In the Int. of: B.A.W.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 1215 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S42016-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.A.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1215 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2024-00028

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.B.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1216 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 23, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2024-00029

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.A.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1217 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2024-00030

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.E.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA J-S42016-24

: : APPEAL OF: T.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1218 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2024-00031

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.R.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.W., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1219 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2024-00032

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BECK, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED DECEMBER 17, 2024

T.W. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees entered by the Mifflin County

Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court (“orphans’ court”) terminating her

parental rights to five of her children, K.B.W. (born June 2010), Br.A.W. (born

April 2013), Be.A.W (born June 2014), K.E.W. (born February 2017), and

S.R.W. (born January 2023) (collectively, “the Children”), pursuant to 23

-2- J-S42016-24

Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b).1, 2 Because we conclude that the orphans’

court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights to the

Children, we affirm.

We glean the following from the certified record. The Children have

been in the physical custody of the Mifflin County Children and Youth Services

(the “Agency”) since February 9, 2023, pursuant to emergency protective

custody orders. They initially came into the care of the Agency after S.R.W.

tested positive for drugs at birth, which led the hospital to make a referral to

the Agency. The juvenile court adjudicated the Children dependent on

February 22, 2023. The Children have remained in the same preadoptive

kinship homes since that time.3

The Agency developed child permanency plans for the Children and

established parental objectives for Mother based on her history of illegal drug

use, inappropriate home conditions, domestic violence, lack of financial

stability, as well as her failure to act in a parental role. Mother’s objectives

____________________________________________

1 This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte on October 15, 2023.

2 The Children’s father, E.W. (“Father”), voluntarily relinquished his parental

rights. The orphans’ court entered orders on July 19, 2024, terminating Father’s parental rights to the Children.

3 The Children were initially placed with their paternal grandmother, but when

the grandmother tested positive for drugs, the Agency obtained emergency orders of protective custody for the Children. N.T., 7/15/2024, at 6-7. Thereafter, K.B.W. and Br.A.W. were placed in the home of K.B.W.’s friend. Id. at 7. Be.A.W., K.E.W., and S.R.W. were placed in the home of an aunt and uncle. Id.

-3- J-S42016-24

included: live a lifestyle free of drug use and criminal activity; obtain and

maintain safe and stable housing and income; ensure the physical,

educational, and emotional needs of the Children are met; work to improve

overall parenting skills to work towards reunification; ensure Mother’s mental

health needs are met; and cooperate with the Agency and other service

providers.

The juvenile court held permanency review hearings on July 24, 2023,

and February 1, 2024, wherein the Agency noted that Mother was not

compliant with the permanency plan and no progress towards alleviating the

circumstances which necessitated the Children’s original placement. The

juvenile court never found Mother more than minimally compliant with her

objectives. Mother was incarcerated—based on her probation violations and

failure to report—for most of the time the Children were in the Agency’s

custody.4

Mother reported that she went to a rehabilitation center in March 2023,

but refused to sign a release for the Agency to confirm her presence. On April

21, 2023, Mother reported to a treatment center but left against medical

advice two days later. Mother reported to a different treatment center on April

4 During this time, Mother was incarcerated for about 280 days: April 10 to

12, 2023; April 14 to 21, 2023; and May 12, 2023, to February 4, 2024. Further, in July 2023, Mother pled guilty to two separate charges of driving with a suspended/revoked license and was sentenced to pay fines and costs. In September 2023, Mother pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to one year of probation.

-4- J-S42016-24

25, 2023, but again left against medical advice on May 12, 2023. In January

2024, the Tri-County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission tried to meet with

Mother while she was incarcerated, but she refused.

Upon Mother’s release from incarceration in February 2024, she went to

live with Father, despite their history of domestic violence. In March 2024,

police responded to Father’s home for a report of domestic violence;

subsequently, Mother informed the Agency that she moved in with her

grandmother because of Father’s daily methamphetamine use.

Throughout the proceedings, Mother was not employed, did not have

stable income, did not attend any medical appointments for the Children, did

not ask for updates regarding the Children’s wellbeing, did not attend a mental

health intake, and did not work toward improving her parenting skills.

A service provider, JusticeWorks, observed visits between Mother and

the Children between February 2023 and February 2024. JusticeWorks

offered eighteen visits to Mother, of which she participated in fourteen.5

Upon her release from incarceration in February 2024, Family

Interventional and Crisis Services (“FICS”) offered Mother services related to

visitation, parent education, counseling, transportation, lifestyle checks, and

drug and alcohol screening. Mother participated in four visits offered by FICS

5 Prior to her incarceration, Mother participated in only one of the three visits.

She attended most of her visits while incarcerated.

