J-S25033-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN RE: K.O.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1079 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): A2023-0044
IN RE: V.C.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1081 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): A2023-0045
IN RE: H.S.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1083 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): A2023-0046
IN RE: I.A.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA J-S25033-24
: APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1085 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): A2023-0047
IN RE: L.S.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1087 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): A2023-0048
IN RE: N.C.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: C.C., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1089 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered February 12, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Orphans' Court at No(s): A2024-0002
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2024
-2- J-S25033-24
C.C. (“Father”) appeals from the decrees entered by the Northampton
County Court of Common Pleas (“orphans’ court”) terminating his parental
rights to six of his children, K.O.C., born June 2020, V.C.C., born June 2019,
H.S.C., born May 2018, N.C.C., born July 2015, I.A.C., born July 2014, and
L.S.C., born June 2013 (collectively “Children”), pursuant to pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).1 Because we conclude that the
orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental
rights, we affirm.
Mother and Father have thirteen children together. 2 Mother has two
older children, including D.G., who was born in 2004. Mother and Father
supported their household solely with government benefits. After their house
burned down in 2017, the family moved into a multi-story rowhouse with one
bathroom at 714 Broadway in Bethlehem.
In 2021, Mother, Father, their thirteen minor children, D.G., and at least
two dogs were living in the 714 Broadway home. Notably, four of the older
____________________________________________
1 The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of J.L.G. (“Mother”)
to Children. Mother appealed the termination decrees, and her appeals are currently pending before this Court.
2 Additionally, the Northampton County Children, Youth, and Families Division
(“CYF”) filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to E.J.C. and Z.K.-E.C. These petitions are not at issue in this case. CYF did not file petitions to terminate parents’ rights with respect to five of their children, C.L.C., born May 2005, R.C., born May 2006, S.C., born April 2007, T.C., born December 2008, and J.C., born December 2009, based on the ages of those children.
-3- J-S25033-24
boys shared a room, the older girls shared a room, Mother, Father, and the
three youngest children shared a room, and D.G. lived in the attic. Two of
Mother and Father’s older daughters, S.C. and T.C., told their parents that
D.G. was sexually abusing them. Father did not contact law enforcement, but
instead installed cameras in the home, put locks on the girls’ bedroom door,
and sent the six girls, including L.S.C. and I.A.C., to stay with his mother,
while Mother investigated the allegations made against D.G. As Father did
not see anything concerning on the cameras, and Mother did not believe her
older daughters, the girls returned to the 714 Broadway home in the fall of
2021.
In October 2021, CYF received a child protective services (“CPS”)
referral of alleged sexual abuse by D.G. CYF had additional concerns of
medical and dental neglect for the younger children, at least one child went
to school hungry, and deplorable home conditions at 714 Broadway. CYF child
abuse investigator, Heather Major (“Major”), accompanied by the Bethlehem
police to 714 Broadway on the evening of October 27, 2021. Major found that
her shoes stuck to the grime on the floor as they toured the home and the
odors throughout the home were unbearable. She found the home contained
flies; the kitchen contained rotting food, a container filled with six inches of
yellow fluid that smelled like urine, and was infested with insects; mushrooms
were growing in the basement; there was mold throughout the home; and
-4- J-S25033-24
one room had animal waste. Additionally, Major noted that two entire rooms
contained Mother’s hoarded baby clothing and other items.
After CYF sought to establish a safety plan for Children, Mother and
Father agreed to a plan for twenty-four hours that required Mother to leave
the home with the three youngest children, moved D.G. in with his
grandmother, and Father to stay in the home with the remaining ten children.
Subsequently, Major and the police brought S.C. and T.C. to the police station
for forensic interviews. The girls disclosed multiple incidents of sexual abuse
and disclosed messages they had sent to Mother and Father detailing the
abuse. Based upon Major’s home visit and the interviews disclosing the sexual
abuse, CYF obtained thirteen emergency orders for protective custody due to
Mother and Father’s lack of protective capacities and ability to control
Children, and the state of the home. CYF was unable to place the thirteen
children together, and instead placed them into groups of two or three in
separate foster homes. Relevantly, K.O.C., V.C.C., and H.S.C. were placed
together.3 I.A.C. was placed with L.S.C. N.C.C. was placed with Z.C., who is
not a part of this appeal.
