In the Int. of: J.L.B., Appeal of: A.M.
This text of In the Int. of: J.L.B., Appeal of: A.M. (In the Int. of: J.L.B., Appeal of: A.M.) 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.
Opinion
J-S04046-22
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1696 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0003047-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1697 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000488-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1698 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0003052-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA J-S04046-22
: : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1699 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000489-2020
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 4, 2022
A.M. (Mother) appeals from the decrees and the orders,1 each dated
July 21, 2021, and entered on July 22, 2021, that granted the petitions filed
by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to involuntarily
terminate Mother’s parental rights and to change the permanency goals from
reunification to adoption for J.L.B. (Child), born in November of 2009, and
S.M. (Child),2 born in November of 2017 (collectively Children).3 After review,
we affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 By order, issued on September 22, 2021, this Court sua sponte consolidated these appeals because they involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
2 S.M. is also identified as S.B.M.
3 J.L.B.’s father is M.B. S.M.’s father is R.M. Each father’s parental rights to their respective child were involuntarily terminated at the same time as Mother’s rights were terminated. Both fathers filed appeals to this Court. Their appeals are addressed in separate decisions.
-2- J-S04046-22
In her brief, Mother sets forth the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, … (DHS), had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Mother evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing her claim to the [C]hild[ren] or has refused or failed to perform parental duties, for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition[?]
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that Mother has shown repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal, or that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal causing h[er] child[ren] to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for the [C]hild[ren]’s physical or mental well-being[?]
3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the conditions and causes or any such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Mother[?]
4. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the conditions which led to the removal o[f] the [C]hild[ren] continue to exist[?]
5. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in … determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the services or assistance reasonably available to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the [C]hild[ren] within a reasonable period of time and erred or abused its discretion in determining that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify this family[?]
6. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in … determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that services or assistance were reasonably available to Mother[?]
7. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in … determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that termination of Mother’s parental rights best meets the needs and welfare of the [C]hild[ren?]
-3- J-S04046-22
8. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that changing the [C]hild[ren]’s permanency goal[s] to adoption and terminating Mother’s rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child[?]
Mother’s brief at 6-7.
We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the
following standard:
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. 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 R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879
A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, we have explained that:
The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony 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.”
Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
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 M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If
competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if
-4- J-S04046-22
the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B.,
835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Since Mother’s last issue concerns the trial court’s decision to change
the goal for Children to adoption, we address that issue by applying the
following standard of review:
In cases involving a court’s order changing the placement goal … to adoption, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa. Super. 2006). To hold that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine its judgment was “manifestly unreasonable,” that the court disregarded the law, or that its action was “a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Id. (quoting In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967, 973 (Pa. Super. 2004)).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S04046-22
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1696 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0003047-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.L.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1697 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000488-2020
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1698 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0003052-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA J-S04046-22
: : APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1699 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Decree Entered July 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000489-2020
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 4, 2022
A.M. (Mother) appeals from the decrees and the orders,1 each dated
July 21, 2021, and entered on July 22, 2021, that granted the petitions filed
by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to involuntarily
terminate Mother’s parental rights and to change the permanency goals from
reunification to adoption for J.L.B. (Child), born in November of 2009, and
S.M. (Child),2 born in November of 2017 (collectively Children).3 After review,
we affirm.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 By order, issued on September 22, 2021, this Court sua sponte consolidated these appeals because they involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
2 S.M. is also identified as S.B.M.
3 J.L.B.’s father is M.B. S.M.’s father is R.M. Each father’s parental rights to their respective child were involuntarily terminated at the same time as Mother’s rights were terminated. Both fathers filed appeals to this Court. Their appeals are addressed in separate decisions.
-2- J-S04046-22
In her brief, Mother sets forth the following issues for our review:
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, … (DHS), had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Mother evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing her claim to the [C]hild[ren] or has refused or failed to perform parental duties, for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition[?]
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that Mother has shown repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal, or that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal causing h[er] child[ren] to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for the [C]hild[ren]’s physical or mental well-being[?]
3. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the conditions and causes or any such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Mother[?]
4. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the conditions which led to the removal o[f] the [C]hild[ren] continue to exist[?]
5. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in … determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the services or assistance reasonably available to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the [C]hild[ren] within a reasonable period of time and erred or abused its discretion in determining that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify this family[?]
6. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in … determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that services or assistance were reasonably available to Mother[?]
7. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in … determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that termination of Mother’s parental rights best meets the needs and welfare of the [C]hild[ren?]
-3- J-S04046-22
8. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err or abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that changing the [C]hild[ren]’s permanency goal[s] to adoption and terminating Mother’s rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child[?]
Mother’s brief at 6-7.
We review an order terminating parental rights in accordance with the
following standard:
When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. 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 R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879
A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Moreover, we have explained that:
The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony 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.”
Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
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 M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004). If
competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if
-4- J-S04046-22
the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B.,
835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).
Since Mother’s last issue concerns the trial court’s decision to change
the goal for Children to adoption, we address that issue by applying the
following standard of review:
In cases involving a court’s order changing the placement goal … to adoption, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa. Super. 2006). To hold that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine its judgment was “manifestly unreasonable,” that the court disregarded the law, or that its action was “a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Id. (quoting In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967, 973 (Pa. Super. 2004)). While this Court is bound by the facts determined in the trial court, we are not tied to the court’s inferences, deductions and conclusions; we have a “responsibility to ensure that the record represents a comprehensive inquiry and that the hearing judge has applied the appropriate legal principles to that record.” In re A.K., 906 A.2d 596, 599 (Pa. Super. 2006). Therefore, our scope of review is broad. Id.
In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 977 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f), when considering a
petition for goal change for a dependent child, the juvenile court is to consider,
inter alia: (1) the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the
placement; (2) the extent of compliance with the family service plan; (3) the
extent of progress made towards alleviating the circumstances which
necessitated the original placement; (4) the appropriateness and feasibility of
the current placement goal for the child; and (5) a likely date by which the
goal for the child might be achieved. In re S.B., 943 A.2d at 977. The best
-5- J-S04046-22
interests of the child, and not the interests of the parent, must guide the trial
court. Id. at 978.
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the extensive and comprehensive opinion authored by the
Honorable Allan L. Tereshko of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, dated October 8, 2021. We determine that Judge Tereshko’s well-
reasoned decision disposes of the issues raised by Mother. As for termination
of Mother’s parental rights, Judge Tereshko concluded that:
DHS has provided clear and convincing evidence Mother continues the incapacity to parent. She lies and manipulates information and lacks the ability to anticipate problems related to parenting. She may have decided to terminate the abusive relationship with R.M. and may be on the path to a better life, nonetheless [J.L.B.] has clearly expressed she does not feel safe with Mother. Mother’s conduct has caused these Children to be without essential parental care and she continues to be unable or unwilling to remedy this incapacity. These Children have been out of the parental home for more than six months and the conditions that led to the removal and placement continue to exist. Mother has complied with some [Family Service Plan] objectives, but whether she can remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the Children in the foreseeable future is doubtful. The Children’s lives cannot be placed on hold in the hope that Mother will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting. This [c]ourt finds that although the Children may have a bond with Mother, this bond however is not a parent-child bond that should be preserved.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/08/2021, at 37-38.
