’ counseling shortly before
the goal change hearing, and despite the counseling, were still fighting by the
time of the termination hearing.
- 19 - J-S19031-21
Father did obtain an apartment in January 2020 and was able to
maintain that residence until the termination hearing. However, he faced
eviction three times and was delinquent on his gas bill at the time of the goal
change hearing. He had earned approximately $15,600 in 2020. CYS
arranged for Father to work with a counselor to develop a household budget
but he did not provide the counselor with his paystubs and bills for help
developing a budget.
Because subsection 2511(a)(2) focuses on the child’s need for “essential
parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-
being,” even a parent’s sincere efforts at providing parental care can be
insufficient to remedy the parent’s incapacity if those efforts are not likely to
be successful in providing the child with essential parental care. In re Z.P.,
supra. The record shows that Father made minimal progress at achieving the
goals in his family service plan, particularly the goals of developing anger
management and parenting skills that would allow him to safely care for
Children unsupervised. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that CYS provided clear and convincing evidence that Father either refused to
or was incapable of providing Children with essential parental care. His first
claim is meritless.
Next, Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing
to consider whether termination was in Children’s best interests under Section
- 20 - J-S19031-21
2511(b). Appellees contend that Father waived this issue by failing to include
it in his concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”); In re
G.D., 61 A.3d 1031, 1036 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2013). Our review of the record
confirms that Father did not include this issue in his concise statement.
Accordingly, it is waived.
Even if we were to reach the merits of this claim, we would conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that termination was
in Children’s best interests.
Section 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the child. . . . While a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of . . . [S]ection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the court when determining what is in the best interest of the child.
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015). “In this
context, the court must take into account whether a bond exists between child
and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary
and beneficial relationship.” In re Z.P., supra. The court may also consider
intangibles such as the love, comfort, security and stability the child might
have with the foster parent. See In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super.
2011).
- 21 - J-S19031-21
While it did not specifically cite Section 2511(b) in the written order, the
trial court stated on the record at the conclusion of the termination hearing
that Children were “better off in their foster homes and their pre-adoptive
homes.” Notes of Testimony, 1/19/21, at 95. In its opinion, the trial court
explained that there was no evidence in the record of a bond between Children
and Father. Trial Court Opinion, 3/11/21, at unnumbered 7. The lack of bond
was evident in Be.V.’s testimony when she explained that she did not feel that
Father and Mother had changed at all over the course of dependency and said
that she wanted to be adopted. She believed that if Children were returned
to Father and Mother’s care, they would reenter foster care within five months.
The evidence at the termination hearing showed that Children were thriving
in their foster homes and were no longer experiencing anxiety, depression,
fear or behavioral problems after they ceased visitation with Father and
Mother. The record amply supports the trial court’s determination that
termination of Father’s parental rights would serve Children’s best interests.
Orders affirmed.
- 22 - J-S19031-21
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 7/1/2021
- 23 -