On October 29, 2021, D.G. admitted to sexually abusing N.C.C., L.S.C.,
and H.S.C., and six other siblings during an interview with the police. Some
of the children subsequently confirmed that they had either been sexually
3 These children were removed wearing soiled clothing and diapers and had
lice infestations.
-5- J-S25033-24
abused by D.G. or observed D.G. abusing their siblings. 4 On November 2,
2021, the Commonwealth charged Father with multiple criminal counts,
including endangering the welfare of children. Father was imprisoned in
Northampton County Prison in lieu of $500,000 bail. 5 CYF then filed thirteen
petitions for the adjudication of dependency and disposition orders requesting
removal. On November 12, 2021, the Hearing Officer confirmed the
adjudication of removal of the thirteen children, finding clear and convincing
evidence to substantiate the allegations based on the findings of abuse,
neglect and dependency, and that it was in the best interests of the thirteen
children to be removed from their parents’ care. Further, the dependency
court issued a permanency plan directing Father to complete a mental health
evaluation, complete an evaluation to determine his parental abilities, and
obtain stable, legitimate income and housing for a period of six months.
In February 2022, Father was released from jail on bond, and moved in
with his mother and minor half-sibling at 900 Broadway. Father’s mother had
obtained this home with a section VIII voucher. On March 10, 2022, Father
4 The police arrested D.G. and the Commonwealth charged him with numerous crimes. D.G. ultimately pled guilty to seven counts of indecent assault of a child less than 13 years of age. The trial court sentenced D.G. to seven to fourteen years in prison, followed by seven years of probation.
5 CYF conducted assessments, including interviews of the children, Mother, Father and D.G. and came to conclusions regarding the CPS referrals of sexual abuse. The report concerning Father was indicated for causing sexual abuse or exploitation by indecent assault, perpetrator by omission, with regard to N.C.C., L.S.C., and H.S.C.
-6- J-S25033-24
underwent a court-ordered mental health evaluation by PA Forensics, which
concluded that Father suffered from depression, and recommended that
Father be given a polygraph test to determine whether he had engaged in
inappropriate acts of sexual abuse of his children, and that he would be a good
candidate for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) due to his depression. PA
Forensics further recommended that Father undergo family therapy and
protective parenting classes.
On March 25, 2022, the dependency court held a permanency review
hearing, at which it found that Children should remain in foster care, noting
that although Father had completed a mental health evaluation, he failed to
remain employed and the family home at 714 Broadway had been condemned.
The court reiterated to Father that he had to comply with its November 2021
directives. Ultimately, Father failed to undergo a polygraph examination and
ECT, on the advice of his therapist. On July 15, 2022, the dependency court
found that the continuation of dependency was necessary and Children should
remain in foster case, as Father was still unemployed and was living with his
mother. On November 1, 2022, Father entered a negotiated guilty plea to
endangering the welfare of children, and the trial court imposed a sentence of
three to twelve months of incarceration, with credit for time served. 6 On
6 Mother was also arrested and the Commonwealth charged her with numerous crimes, including terroristic threats and endangering the welfare ofchildren. In November 2021, Mother was released on bond, but was (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-7- J-S25033-24
December 2, 2022, the dependency court noted that Father’s housing was
inadequate for all of his children. On March 24, 2023, the dependency’ court
held another permanency review hearing and found Father was still
unemployed and was living with his mother. The court acknowledged the
progress made by Father, but noted that he had not fulfilled his mental health
recommendations.