With regard to his determination to change Children’s goals to adoption,
Judge Tereshko concluded:
This [c]ourt finds the [r]ecord sustains the factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the Children’s current placement, and
-6- J-S04046-22
most importantly, the [r]ecord demonstrates that [r]eunification is not feasible and not in these Children’s best interest. Competent, credible, persuasive evidence exists to change the [p]ermanency [g]oals of the Children from [r]eunification to [a]doption. Once [r]eunification is ruled out, the second preferred permanency option is [a]doption. Adoption has been clearly established as the appropriate goal in the best interest of these Children and is best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of these Children.
TCO at 42.
Because we conclude that Judge Tereshko’s opinion properly disposes
of the issues Mother raises in these appeals, we adopt Judge Tereshko’s
opinion as our own and affirm the decrees and orders appealed from on that
basis.
Decrees and orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/4/2022
-7- f I
•1 '` CircQgte i,? 9 6622-QQ3AM
I 1:+*)
THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
/ ,y
IN THE INTEREST OF: :FAMILY COURT DIVISION :JUVENILE BRANCH-Dependency
J.L.B. aMinor :CP-51-DP-0003047-2017 d/oft 11/*/2009 :CP-51-AP-0000488-2020
S.M., aMinor :CP-51-DP-0003052-2017 d/o/b: 114/2017 :CP-51-AP-0000489-2020
:Superior Court Nos.: Appeal of- : 1696 EDA 2021; 1697 EDA 2021 A.M., Mother :1698 EDA 2021; 1699 EDA 2021 :CONSOLIDATED'
OPINION
A.M. ("Mother"), Appeals from the Decrees of Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights and Goal Change to Adoption entered by this Court on July 21, 2021, I
granting the Petitions to Involuntarily Terminate her Parental Rights to the above
referenced Children, filed by the Department of Human. Services ("DHS") on December
31, 2020. Mother also Appeals this Court's Orders granting the Petitions for Goal
Change also filed on December 31, 2020. In response to these Orders, Mother, by and
through her counsel filed Notices of Appeal with Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal on August 20, 2021.
Father, M.B., parental rights were involuntarily terminated as to J.L.B. on July 21,
2021, and Father filed Appeals on August 19, 2021, at 1685 and1686 EDA 2021. Father,
109/22/2021, Consolidated Sua Sponte. Comment: Review of these matters indicates that these appeals involve related parties and issues. Accordingly, the appeals at Nos. 1696, 1697, 1698, and 1699 EDA 2021 are hereby CONSOLIDATED. See Pa.R.A.P. 513-
I R.M., parental rights were involuntarily terminated as to S.M. on July 21, 2021, and he
filed appeals on August 19, 2021, at 1683 and 1684 EDA 2021. Each of Fathers' appeals
will be addressed in separate Opinions.
STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
In her Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Mother raises the following
issues:
1. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in determining that Petitioner, Department of Human Services (DHS), had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Mother evidenced asettled purpose of relinquishing her claim to the child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties, for at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition.
2. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that Mother has shown repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal, or that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal causing this child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for the child's physical or mental well-being;
3. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the conditions and causes or any such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Mother;
4. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the conditions which led to the removal or the child continue to exist;
5. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in the determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that the services or assistance reasonably available to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the child within areasonable period of time
2 and erred or abused its discretion in determining that DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify this family;
b. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in the determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that services or assistance were reasonably available to Mother;
7. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in the determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that termination of Mother's parental rights best meets the needs and welfare of the child;
8. That the Trial Court erred or abused its discretion in determining that Petitioner, DHS, had met its burden of proof that changing the child's permanency goal to adoption and terminating Mother's rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
A.M. (thereafter, "Mother") gave birth to daughter, J.L.B, on November*, 2009.
M.B. (thereafter, "M.B.") is listed as Father on the Birth Certificate. (Exhibit "B"
Certification ofLive Birth, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of
Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020).
A.M. (thereafter, "Mother") gave birth to daughter, S.M. on November*, 2017.
R.M. (thereafter, "R.M.") is listed as Father on the Birth Certificate. (Exhibit "B"
Certification ofBirth, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 12/31/2020).
On October 31, 2017, DHS received aGeneral Protective Services (GPS) Report
alleging that on October 31, 2017, J.L.B., was referred by school staff to Children's
Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) because she was limping and in pain; that J.L.B. was
diagnosed with recent extensive bruising and old linear hyperpigmentation on the backs
of her legs; that the Children's Mother, A.M., told CHOP staff that, since around
3 October 24, 2017, J.L.B. had jumped on aglass table with other children from church,
had been hit repeatedly with abat by another child, and fallen down steps; that S.M.'s
Father, R.M., arrived at CHOP after Mother and J.L.B. had arrived; that R.M., was
verbally aggressive with CHOP staff; that Mother and R.M., disagreed regarding J.L.B.
jumping on the glass table and being hit with abat by the unidentified child; that R.M.
became enraged in the treatment room, repeatedly listing his various accomplishments
that led to the decision to remove the child that was hitting J.L.B. from the church; that he
stated "I am aman of God"; that he repeatedly requested amore intensive treatment plan
for J.L.B.; that he appeared unable to understand what CHOP staff was attempting to
explain to him; that he was further angered at the discussion of J.L.B.'s safety while in the
home; that R.M. failed to calm himself and stated he would be taking J.L.B. to her
primary care physician; that R.M. threatened legal action before leaving the treatment
room; that R.M. stated that he would return in ten minutes if Mother was not outside
within that time, insinuating that he would exhibit further explosive behavior; that CHOP
staff contacted the primary care physician listed for J.L.B. and was informed that the
family does not go there for treatment; that Mother appeared amenable to listening to
CHOP's future treatment plan for J.L.B.; and that R.M. removed J.L.B. from CHOP
against medical advice (AMA). This Report was determined as valid. (Exhibit "A"
Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"a").
On November 1, 2017, DHS went to the family's home, but no one appeared to be
at home. DHS left aletter requesting that Mother and R.M. contact DHS. (Exhibit "A"
4 Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"b").
On November 1, 2017, DHS telephoned R.M., who was extremely hostile during
the telephone call. He told DHS that the agency has no authority to investigate the safety
of J.L.B. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"c").
On November 2, 2017, DHS went to the family's home. DHS met with Mother
and R.M. outside the home. DHS observed that R.M., stopped Mother from talking,
stating that she should not be talking because she is pregnant. R.M., refused to allow
DHS to have access to the home. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS
Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"d").
On November 3, 2017, Community Legal Services (CLS) telephoned DHS and
stated that Mother and R.M., had attempted to retain CLS services as legal counsel; that
CLS had explained the DHS investigation process to them and they were now willing to
cooperate with DHS' investigation. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS
Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, fled 12/31/2020, ¶
On November 3, 2017, DHS telephoned R.M., who agreed to ahome visit on
November 6, 2017. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"f").
On November 6, 2017, DHS went to J.L.B.'s school and met with her, who told
DHS that on October 31, 2017, she was limping and in pain when she arrived at school
because while she was at church, athree-year-old child had hit her on her leg with abat
and because she had fallen down stairs on October 31, 2017; that Mother did not stop the
5 i
child from hitting her with the bat; and that R.M., has ahistory of hitting her on her legs
with drumsticks when she fails to do her chores. DHS observed abruise and linear marks
on the backs of her legs. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"g").