-5- J-S42016-24

with the Children.6 During the visits, Mother did not demonstrate a parental

role, intervene when the Children displayed inappropriate behaviors (such as

throwing cups, hitting each other with pillows, and telling each other to shut

up), check backpacks, or change diapers without prompting by FICS. Instead,

Mother talked about adult topics, such as money and her involvement with

Father. Because Mother did not attend the Children’s therapy sessions to learn

their exercises, she was unable to participate in therapeutic work with the

Children. Mother occasionally failed to show up to the visits, did not contact

FICS ahead of time, and did not try to reschedule. She did not attend any of

the parent education and counseling sessions offered by FICS. FICS

unsuccessfully attempted two lifestyle checks and of the ten drug and alcohol

screens attempted, Mother complied with four, two of which were positive.

On April 17, 2024, the Agency filed petitions to involuntarily terminate

Mother’s parental rights to the Children. The orphans’ court held a hearing on

the petitions on July 15, 2024. Mother failed to appear but was represented

by counsel. The Children’s best and legal interests were represented

separately by a Guardian Ad Litem (“GAL”) and legal counsel. The Agency

confirmed the foregoing facts by presenting documentary evidence and the

testimony of Agency caseworker Nicole Patkalitsky (“Patkalitsky”) and FICS

employee Mindi Crownover (“Crownover”).

6 The visits occurred at FICS because of safety concerns and space limitations

of Mother’s living arrangements.

-6- J-S42016-24

Patkalitsky, who has worked at the Agency for eighteen years, testified

that the Children go to the kinship foster parents as if they were their parents.

N.T., 7/15/2024, at 11. The Children’s needs are all being met by the kinship

providers, including their special needs. Id. at 10-11. She described the

Children as doing “fantastic” in the kinship foster homes, confirmed the foster

families are willing to adopt them, and “absolutely” agreed that termination

of Mother’s parental rights best served the Children’s needs and welfare and

was in their best interests. Id. at 11.

Crownover, who has worked at FICS for twenty-five years, testified that

Mother served in a friend, not parental, role to the Children during visits. Id.

at 14. Mother arrived unprepared and ignored the Children during visits,

failing to intervene or provide them with any guidance. Id. According to

Crownover, “several” of the Children did not want to visit with Mother. Id. at

16. K.B.W. attended the first visit at FICS but talked to Mother about not

wanting to continue. Id. After that, when FICS arrived to pick K.B.W. up

from school for visits, she would not come out of the school and missed the

visits. Id. Although Br.A.W. also expressed that she did not want to go to

visits with Mother, she nonetheless attended. Id. When asked about the

Children’s bonds with Mother, Crownover did not testify that any bonds

existed. See id. at 17. Rather, she characterized the Children’s relationship

with Mother as that of a friend, and that the Children are concerned about

-7- J-S42016-24

Mother’s safety and whereabouts. Id. Further, Crownover testified that the

two oldest children, K.B.W. and Br.A.W., are parentified. Id.

Additionally, Crownover observed the Children in their kinship foster

homes. In the home with the two oldest children, she saw K.B.W. and Br.A.W.

smiling, enjoying being there, excited to talk about their school days, involved

in extracurricular activities like soccer, and aware of their routines and what

is expected of them. Id. at 18. For the three younger children, Crownover

observed that K.E.W., Be.A.W., and S.R.W. knew what is expected of them;

they go to the foster father for laughter, giggles, and jokes and she observed

the foster mother to be warm, affectionate, and able to attend to their needs

very well. Id. at 18-19. S.R.W. had been behind in several milestones but

was “developing and progressing tremendously” in the foster home and the

foster parents ensure she participates in all her therapy sessions. Id. K.E.W.

is growing and developing, looks forward to extracurricular activities like

baseball, and plays with the other children in the home. Id. at 19-20.

Crownover likewise agreed that termination of Mother’s parental rights best

serves the Children’s needs and welfare. Id. at 20.

-8- J-S42016-24

The orphans’ court entered decrees involuntarily terminating Mother’s

parental rights to the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (8), and

(b). These appeals followed.7

Mother presents one issue for our review: “Did the [orphans’] court

abuse its discretion, or otherwise commit an error of law in failing to consider

the interest of the Children, and properly evaluate any bond, by terminating

the parental rights of [] Mother?” Mother’s Brief at 8 (unnecessary

capitalization omitted).

7 We note that the orphans’ court filed the decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights to two of the Children (Br.A.W and K.B.W.) on July 23, 2024, and to three of the Children (Be.A.W., K.E.W., and S.R.W.) on July 24, 2024. Mother filed her notices of appeal on August 23, 2024.

A notice of appeal “shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken.” Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). “The date of entry of an order in a matter subject to the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure shall be the date on which the clerk makes the notation in the docket that written notice of entry of the order has been given as required by Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.6.” Pa.R.A.P. 108(c); see also Pa.R.A.P. 108(b). Rule 4.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Orphans’ Court Procedure provides that “the clerk shall note in the docket the date when notice was given to the interested party or to his or her counsel” of the entry of a court order. Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.6(b); see also Pa.R.Civ.P. 236(b).