On July 13, 2023, CYF filed six separate petitions to terminate Father's
parental rights to each child. The case proceeded to a hearing, after which,
the orphans’ court granted the petitions and terminated Father’s parental
rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Father filed
a timely appeal; Father and the orphans’ court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Father raises the following questions for our review:
1. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding that Father caused the child/children to be without essential parental care, substance, or control necessary for K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.C.[,] the minor children’s mental and physical wellbeing and the conditions of the incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Father.
2. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding that [Father] had evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing his parental claim to K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O.[,] the minor children or failed to perform his parental duties without adequate explanation for his conduct. ____________________________________________
prohibited from contacting her minor children. On March 17, 2023, Mother entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to intimidating a witness and guilty to endangering the welfare of children. The trial court sentenced Mother to three to twelve months of incarceration, followed by two years of probation. As a result of the sentence, Mother was reincarcerated.
-8- J-S25033-24
3. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding that K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O.[,] minor children had been removed from Father for a period of at least six months, and the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O., the minor children continue to exist and Father cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, and termination of his parental rights best serves the needs and welfare of [] K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O[,] the minor children.
4. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding that K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O.[,] the minor children had been removed from Father for a period of at least twelve months, and the conditions which led to the removal or placement of K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O.[,] the minor children continue to exist, and [Father] cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, and termination of parental rights best serves the needs and welfare of [] K.O.C., V.C.C., H.S.C., I.A.C., L.S.C., and N.C.O.[,] the minor children.
5. Whether the [orphans’] court erred in finding that the termination of parental rights of father will meet the needs and welfare of the child/children.
Father’s Brief at 5-6 (some capitalization omitted).
“In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights,
appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the decree of the
termination court is supported by competent evidence.” In re Adoption of
C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021).
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
-9- J-S25033-24
or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
In re Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 704 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation
omitted).
Termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, which
requires a bifurcated analysis. C.M., 255 A.3d at 359. “Initially, the focus is
on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory
grounds for termination delineated in section 2511(a).” In re C.M.K., 203
A.3d 258, 261-62 (Pa. Super. 2019). If the orphans’ court determines the
petitioner established grounds for termination under section 2511(a) by clear
and convincing evidence, the court then must assess the petition under
subsection 2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. In re
T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). Clear and convincing evidence is
evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the
trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of
the precise facts in issue.” In Int. of J.M., 166 A.3d 408, 423 (Pa. Super.
2017) (citation omitted).
As stated above, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights to
Children pursuant to subsections (1), (2), (5), and (8) of section 2511(a).
- 10 - J-S25033-24
“This Court may affirm the [orphans’] court’s decision regarding the
termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of [s]ection
2511(a).” In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989, 992 (Pa. Super. 2013). We focus our
analysis on section 2511(a)(8).
Father argues that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by
terminating his parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(8) because of his
ongoing efforts to gain employment and obtain housing. Father’s Brief at 19-
20. Father contends that the evidence of record established that he would do
“whatever he could under his particular circumstances to be there for
[Children].” Id. at 19. Father notes that he participated in all of the programs
provided to him and his efforts demonstrated “an ongoing desire to become
financially more stable and to perform his parental duties for his children.”
Id.
To terminate parental rights under section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner
must prove: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for 12 months
or more; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child
continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super.
2008); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8). Notably, this subsection “does not
require the court to evaluate a parent’s willingness or ability to remedy the
conditions that led to the placement of the children.” Interest of M.E., 283
A.3d 820, 832 (Pa. Super. 2022). Rather, “the relevant inquiry regarding the
- 11 - J-S25033-24
second prong of [section] 2511(a)(8) is whether the conditions that led to
removal have been remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and
child is imminent at the time of the hearing.” Id. (quotation marks and
brackets omitted). Further, “[w]ith respect to any petition filed pursuant to
subsection [(a)(8)], the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to
remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent
to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); see
also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 255 n.8.