On November 6, 2017, DHS went to the family's home and met with R.M., who
stated that on October 31, 2017, he had taken J.L.B. from CHOP against medical advice
because he felt that he was being discriminated against by CHOP staff and that he took
J.L.B. for amedical examination with her primary care physician at Delaware Valley
Community Center on November 1, 2017. He denied hitting J.L.B. and told DHS that
there were no drumsticks in the house. DHS met with J.L.B., who again stated that R.M.,
has ahistory of hitting her with drumsticks and that he had two sets of drumsticks, one in
the home and one at the church. DHS observed aset of drumsticks in the dining room of
the home. R.M. again denied hitting J.L.B. and stated that she has ahistory of not telling
the truth and that he was no longer willing to be involved in her care. DHS met with
Mother, who told DHS that she is the primary disciplinarian for J.L.B. and denied that
R.M. had ever hit J.L.B. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"h").
On November 10, 2017, the October 31, 2017 GPS Report was upgraded to a
Child Protective Services (CPS) Report. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to
DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"i").
On November 14, 2017, DHS learned that J.L.B. went to school that day and had
abruise on her left cheek. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"k").
6 On November 14, 2017, DHS went to J.L.B.'s school and met with her. DHS
observed abruise on J.L.B.'s left cheek. She stated that R.M. had hit her with his hand
because she was misbehaving in the backseat of the family's automobile and that he had
told her to tell DHS that no one had hit her. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to
DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"1").
DHS obtained an OPC for J.L.B. and S.M. on November 14, 2017. They were
placed in afoster home through Children's Home of Easton (CHOE). (Exhibit "A"
Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"m").
A Shelter Care Hearing was held on November 16, 2017, before the Honorable
Allan L. Tereshko. OPC was lifted and temporary legal custody transferred to DHS and
placement in foster care through Children's Home of Easton. DHS to explore Family
Finding. S.M., to have afull Child Abuse evaluation. Both Children safe as of
11/14/2017. (Shelter Care Order, 11/16/2017).
On December 12, 2017, The Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) Turning
Points for Children (TP4C) held an Initial Single Case Plan (SCP) meeting. The parental
objectives for Mother and R.M. were. 1) will attend parenting class and learn three non-
physical forms of discipline; 2) attend and complete anger management class; 3) attend
individual therapy; and 4) maintain contact with children per court order. Both parents
appeared and participated in the SCP meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement offacts, attached
to DHS Petition For Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"p").
7 On March 14, 2018, an Adjudicatory Hearing for S.M., was continued. The Court
found that S.M., remained in afoster home through Children's Home of Easton and was
safe as of 3/12/2018. (Continuance Order, 3/14/2018).
An Adjudicatory Hearing was held on March 14, 2018 for J.L.B., before the
Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Child was found to be aDependent Child. Legal
Custody remains with DHS, and placement continues in foster care through Children's
Home of Easton. Child J.L.B, found to be victim of child abuse as to Mother and
stepfather, R.M. Reunification efforts must continue. Supervised visits as arranged, and
parents are to have an additional 4hours for visits. Child receives therapy through
Children's Home of Easton. Mother and stepfather, R.M., referred to BHS for
consultations and/or evaluations. Motion is granted allowing J.L.B.'s out of court
statements to be admitted. Individual therapy to continue for the Child and family
therapy incorporated when therapist deems appropriate. Mother and R.M., referred to
ARC for parenting. (Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 3/14/2018).
On April 19, 2018, the Court deferred adjudication for S.M., as parents' counsel
was not present and Court ordered Mother and Father, R.M., to receive forthwith
Parenting Capacity Evaluations (PCE). (Continuance Order, 4/19/2018).
On May 8, 2018, adjudication of S.M. was deferred and hearing continued to
allow parents to hire new counsel because they do not wish to continue being represented
by current counsel. DHS to work with parents for visitation in accordance with work
schedule. Both J.L.B. and S.M. are safe as of 4/18/2018. (Status Review Order,
5/0 8/ 2018) (Continuance Order, 5/08/2018).
8 i
An Adjudicatory Hearing was held for S.M., on June 27, 2018, before the
Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Child found to be Dependent Child and legal custody
remains with DHS, and placement continues in foster care through Children's Home of
Easton. Child is medically up to date and not receiving services. The parents hired
private counsel to represent them jointly. Parents were referred for aPCE; that the
parents were to complete parenting at ARC; and that the parents were to have weekly
extended supervised visits at Agency and weekend overnight visits every other weekend
from Saturday 10 a.m. until Sunday 7p.m. CUA to do pop ups at the parent's home
during weekend overnight visits. Father completed Anger Management. (Order of
Adjudication and Disposition., 6/18/2018).
A Permanency Review Hearing for J.L.B. was held on June 27, 2018, before the
Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and placement remains
in foster care through Children's Home of Easton (CHOE). Mother to have supervised
visits at Agency and stepfather, R.M., is not to be in the building when Mother is visiting
with Child. Mother's home is appropriate and Mother attends ARC for parenting. CUA
has had no contact with J.L.B.'s Father, M.B. Mother referred for PCE. Family therapy
to be implemented when appropriate and Father to be included when appropriate. Mother
has private counsel. Child safe as of 6/ 14/ 2018. (Permanency Review Order, 6/27/
2018).
On September 20, 2018, CUA-TP4C held arevised SCP meeting. The parental
objectives for Mother and R.M. were: 1) maintain contact with children per court order;
2) complete court ordered PCE and follow all recommendations; and 3) participate in
family therapy when appropriate. Both parents appeared and participated in the SCP
9 meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020,' "w").
On September 26, 2018, aPermanency Review Hearing was held for both
Children before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS and
placement continues in foster care through C.H.O.E. for both Children. J.L.B., was
recently moved to new foster care home. She receives trauma-based therapy and attends
3rd grade. IEP scheduled for 10/15/2018. Mother has weekly supervised visits with the
Child at the Agency. Mother's last visit was July 2018. Stepfather, R.M., is NOT
permitted to accompany Mother during her and Child's supervised visits. Mother is
scheduled for PCE on 10/23/2018. All services for the Child are to continue. Mother to
comply with the Child's therapist recommendations regarding beginning Family Therapy.
S.M.'s parents have weekly supervised visits at the Agency and biweekly overnight
unsupervised visits in their home. Visits are to continue as arranged. S.M., is up to date
with medical and immunizations. S.M., does not receive any special services currently
and is doing well. Mother and Father. R.M., are scheduled for PCE for 10/23/2018.
Parents to comply with PCE, which is expedited. PCE is to examine the capacity of both
siblings in aseparate light. S.M., to be moved to the foster care home with her sibling,
and all parties notified. Both Children safe as of 9/12/2018. (Permanency Review
Orders, 9/26/2018).
A Permanency Review Hearing was held for S.M., on November 21, 2018, before
the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS and placement
continues in foster care through CHOE. Child attends daycare and is medically up to
date. Parents to continue bi-weekly overnight visits and they may extend visits from the
10 weekend to Christmas, CUA to make arrangements. Child safe as of 11/07/2018.
(Permanency Review Order, 11./21/2018).
On December 20, 2018, CUA-TP4C held arevised SCP meeting. The parental
objectives for Mother and R.M. remained the same as the objectives given at the
September 20, 2018 SCP meeting. Both parents attended and participated in the SCP
meeting by telephone. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, •"z").
On January 2, 2019, aPermanency Review Hearing was held for S.M., before the
Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and placements remains
in foster care at CHOE. Parents to have supervised visits at CHOE. Father to provide
DHS with acopy of both Birth Certificates and Immigration Certificate and ordered afull
FBI background to be obtained for Mother and Father. Child safe as of 12/06/2018.