Instantly, there is no indication in the certified record that the orphans’ court made the requisite notation in any of the five dockets that written notice of entry of the decrees was given to Mother or her counsel. Because the dockets do not establish when, if at all, notice was given. we find Mother’s appeals were timely filed. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(c), 903(a); Pa.R.O.C.P. 4.6(b); see also In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 509 (Pa. Super. 2007) (declining to find an appeal untimely where there was no indication on the docket of the required notation of notice because “an order is not appealable until it is entered on the docket with the required notation that appropriate notice has been given”) (citation and emphasis omitted).

-9- J-S42016-24

In reviewing an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we

adhere to the following standard:

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. This standard of review corresponds to the standard employed in dependency cases, and requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the [orphans’] court if they are supported by the record, but it does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. That is, if the factual findings are supported, we must determine whether the [orphans’] court made an error of law or abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion; we reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Thus, absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the [orphans’] court’s decision, the decree must stand. We have previously emphasized our deference to [orphans’] courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. However, we must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the [orphans’] court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.

In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358-59 (Pa. 2021) (quotation marks,

brackets, and citations omitted).

Termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, which

requires a bifurcated analysis. See id. 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

- 10 - J-S42016-24

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 hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in

issue.” In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc)

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

Mother does not contest the orphans’ court’s termination of her rights

to the Children pursuant to subsections (2) and (8) of section 2511(a).8 We

8 Section 2511(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(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.

* * *

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and (Footnote Continued Next Page)

- 11 - J-S42016-24

therefore consider whether the record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion

that termination of Mother’s parental rights best serves the developmental,

physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the Children pursuant to section

2511(b).

Mother argues that the orphans’ court erred in this regard because its

bond analysis improperly focused on Mother’s conduct instead of the effect on

the Children of severing the parental relationship. Mother’s Brief at 8, 15-19.

She asserts that the Agency presented insufficient evidence of a bond

assessment, the effect of severing it, and the reason why the Children did not

want to attend visits with Mother. Id. at 17-19.

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 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

the child. T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[T]he determination of the child’s needs

termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a).

- 12 - J-S42016-24

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

omitted).

Additionally, our Supreme Court has explained that “the 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[ren]’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.

Instantly, the record supports the orphans’ court’s determination that

the Children’s needs and welfare are best served by the termination of

Mother’s parental rights. The Children are progressing well in their foster

homes. Patkalitsky testified that the Children are doing “fantastic” in

preadoptive homes with foster parents who are “definitely” meeting all their

- 13 - J-S42016-24

developmental, physical, and emotional needs. See N.T., 7/15/2024, at 7,

10-11. The Children all have special needs that are being met by the foster

parents, requiring particularized care and participation by the foster parents

both in and out of the home with medical specialists, individualized education

plans at school, and speech, physical, and occupational therapies. See id. at

10-11, 19. In the kinship foster homes, Crownover observed that the Children

enjoy being there, smile, talk excitedly about their school days, “happily” help

themselves to snacks, are “very active” and involved in sports and

extracurricular activities, play with other children in their foster homes, and

have their physical, mental, emotional, and educational needs met by their

foster parents. See id. at 18-20.

Additionally, our review of the record confirms the orphans’ court’s

finding that there was no evidence of a bond between Mother and the Children.

See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 7/19/2024, at 7. The record does not reflect a

history of Mother in a caregiving role or meeting the Children’s developmental

needs such that they developed an attachment to her. See In re P.Z., 113

A.3d 840, 852 (Pa. 2015) (finding termination of parental rights supported

under 2511(a)(8) and (b) where child was familiar with parent, but no

attachment existed and parent did not have a history of engaging in a

caregiving relationship with child or taking responsibility for child over an

extended period). Without record evidence of a bond between Mother and the

- 14 - J-S42016-24

Children, we infer that no bond exists. Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 984

(Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

Moreover, Patkalitsky and Crownover testified that the Children do not

see Mother in a parental role and instead go to their foster parents as if they

were their natural parents. See N.T., 7/15/2024, at 11, 14, 17. The Children

view Mother in a friend role where they like to know she is safe, and Crownover

testified that “several” of the Children do not want to see her. See id. at 16-

17.

Our review of the record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that

terminating Mother’s parental rights best serves the Children’s needs and

welfare. Therefore, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in its

conclusion that the Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs

and welfare are best met by terminating Mother’s parental rights, freeing them

for adoption by families that are able to fully attend to their needs and provide

them with safety and stability. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at

267; K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113. As the orphans’ court’s determination pursuant

to section 2511(b) is supported by the record, we affirm the decrees

terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. See C.M., 255 A.3d at

358-59.

Decrees affirmed.

- 15 - J-S42016-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/17/2024

- 16 -