Here, Major testified that in October 2021, CYF received a CPS referral
about sexual abuse in Mother and Father’s home perpetrated by D.G. N.T.,
2/12/2024, at 65-66. Upon entering the home at 714 Broadway, Major noted
that the home was cluttered, and that Mother had a hoarding room which
contained baby items stacked from the floor to the ceiling in some areas. Id.
at 73-74, 77. She noted a strong odor in the home. Id. at 74. Major indicated
the home had a lot of flies; there were sticky fly traps full of flies everywhere;
the bathroom was leaking a yellow liquid, which smelled like urine, into the
kitchen; there was food scattered all over the kitchen, as well as rotting food;
and animal waste was found in one of the rooms. Id. at 74-78, 81-83. She
further described Mother and Father’s room to include two Pack N’ Plays which
had holes in them, dirty blankets, old food, and baby items strewn across the
floor. Id. at 84. Major testified that the older girls shared their bedroom with
two dogs, and noted that the dog cages were filthy, there were not enough
- 12 - J-S25033-24
mattresses for each of the girls, and the mattresses were bare and ripped.
Id. at 86-87, 90. Major described the boys’ room to be cluttered as well. Id.
at 89. She noted the basement had mushrooms growing out of the floor and
an excessive amount of mold. Id. at 86, 111. Major indicated that the
younger children were dirty, smelled and needed a bath, and some of the
children had lice. Id. at 93-94. In her view, the home was “one of the more
deplorable homes I have ever been in in my time as a caseworker.” Id. at
77; see also id. at 89 (noting that the home “was unfit for a child or anybody
to properly reside in”), 111 (Stating the home “is the worst I have ever seen.
This was the only home that I have ever had to throw articles of my clothing
away because I could not get the odor out of my clothes.”).
Additionally, Major testified that she participated in the interviews of
S.C. and T.C., where they disclosed the sexual abuse by D.G., and further
noted that all of the children were sexually abused or had observed sexual
abuse. Id. at 95-97, 105-06; see also id. at 91 (noting Mother indicated she
did not believe the allegations and Father denied knowing about the
allegations, but acknowledged that they had removed the girls from the home
over the summer); id. at 97 (stating that an emergency order for all thirteen
children was obtained following the disclosures); id. at 108, CYF Ex. 4
(certified criminal record of D.G.).
Shakira Roseway (“Roseway”), a CYF caseworker, testified that she
received Mother’s and Father’s case in July 2022. Id. at 128. When she
- 13 - J-S25033-24
received the case, Father had no visits with Children. Id. at 131. When Father
began visits with Children, they were once a month and all visits were
supervised. Id. at 131, 134; see also id. at 135 (noting Father continued
the visits with Mother after she was released from prison). Father attended
all scheduled visits. Id. at 150; see also id. at 151 (noting Children were
excited to see Father). Roseway described the visits as chaotic and the
caseworkers had to redirect Children. Id. at 132; see also id. at 144-45
(highlighting that Father was on the phone with Mother during the visits, and
that Father would improperly tell all of the children that they had a home and
would be together at a certain time). Roseway noted that Father mostly
engaged with the younger children during the visits. Id. at 133. She stated,
however, that when Children got together, they usually focused on each other,
and their interactions with Father and Mother were limited. Id. at 146-47,
151. Roseway emphasized that Children were upset when they had to leave
each other at the end of the visits. Id. at 151-52; see also id. at 152 (noting
Children hugged Father upon leaving the visit, but “most of their emotion was
geared towards each other”). Further, Children’s behavior was poor after
visits with their parents. Id. at 154, 155-56; see also id. at 154 (detailing
accounts that the parents would tell Children to be disruptive in their foster
homes, and that they did not need to listen to their foster parents).
Roseway further testified that Father lived in his mother’s home, which
had three floors, three bedrooms, one full bathroom, a powder room, and an
- 14 - J-S25033-24
attic. Id. at 137. She described this home as cluttered and dirty. Id. at 138.