(Permanency Review Order, 1/02/2019).
On March 12, 2019, Permanency Review Hearing were held for both Children.
Legal custody remains with DHS and placement continues in foster care at CHOE.
J.L.B., is up to date with medical, dental and receiving therapeutic services. Mother to
have weekly supervised visits with Child at Agency. Therapist, Marybeth Younger, is
permitted to testify telephonically next court date. No changes to Child's therapy- PLS
search for Child's Father. S.M., is up to date with medical and dental and scheduled to
have tubes in ear on 3/2S/2019, at Lehigh Valley Hospital. Parents signed consents.
Children safe as of 2/14/2019. Parents hired new counsel. (Permanency Review Orders,
3/12/2019).
11 On May 8, 2019, Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and
placements continue in foster care. Mother's visits with both Children shall be modified
to every other week supervised by avisitation coach provided to CHOE. S.M.'s Father,
R.M., visitation modified to every other week supervised by avisitation coach provided
to CHOE. CUA to explore placement of siblings together. Current therapist for J.L.B.,
to remain. ACS to subpoena visitation coach for next court listing. Children safe as.of
4/11/2019. (Permanency Review Hearing Orders, 5/08/2019).
On June 10, 2019, CUA-TP4C held arevised SCP meeting. The parental
objectives for Mother and S.M.'s Father, R.M. remained the same as the objectives given
at the September 20, 2018 SCP meeting. Both parents attended and participated in the
SCP meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, 1"dd").
On August 28, 2019, Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and
placement continues in foster care. Visitation for Children with Mother to remain as
status quo. Therapist report dated 8/27/2019. Mother and R.M., to resubmit for aPCE,
for it to be expedited, and it to include Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
Mother to produce an original Divorce Decree as to M.B. Therapist for J.L.B., to appear
in person or by phone at next court listing. Children safe as of 8/14/2019. (Permanency
Review Orders, 8/28/2019).
On November 20, 2019, Permanency Review Hearings were held for both
Children before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and
12 placement continues in foster care through CHOE. Visitation for Children with Mother
to remain as bi-weekly supervised visits at Agency. J.L.B., is attending Williams
Township Elementary School and has an IEP. She is receiving individual therapy,
however, family therapy was in place but has ceased. She is receiving tutoring services
on aweekly basis. She is up to date with medical. PCE for Mother has not been
scheduled as additional information is needed. Mother is not attending individual therapy
at this time. Mother was recently arrested on 10/10/2019. Mother is currently employed
by Signa Group Insurance. Father, R.M., to provide CUA with all necessary documents
requested by Dr. Russell forthwith. R.M., was employed at Med Transit until
10/20/2019, but is currently employed by Uber. Both Children safe as of 11/15/2019.
(Permanency Review Orders, 11 /20/2019).
On January 22, 2020, Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remained with DHS, and
placement continued in foster care through CHOE. Visitation by Mother with both
Children may be modified by agreement of the parties prior to next court date. Visitation
by Father, R.M., with S.M., may be modified by agreement of the parties prior to next
court date. Mother's Addendum to PCE completed 1/15/2020. CUA to explore family
resources as identified today. Order amended to include Ms. Mills, or any non-
authorized person is NOT to attend visits. (Permanency Review Orders—Amended,
1/22/2020).
On February 27, 2020, CUA-TP4C held arevised SCP meeting. The parental
objectives for Mother were: 1) maintain contact with child per court order; 2) ensure that
13 the J.L.B.'s medical, dental and vision needs are met and keep all appointments; 3)
participate in family therapy when appropriate; 4) sign all releases of information and
consents; 5) ensure that the home remains appropriate and safe; 6) comply with the
recommendation of the PCE; and 7) provide documentation of all completed court
ordered services and expectations. Neither parent attended nor participated in the SCP
meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition For Involuntary
Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/31/2020, ¶"ii").
On September 3, 2020, Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and
placement continues in foster care through CHOE. J.L.B., is 10 years old and doing well
in the home. She is enrolled at Williams Township Elementary School, her 1EP is up to
date, and her educational needs are being met. She is up to date with medical and dental
and receives therapy. S.M., is 3years old and doing well in the home and up to date with
medical and dental. Mother to have on-site supervised visits with the Children,
supervised by CHOE staff. Visits with Mother can be modified by agreement of the
parties. CUA to make releases available for Mother's signature and therapist to provide
treatment plan, progress report and attendance within 30 days. CUA to reach out to
J.L.B.'s therapist, and CUA to assign SCP goals for her Father, M.B. Father to have
virtual supervised visits with J.L.B., supervised by her therapist and at therapist's
recommendation. County of jurisdiction to do complementary home evaluation of
Father's residence. Court Administration to appoint legal counsel for J.L.B. Regarding
S.M.'s Father, R.M., CUA to make releases available for Father's signature. R.M., to be
compliant with CUA. R.M., to provide CUA with documentation of employment, work
14 schedule, therapist name, sign release and housing. Father, R.M.'s therapist to provide
treatment plan, progress report and attendance within 30 days. (Permanency Review
Orders, 9/03/2020).
On January 20, 2021, Permanency Review Hearings were held for both Children
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and
placement continues in foster care through New Foundation. All prior orders as to
parents to stand. Visitation between S.M. and Father, R.M., shall be phone contact
supervised by CHOE at Child's discretion. Children safe as of 1/14/2021. (Permanency
Review Orders, 1/20/2021).
On March 9, 202 1, at Status Review Hearing was held for S.M., before the
Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Remain as committed and placed. Father's in person
visits are suspended. Father to have 1hour supervised virtual visit aweek. Stay Away
Order issued to Father, R.M., to stay away from A.J. Cordi, Nicole Beauchamp, Jean
Mazzarese, Beverly Pearson and the Children's Home of Easton located at 2000 S. 25"
St., Easton, PA 18042. (Status Review Order, 3/09/2021).
On April 22, 202 1, aPermanency Review Hearing was held for both Children
before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal custody remains with DHS, and J.L.B.'s
placement shall remain in aPre-Adoptive Home through CHOE. S.M.'s placement to
remain in foster care through CHOE. Children to remain as committed. All attorneys to
submit their closing arguments in writing to the Judge within 30 days and to be emailed
to the Court. The cases are held under advisement and the Court will render adecision.
Child safe as of 4/21/2021. (Permanency Review Order, 4/22/2021).
15 i STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
When reviewing an appeal from adecree terminating parental rights, an appellate
court is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by
competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient
evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. Where atrial
court has granted apetition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, an appellate court
must accord the hearing judge's decision the same deference that it would give to ajury
verdict. The Pennsylvania Superior Court need only agree with atrial court's decision as
to any one subsection under 23 P.C.S.A. §2511 (a) in order to affirm atermination of
parental rights. In re D.A.T. 91 A.3d 197 Pa. Super. 201.4).
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 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. We have previously emphasized
our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties
spanning multiple hearings. In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013) (citations
and quotation marks omitted) In re Adoption of C.D.R., 2015 PA Super 54, 111 A.3d
1212, 1215 (2015).