She indicated Father and Mother’s plan was to reunify with all of the children
at Father’s mother’s home, with the nine girls living in the attic, and the four
boys in a bedroom upstairs. Id. Roseway noted that the home did not have
necessary furniture or beds for such a plan. Id. at 139. She testified that
CYF discussed the furniture needed to bring all of the children to the home,
and a lease indicating that everyone could live in the home. Id. at 140.
Roseway stated there was never any communication from Mother or Father
that the home could house over fifteen people. Id.
Roseway further testified that Father did not have a car or a job, and
that he had applied for a job on only one occasion. Id. Roseway indicated
that the parents would have to have jobs supporting themselves before
Children could be returned to them. Id. at 145. She stated that Father was
selling plasma for money. Id. at 152, 157.
Jennifer Lorah (“Lorah”), a CYF caseworker, testified that she began
working with Father and Children in October 2023. Id. at 162-63. Lorah
noted that N.C.C. is always upset when leaving his siblings during visits, but
that he wishes to be adopted by his foster parents, who are an adoptive
resource. Id. at 167, 172. She further stated that L.S.C. and I.A.C. both
sought to be adopted by their foster parents, noting both are doing well in
school and happy. Id. at 172-73. Lorah indicated that the three youngest
children are placed together and are doing well in that placement. Id. at 173.
- 15 - J-S25033-24
None of Children’s therapists or service providers recommend reunification
with Mother and Father. Id. at 191.
Lorah additionally noted that Father’s housing had not changed, and
that she discussed with Father the changes that would need to be made in his
mother’s home to make it a return resource for all of the children. Id. at 185-
86. Lorah also told Father that he had to obtain a lease from the landlord
which would allow all of the children to live in the home. Id. at 187; see also
id. at 205-06 (noting that it was unclear whether the City of Bethlehem would
allow occupancy of parents and all of the children in the home). Lorah testified
that Father donated plasma for money, and that he was going on job
interviews but was having difficulty getting a job because of his felony
conviction. Id. at 189. Lorah stated that Father had not completed all of the
objectives in the permanency plan by failing to obtain ECT therapy, stable
housing, or employment. Id. at 191, 203.
Father testified that, with regard to his housing, he was unable to obtain
verification from the landlord that he and Mother could live in the home with
all of the children. Id. at 255-56. Father indicated, however, he had made
plans with Lehigh Families to obtain furniture for Children to move into the
home. Id. at 263-64. Father noted he was aggressively looking for
employment and had done about twenty interviews, but he was unable to find
employment. Id. at 257; see also id. at 258 (stating he has not had a full
time job since 2016). He stated that he sold his plasma five or six times a
- 16 - J-S25033-24
month to make money. Id. at 260. Father admitted he would not be able to
care for Children without a job. Id. at 258. Father testified that he loves
Children and that although a lot of “horrible and messed up things” had
occurred, he was hoping to support them. Id. at 260.
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the orphans’ court
that CYF met its burden of proving the first two prongs of section 2511(a)(8)
by clear and convincing evidence. Children were removed from Father’s care
in October 2021, which exceeds the twelve-month requirement imposed under
section 2511(a)(8), and the conditions leading to Children’s removal continue
to exist. The record establishes that Children were placed in foster care
because of deplorable housing conditions, sexual abuse by their older sibling
while in Mother and Father’s care, Father’s mental health issues, and Father’s
inability to obtain stable employment. Although the evidence reflects that
while there has been some compliance by Father to complete his objectives,
including obtaining mental health treatment, there has not been enough
progress to enable reunification of Children with him. See In re Adoption
of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046, 1051 (Pa. Super. 2015) (noting a parent’s
willingness to make progress or remedy the conditions that led to placement
is irrelevant to a section 2511(a)(8) analysis, as the focus is whether the
conditions leading to placement still existed). Indeed, Father has not obtained
stable housing that could allow Children to live with him, nor has he obtained
any employment to be able to provide for Children. In fact, at the termination
- 17 - J-S25033-24
hearing, Father admitted that he had not obtained permission from his
mother’s landlord to have all of the children living in the house and that he
had been unable to find a job. It is well settled that “a child’s life cannot be
held in abeyance while the parent is unable to perform the actions necessary
to assume parenting responsibilities.” In re I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340, 345-46 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (citation omitted). Thus, the record supports a finding that
Father largely has not addressed, let alone remedied, the concerns that
resulted in Children’s removal from his care, and the orphans’ court did not
err in finding clear and convincing evidence to satisfy termination under the
first two prongs of section 2511(a)(8).
We next consider whether the record supports the orphans’ court’s
conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination best
serves Children’s needs and welfare pursuant to the third prong of section
2511(a)(8) and section 2511(b).7
Section 2511(b) provides:
The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as ____________________________________________
7 Although separately enumerated, this Court has interpreted the needs and
welfare analyses required under subsections (a)(8) and (b) to utilize the same legal standards and to be based upon the same evidence. See Matter of Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 448 (Pa. Super. 2017) (combining discussion of the children’s needs and welfare pursuant to subsection (a)(8) and subsection (b) because the “third element of [s]ection 2511(a)(8) requires that the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt conduct an analysis similar to that required under [s]ection 2511(b)”).
- 18 - J-S25033-24
inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).
Our analysis focuses on whether termination of parental rights would
best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of
each child. T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[T]he determination of the child’s needs
and welfare requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent
and child. The utmost attention should be paid to discerning the effect on the
child of permanently severing the parental bond.” Id. (quotation marks
“[T]he parental bond is but one part of the overall subsection (b)
analysis[.]” Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1113 (Pa. 2023). The needs
and welfare analysis must also include the consideration of factors such as:
“the child’s need for permanency and length of time in foster care …; whether
the child is in a preadoptive home and bonded with foster parents; and
whether the foster home meets the child’s developmental, physical, and
emotional needs, including intangible needs of love, comfort, security, safety,
and stability.” Id. (citations omitted). “These factors and others properly
guide the court’s analysis of the child’s welfare and all [their] developmental,
physical, and emotional needs.” Id. Importantly, “[orphans’] courts have the
discretion to place appropriate weight on each factor present in the record
before making a decision regarding termination that best serves the child’s
specific needs.” Id.
- 19 - J-S25033-24
Father argues that the evidence does not establish that termination of
his parental rights best serves Children’s needs and welfare. Father’s Brief at
20-21. Father contends that he loves Children. Id. at 21. According to
Father, his love for Children and his efforts at complying with his objections
establishes reunification is in Children’s best interests. Id.
Based on the record before us and the standard of review we must
employ, we discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court’s conclusion
that Children will not be irreparably harmed by terminating Father’s parental
rights. Father’s “own feelings of love and affection for [Children], alone,
do[es] not prevent termination of parental rights.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108,
1121 (Pa. Super. 2010). Indeed, the evidence of record established that none
of Children’s therapists recommended reunification with Father. Moreover,
N.C.C., L.S.C, and I.A.C. all stated that they wished to be adopted. K.O.C.,
V.C.C., and H.S.C. are placed together and are doing well in their foster home.
Furthermore, although Children are excited to see Father during visits, they
usually focused on each other and their interactions with Father are limited.
Finally, Father cannot provide stable housing or financially care for Children.
Children are all in stable foster homes and are safe and happy. Accordingly,
we conclude that the orphans’ court did not err in determining that Children’s
developmental, emotional, and physical needs and welfare are best met by
terminating Father’s parental rights under the third prong of section
2511(a)(8) and 2511(b). See In re I.E.P., 87 A.3d at 351-52 (noting that
- 20 - J-S25033-24
where children reside in a stable, consistent, and loving home, and father
failed to meet his objectives related to drug and alcohol treatment, housing,
and employment, the termination of his parental rights were in children’s best
interests).
As the orphans’ court’s determination pursuant to section 2511(a)(8)
and (b) is supported by the record, we must affirm the decrees terminating
Father’s parental rights to Children. See C.M., 255 A.3d at 358-59
Decrees affirmed.
Date: 7/29/2024
- 21 -