16 The Trial Court Properly Found that DHS had met its Burden by Clear and Convincing Evidence to Involuntarily Terminate Mother's Parental RiLrhts Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(2), (5) (8) and 2511(b) 2 Involuntary termination of parental rights is governed by §2511 of the Adoption
Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938. As the party petitioning for termination of parental rights,
DHS "must prove the statutory criteria for that termination by at least clear and
convincing evidence." In re T.R., 465 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. 1983). Clear and convincing
evidence is defined as "testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to
enable the trier of fact to come to aclear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the
precise facts in issue." Matter ofSylvester, 555 A.2d 1202, 1203-04 (Pa. 1989).
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act
23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101---2938, which requires abifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus is
z23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a) General Rule. —the rights of aparent in regard to achild may be terminated after apetition filed on any of the following grounds: (1) The parent by conduct continuing for aperiod of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced asettled purpose of relinquishing parenting claim to achild or has refused or failed to perform parental duties. (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. (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parents by the court or under avoluntary agreement with an agency for aperiod of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within areasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under 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 termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511 (b). Other Considerations.—The court in terminating the rights of aparent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of aparent 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. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1),(6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are fast initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
17 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 251 l(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's
conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the
second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and
welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of
the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond
between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of
permanently severing any such bond. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super.2007)
(citations omitted). In re Adoption of C.J.J.P., 2015 PA Super 80, 114 A.3d 1046, 1049-
50 (2015). The Court need only agree with the orphans' court as to any one subsection of
Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), in order to affirm. In re Adoption of
C.J.J.P., 2015 PA Super 80, 114 A.3d 1046, 1050 (2015).
Mother alleges this Court committed reversible error when it involuntarily
terminated Mother's parental rights where such determination was not supported by clear
and convincing evidence under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§2511 (a) (1), (2), (5), (8) and 2511 (b).
This Court disagrees.
DHS became aware of J.L.B. on October 31, 2017, when it received aGeneral
Protective Services (GPS) Report alleging that on October 31, 2017, seven year old
J.L.B., was referred by school staff to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP)
because she was limping and in pain and she told them R.M., hits her on her legs with
drumsticks when she fails to do her chores. DHS observed abruise and linear marks on
the backs of her legs. J.L.B. was diagnosed with recent extensive bruising and old linear
18 hyperpigmentation on the backs of her legs; the Children's Mother, A.M., told CHOP
staff that, since around October 24, 2017, J.L.B. had jumped on aglass table with other
children from church, had been hit repeatedly with abat by another child, and fallen
down steps. (CPS Report, 10/31/2017, Exhibit DHS 4).
On November 13, 2017, Mother gave birth to S.M. (Exhibit `B" Certification of
Birth, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed
12/31/2020).
On November 15, 2017, DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OPC) for
J.L.B. and removed her from the home of her Mother and Stepfather, R.M. On
December 26, 2017, DHS indicated the Child Protection Services (CPS) Report naming
Mother and R.M. as perpetrators of abuse for causing bodily injury to achild through a
recent act or failure to act (Exhibit DHS-4).
On November 16, 2017, this Court transferred legal custody of both Children to
DHS and placed them in Foster Care through Children's Home of Easton. (Shelter Care
Orders, 11/16/2017).
On March 14, 2018, this Court adjudicated J.L.B. Dependent and found her to be
the victim of child abuse as defined by 23 Pa.C.S. §6303 and the perpetrators were found
to be Mother and Stepfather, R.M. (Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 3/14/2018).
On June 27, 2018, this Court adjudicated the seven-month-old Child, S.M.,
Dependent and legal custody remained with DHS, and placement continued in Foster
Care through Children's Home of Easton. (Order of Adjudication and Disposition,
6/27/2018).
19 I
On October 23, 2018, William Russell, Ph.D., licensed Psychologist conducted a
court ordered Parenting Capacity Evaluation (PCE) on Mother and Father, R.M., to .
assess their ability to provide safety and permanency for the Children. He interviewed
Mother and reviewed available records. Mother reported, "everything was fine and then
DHS called out of the blue. Xtold them that if this was about what happened at CHOP,
then it's amisunderstanding." Mother reported she, R.M., and the J.L.B. were
interviewed by DHS and that J.L.B. disclosed that R.M. hit her with drumsticks. Mother
denied that R.M. ever hit the Child with drumsticks. During the interview Mother denied
ahistory of arrest or other legal involvement. Mother did not indicate any employment
history and reported she was currently enrolled at Pierce University to earn her MBA.
Dr. Russell deferred diagnosis and recommended that the family should participate in
Family Therapy, focusing on understanding the Children, encouraging appropriate
emotional express and assist R.M. in understanding the development of children. Family
Therapy should commence prior to the consideration of Reunification of J.L.B. based on
the nature of the relationship between this Child and R.M. R.M. to participate in classes
to learn appropriate ways to discipline. Visitation with J.L.B. and R.M. should progress
at the direction of the Family Therapist. (Report of Forensic Evaluation by William
Russell, Ph.D., 10/23/2018) (Exhibit, DHS-21).
On May 8, 2019, this Court held aPermanency Review Hearing and Mother
testified she attended the PCE with Dr. Russell on 10/23/2018, and that she did not read
the entire Report but just went to the back of it to see what the doctor had recommended.
When questioned about page Sof the Report, " denied ahistory of arrest or
other legal involvement", Mother stated that she did not lie to him, but he asked her only
20 I
in-regards to child abuse, and responded, "why am Igoing to give any additional
information if we're here on child abuse?" Mother then proceeded to acknowledge that
she was arrested in Kansas on 6/8/2008, and 6/12/2008, and stated she paid the fine.
Mother also acknowledged that she was arrested on 12/16/2010, for battery against alaw
enforcement officer and obstruction and sentenced 2/10/2011 to aone-year Probation.
Mother testified "the PCE was pertaining to child abuse, so ifyou're asking me a
question in regard to child abuse and to what's going on, why am Igoing backwards
when you're not asking me any of that history? You're asking me what happened to my
child? How did Iend up here?" When questioned by this Court whether Dr. Russell had
made an error when he indicated in his Report that she answered "no" as to historical
criminal charges, Mother responded, "Well, he didn't ask me about my prior history."
(N.T., 5/08/2019, p.49 at 7-10, p.50 at 1-18, p.51 at 12-25, pp.52-54 at 1-25, p.55 at 1-
15, p.56 at 1) (Exhibit, DHS-22).
Mother also testified on 5/08/2019, that she was employed and had gotten araise
in pay, whereupon, DHS later discovered that Mother's last day of employment was
10/05/2018, as per aHuman Resources Letter from CENLAR, dated 10/21/2019. Patrice
Garvey, CUA Supervisor from Turning Points for Children testified on 5/08/2019 that
Mother refused to provide acopy of her social security card and had not provided pay
stubs in more than six months. Mother claimed she and her husband, R.M., were victims
of identity theft and she would send it through her attorney. Ms. Garvey never received it
from Mother nor her attorney. (N.T., 5/08/2019, p.80 at 13-25, p.81 at 1-24, p.82 at 1-16)
(Exhibit DHS-18).
21 At the Permanency Review Hearing on August 28, 2019, this Court heard Expert
testimony from William Russell, Psychologist, who conducted Parenting Capacity
Evaluations (PCE) on Mother and Father, R.M., on October 23, 2018. He testified that at
that time he concluded there were concerns regarding the safety of the Children and that
there were anumber of recommendations that should be followed. He noted that he was
provided acopy of the Notes of Testimony from ahearing held on May 8, 2019, which
he reviewed. He noted that he became aware that Mother and Father, R.M., has separated
and no longer lived together. He was also aware that Mother and Father, R.M. obtained
Protection From Abuse Orders against each other subsequent to the May 8, 2019 hearing.
(N.T., 8/28/2019, p.8 at 16-25, pp. 9-11 at 1-25, p.12 at 1-24, p.13 at 1-3).
Dr. Russell testified that based on the noted new information he obtained, he had
changed his opinion as to the parents since his initial PCE's. With regards to the parent
R.M., he stated the information provided at the initial evaluation was in direct contrast to
the information that was evident in the May 8, 2019 hearing. Quite anumber of aspects
of R.M.'s life that he presented to Dr. Russell were refuted during the subsequent May
2019 hearing. And because of that, any opinion that he gave regarding R.M,. as aresult
of the October 23, 2018 evaluation and the information he was given, that initial opinion
would not be valid. He noted that it did not make adifference that the parents were
physically separated. He testified that much of the information provided to him by
Mother and R.M. was later found to be inaccurate or false. Both parents used almost the
exact same wording to describe what occurred during the evaluation process. That
reflected that the two of them were sharing information and were practicing whatever
they were going to say to the Court. (N.T., 8/28/2019, p.13 at 4-25, p.14 at 1-22).
22 Circulated 03/29/2022 09:11 AM
Dr. Russell testified that his opinion that Mother and Father, R.M., were not able
to provide safety at the end of evaluation would still stand, unless he was shown
something dramatically different from one of the parents. He noted that if he was redoing
an evaluation, clearly all of the information that was demonstrated to be of questionable
accuracy, clearly false information, would need to be provided to him. He believed both
parents were lying to him at the initial PCE and they were coordinating their
misrepresentations. He testified that if anew PCE was scheduled for Mother, the basic
opinion would not change. What would change would be the length of time that he
would recommend that was needed to see stability on the part of the Mother. His opinion
would be significantly different if Mother was able to provide documentation, provide
proof of all the different things that were not accurate, and then demonstrate that she had
an independent way of supporting herself or providing housing, that could begin to get
into possibly changing his opinion on Mother. (N.T. 8/28/2019, p.15 at 2-25, p.16 at 1-
21).
At the conclusion of this hearing, this Court ordered Mother and Father, R.M.,
resubmit for PCE to expedited and to include Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. This Court stated, "the reason behind that is that one of the primary issues
here is deception. And having been able to see the results of MMP's in the past, they
have apotential for providing the level of deception that the parties are engaged in. It's
not the absolute proof as such, but it's one of the tools used, and the Court, as finder of
fact could use in determining whether or not the parties are deceptive, in whole or in
part." (N.T., 8/28/2019, p.17 at 3-16) (Permanency Review Order, 8/28/2019).
23 On January 20, 2021, this Court began the virtual Goal Change/Termination of
Parental Rights Hearing for both Children and heard further Expert testimony from
William Russell, who conducted asecond Parenting Capacity Evaluations (PCE) on
Mother on January 3, 2021. He testified that based on the hearing in August 28, 2019,
when he testified before the Court, it was ordered that areevaluation should be conducted
based on significant information that was conflicting regarding the statements made by
both Mother and Father. Dr. Russell testified that Mother told him that she had been
under duress during the time she was with R.M., and that statements she had made to him
at the first evaluation were false. Mother felt she was forced to make those statements
out of fear of R.M.'s retaliation. He met with Mother in January 2020 and July 2020 to
conduct the second PCE and there was asignificant amount of information, in light of the
conflicting history of the case. Therefore, his Report was completed and dated on
January 3, 2021. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.177 at 12-25, p.178 at 1-25, p.179 at 1-4, p.180 at
1-14) (Report of Forensic Evaluation, 1/03/2021).
Dr. Russell testified that Mother discussed her relationship with R.M., and she
described the physical abuse of J.L.B. and herself by R.M. He noted that in light of the
history of the case, in the light that would be multiple presentations of information with
distortions by both individuals in this case; changing stories, changing presentations was
afairly frequent occurrence. He does not know what Mother told the CUA workers,
however, she was quite clear to him that she was physically abused and felt threatened by
R.M. on multiple occasions. He opined he did not see signs of post-traumatic-stress
syndrome, but he did see aslight elevation in anxiety during her presentation of material.
He did not see any symptoms of atrauma related response, neither did atrauma related
24 i
response become evident from psychological testing on Mother. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.187
at 6-16, p.188 at 6-25, p.189 at 1-7).
Dr. Russell asked Mother why she was not truthful during her first PCE, and she
responded that most of the information she provided him was false and that she was
forced to provide that information by R.M. She described that the day of the original
evaluation he accompanied her and threatened her on that day. He opined that Mother's
presentations for the subsequent PCE was much more in line with atruthful presentation.
Mother described anumber of events and reactions. There were discrepancies, but he
cannot say whether they negated her story. Everything that he reported in his written
Report such as Mother living in Chester, pays the rent there, she is on disability, she is in
therapy, were all verified and so they were truthful. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.191 at 23-25, p.
192 at 1-25, p.193 at 1-9).
Dr. Russell testified Mother told him she was engaged in therapy with Dr.
Silberman. He received three pieces of information from him: 1) ageneral statement
letter that he was treating Mother; 2) his treatment plan; and 3) his CV. He noted that the
treatment plan was undated and unsigned. He noted this was highly unusual because this
document would not meet basic insurance regulations because it must be signed by the
Care Giver and the Patient and dated with both astart date and expiration date. He
further stated that he did recommend that Mother attend individual mental health therapy
to deal with reported trauma, such as amix of insight-oriented treatment combined with
reality therapy. Based on what he received from Dr. Silberman, he could not determine
whether Mother was receiving those types of therapies. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.196 at 19-25,
p.197 at 1-25, p.198 at 1-16).
25 Dr. Russell testified that Mother told him that she could balance running her nail
salon in her home with having the Children in her care if she was reunited with then-.
When he questioned her with more details, Mother became flustered and had significant
difficulty providing any concrete responses. Mother stated at one point that she could
take the Children to her Aunt in Philadelphia. She also said she could put one child in
daycare, but overall, Mother had not thought through the details and that raised concerns
about her overall presentation, her immaturity, naivety and her limited ability to think
ahead for potential problems that she might face having the Children back in her care.
Mother also failed to offer any insights into the cause of J.L.B.'s injury and although she
did not allegedly inflict the abuse directly, Mother knew it occurred. That Mother knew
the Child was injured and still did nothing. Mother just does not have an understanding
that it's her responsibility to protect the Child. Dr. Russell also has concerns about
Mother's mental stability and her consistency with providing accurate information.
(N.T., 1/20/2021, p.200 at 21-25, pp.201-203 at 1-25).
In his Report dated 1/03/2021, Dr. Russell discusses the MMPI-2RF test results
for Mother. He wrote this test allows the administrator to make inference about the
client's behavior and way of thinking. He noted Mother's score on the Variable
Response/Inconsistency Scale (VRIN) was quite unelevated. This suggests that she was
clearly able to read and comprehend the test items and that she was attentive in
considering her responses. Therefore, Mother's elevated score on scale L, (Lie scale)
cannot be attributed to an inability to understand the content of the items presented. This
absence of substantial elevation on the VRIN together with no elevation on the fake bad
scale (fbs and ds) suggest that her elevation on scale Lwas adeliberate attempt to appear
26 without faults. Mother's clinical results are similar to individuals who are often
described as being suspicious of others and their motives. They see malicious intent in
the action of others and often blame others for their difficulties. Their mistrust of others
can cause difficulties in interpersonal relationships: thus, these individuals are often
alienated from others. (Report of Forensic Evaluation, 1/03/2021, pb-7, Exhibit DHS-
20).
Dr. Russell also corresponded with Amber Walsh, J.L.B.'s therapist, who noted
that the Child is exhibiting significant fear and anxiety about Mother's ability to protect
her. He opined this indicates the need for ongoing therapeutic interventions to address
these issues prior to reunification with Mother. Clearly J.L.B., has demonstrated that
while she cares for her Mother, she still struggles with why she wasn't protected by her
Mother. He noted that Mother has never been an essential caretaker for both of the
Children together. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.204 at 20-25, p.205 at 1-20).
On cross-examination by Elizabeth Flanagan, Child Advocate/GAL, Dr. Russell
opined that Dr. Silberman does not mention atrauma reaction, nor does he mention dny
symptoms consistent with apost-traumatic stress disorder. He noted that Mother has
never served as the Primary Caretaker for both Children. When you take the history of
J.L.B.'s physical abuse, the separation, the issues of trust, combined with athree-year old
who really has not known Mother as her essential caretaker for any of her life, concerns
would be increased as to Mother with the responsibility of caring for two Children.
(N.T., 1/20/2021, p.212 at 9-25, p.213 at 1-10).
This Court also heard persuasive, credible testimony from Nicole Beauchamp,
Foster Care Worker from Children's Home of Easton (CHOE). She stated she is the
27 liaison for children that are in foster care as well as for the foster families, the Agency
and the biological families. She began working with the J.L.B. and S.M. and the families
in September 2018, and she supervised visits between the Children and the parents. The
visits were twice amonth and she supervised until June of 2019, when Mother and R.M.
separated and the visitation schedule changed. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.26 at 17-25, pp.27-28
at 1-25, p.30 at 16-18).
Ms. Beauchamp testified she supervised visits between Mother and the Children
twice amonth at CHOE for two and ahalf years. Mother generally arrived on time and
stayed the two-hour time limit. She would bring them food and engage in activities
which were pretty positive. The Children were always happy to see her, and both
identify her as their Mother. During the Pandemic, visits changed from in-person to
virtual and they also occurred twice amonth. Mother also telephoned to speak to the
Children one to three times per week prior to the Pandemic, however, J.L.B. expressed
that during the Pandemic her contact with her Mother was limited outside of her virtual
and in-person visits. The Child recalled maybe two times between June 2020 and
November 2020 that she spoke to Mother on the phone. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.39 at 1-25,
p.40 at 1-3, pAl at 10-25, p.42 at 1-2, p.43 at 1-13).
Ms. Beauchamp further testified she has observed the interaction between the two
Children and their current foster care parents. She noted that the relationship is very
positive. J.L.B. expressed to her that she likes living with the foster parents very much
and they are willing to adopt the two girls. She feels they love her very much and are a
good support system for her. She gets along well with her three foster siblings and feels
safe there. The two sisters, J.L.B. and S.M. are very attached to each other and have
28 spent most of the time together. J.L.B. has expressed she does not want to be separated
from her sister under no circumstances. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.44 at 7-25, p.45 at 1-25,-p.
46 at 1-11).
Regarding J.L.B.'s relationship with her Mother, Ms. Beauchamp testified the
Child has expressed to her that she loves her Mother, however, the past two and ahalf
years the relationship has been rocky. The Child has been hurt because Mother's
communication with her has been inconsistent. J.L.B. told her that she is not sure what
living with her Mother would be like and if given the opportunity to stay where she is at,
she would want to do that. Ms. Beauchamp stated her last conversation with J.L.B. was
in December 2020 and the Child's view has remained consistent. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.46
at 12-25, p.47 at 1-24).
Ms. Beauchamp testified she has supervised two visits between Mother and J.L.B.
since the last hearing when she testified and stated Mother's visitation schedule remained
as biweekly, supervised at the Agency for two hours. Mother requested achange in
schedule because of her work and instead of in-person visits the visits were going to be
virtual, which would be four visits totaling seven weeks. There was difficulty scheduling
the virtual visits, she told Mother she was doing her best to accommodate Mother's
change in schedule. Two in-person visits occurred with both Children on 2/12/2021 and
2/17/2021, both visits were unremarkable, and she did not have to provide any
redirection. She noted that the Children were at times emotional and have expressed that
they miss their Mother and they enjoy spending time with her, but they're not crying at
the end of the visit because they want to go home with her. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.276 at
21-25, pp.277-282 at 1-25, p.283 at 1-7, p.284 at 1-13).
29 Amber Walsh, Therapist at CONCERN Behavioral Health, was next to testify.
She stated she began working with J.L.B. as her direct clinical therapist on August 15,
2020. She meets with the Child every Monday at her school on aweekly basis and
sometimes meets with her biweekly on Thursdays at the office. Ms. Walsh testified she
works with the Child on advocating for herself, emotional regulation and processing
through trauma. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.58 at 22-25, p.59 at 1-25, p.60 at 1-21).
Ms. Walsh testified that during therapy sessions she has spoken to J.L.B. about
the physical abuse she has endured by her Mother and Stepfather. She noted the Child
has made progress in talking to her and relaying information about her trauma.
Regarding her Mother, J.L.B, has done alot of art therapy regarding the differences
between her home life with Mother and her home life with her Foster Parent, where she
resides with her sister. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.60 at 22-25, p.61 at 1-25, p.62 at 1-16).
Ms. Walsh testified the Child feels unsafe and angry with her Mother because she
did not protect her. J.L.B. has related to her that she wants to be adopted. She has stated
that to her at least three times, the last time being last Monday, 1/18/2021, and the Child
has not waivered at all about desiring to be adopted. Ms. Walsh opined that J.L.B. would
not suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated. The Child would
suffer irreparable harm if she was removed from the Foster Parent's home. (N.T.,
1/20/2021, p.64 at 1-25, p.65 at 1-22, p.66 at 1-8).
On cross-examination by Elizabeth Flanagan, Esquire, Child Advocate/GAL, Ms.
Walsh testified that she is not currently recommending that J.L.B. and her Mother engage
in Family Therapy. She has reviewed the notes from the previous therapist and has also
discussed the matter with the Child, and she recommends the focus be on J.L.B.'s
30 individual growth before introducing another participant into her sessions. Ms. Walsh
opined that Family Therapy with her Mother, or her Father would not be productive for
the Child at this time. It would make her regress in her treatment and individual growth.
She noted that she has worked with the Child approximately five months now and they
have developed aconsistent and significant relationship together to make that
recommendation. She also noted they have check-ins at school, where she is stationed
four days aweek, and J.L.B. has requested to speak with her and engages in sessions, far
different from the beginning when she was withdrawn and closed off. Ms. Walsh opined
the Child has really progressed. Regarding her relationship with her Mother, if she is
adopted, J.L.B. expressed to her that she wants her Mother to work on her goals and she
was fine with not being able to talk to her Mother. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.69 at 10-25, pp.
70-71 at 1-25, p.72 at 1-10, p.74 at 17-25, p.75 at 1).
Ms. Walsh testified credibly and persuasively again at the hearing on April 22,
2021 and stated she has been treating J.L.B. for approximately eight months. She had
sessions with her 4/12/2021, 4/15/2021 and 4/19/2021 and J.L.B. described three
emotions she feels towards her Mother that she expressed during therapy: angry, sad, and
lacking trust. Ms. Walsh noted that the lack of trust comes for the fact that the Child
believes that her Mother picks men over her children. Her professional opinion, sadness
comes out when the Child talks about process of going home, the fears that she has with
going home and not feeling safe and protected. She noted that fear has remained
consistent over the last eight months. Ms. Walsh again stated the Child continues to say
that she wants to stay with her Foster Family. She again opined that the Child would not
suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated because of the
31 bonding that she has with her Foster Parent. She stated that taking J.L.B. out of that
attachment with her Foster Parent and away from that bond can only regress her in her
mental health treatment. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.17 at 10-25, pp.18-20 at 1-25, p.21 at 7-25,
pp.22-23 at 1-25, p.24 at 1-18).
Ms. Walsh testified she has had telephone conversations with Mother every week
since the last court date in January 2021. She has not initiated any formal Family
Therapy between the Child and her Mother because the Child was not ready for Family
Therapy and has expressed that she was not willing to do that. Mother has participated in
journaling back and forth with the Child, specifically the "Mommy and Me Journal."
However, the Child struggles to believe that Mother has made changes. Ms. Walsh
opined that it would be very hard to repair the relationship between the Child. and Mother.
(N.T., 4/22/2021, p.26 at 1-20, p.43 at 22-25, p.44 at 1-7, p.50 at 14-20).
Maribeth Younger, aprivate Mental Health Therapist also testified before this
Court. She was Therapist for J.L.B. beginning in July 2018 when the Child's Mother
made the arrangements through her personal insurance. She noted that although Mother
lost her insurance coverage, she continued with the therapy sessions with the Child. She
described the Child as adelightful young lady who disclosed alot of sensitive
information to her. She noted that she wanted to make sure the Child has asupport
system as she was transitioning through the Foster Care system and that is why she
continued to provide services. (N.T. 4/22/2021, p.122 at 21-25, p.123 at 1-25, p.124 at 1-
5, p.127 at 1-13).
This Court Beard credible, persuasive testimony from Patrice Garvey, CUA Case
Manager Supervisor. She testified one of the PCE recommendations for Mother was for
32 her to obtain individual therapy. She reached out to Dr. Silberman, whom Mother was
treating with, through atelephone call on 12/29/2020 and 12/31/2020. She requested
progress, treatment and attendance reports. She told Mother's therapist that Mother was
found by the Court to be aperpetrator of child abuse as to J.L.B., and he responded that
he was unaware of the fact. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.225 at 14-25, p.226 at 1-25, p.227 at 1-
23).
This Court heard Expert testimony from Dr. Alan Silberman, Psychologist, who
stated he has been treating Mother for over ayear and has seen her once aweek for at
least 50 times in that period. He stated the case came in because of the identification of
what appeared to be child abuse, with injuries to J.L.B. in particular and the physical and
emotional safety of the Child plus the home environment. (N.T. 4/ 22/ 2021, p.63 at 6-25,
p.64 at 1-21).
Dr. Silberman was questioned by Ms. Schiffinan, attorney for DHS regarding a
letter he wrote June 11, 2020, after treating Mother for approximately two months. The
letter noted, "she has been treatment compliant and consistent and quite sincere in her
efforts to better understand herself and her interactions with others around her. I •moihor• iIJINO appears to have been successful in overcoming feelings of abuse and distrust that
emerged from her dysfunctional marriage. She is handling the divorce process well and
is looking forward to resuming her role as anurturing and devoted parent. Ibelieve she
is emotionally equipped to independently parent her Children. She is clearly capable of
being an excellent role model for her Children. Irecommend that she have full custody
of her Children. It is also recommended that she continue individual counselinghherapy
to help her with the normal stresses associated with reorienting to anew and independent
33 life as asingle parent." (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.81 at 7-25, p.82 at 20-25, p.83 at 1-7,
(Exhibit-M-7).
Dr. Silberman was then asked if he recalled writing the letter on June 11, 2020,
where he recommended Mother have fall custody of her Children and he responded that
he did recall writing that. When questioned whether he recalled if the CUA Case
Manager had told him that Mother had been found by the Court as perpetrator of child
abuse, he responded, "Ibelieve Idid know that she ... that was one of the issues. When I
talked to her, after the first few sessions, Iindicated she became quite candid with me,
and these were the issues that were present ... Idon't know about the formal charges." Dr.
Silberman then stated he couldn't tell the Court exactly when he found out about the
child abuse, "I can't tell you exactly. It was after several session that she developed
confidence in me and sense of trust. It had to be before the letter." Dr. Silberman was
then asked by the Court if he was aware that the adjudication of the J.L.B. as Dependent
and the finding of child abuse against Mother had occurred in 2018, he responded,
"yes...I don't recall if at the time that Iwrote the letter, Iwas aware of the dates ... I
wasn't treating her ....she came in because of anxiety and depression and this carne
up..." (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.83 at 1-21, p.84 at 1-13, p.88 at 6-23).
Dr. Silberman testified he disagreed with Dr. Russell's statement in the PCE on
page 8, where he stated Mother continues to offer no insight into the cause of J.L.B.'s
injuries. Stating, "Iwas aware that he said that, and Iwas aware of it because Ithought
it was absurd." (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.94 at 22-25, p.95 at 1-5).
Finally, Dr. Silberman testified, "I was not involved in the legal case at all. She
came to me because of anxiety and depression. This came up as part of the overall
34 dynamic. My responsibility was her mental health, her emotional well-being. She came
to me voluntarily. This was notto the best of my knowledge, this was not court-
ordered to come to me. And when people come, Ihave to accept the sincerity of intent,
unless there's secondary gain. And, Ididn't see that as secondary gain to want to be able
to function and go from being depressed and anxious to being able to use one's
resources." This Court then asked Dr. Silberman, "notwithstanding all of that, you
injected yourself into this case by recommending that Mother be awarded full custody of
both Children; am Icorrect in that—in June of 2020?" He responded, "Yes ... because I
was asked to do that ... Idid not volunteer for the case." (N.T., 4/22/201, p.99 at 1-25, p.
100 at 1-14).
This Court questioned Dr. Silberman whether he considered the use of objective
testing on Mother for the purpose of discerning whether or not aperson has adeceptive
personality, and he responded, "Ithink testing can be very helpful in terms of
understanding personality. Ididn't feel that it was appropriate...1 understand and agree
with you in terms of the usefulness in many cases" This Court then asked him, "why
didn't you use it here, and he responded, Ididn't feel that it was necessary here." (N.T.,
4/22/2021., p.117 at 14-25, p.118 at 1-25, p.119 at 1-25).
On cross-examination by Elizabeth Flanagan, Esquire, Dr. Silberman opined, •motl•er• "My belief is that people can change, and Ibelieve in particular—I don't CYAO ett: know the other people in the scenario, but Ibelieve Chas made noteworthy,
significant change, and that the Children would be safe with her." (N.T., 4/22/2021, p. i
107 at 6-10).
35 1 Mother testified she has been employed at Bank of .America since January 2021
and that she informed the CUA team. Mother stated she has been in full compliance with
her SCP objectives. Mother also stated that she has taken full responsibility for the child
abuse inflicted by R.M., and for her not speaking up about it because of her fear. Mother
testified she should have not operated on fear and been able to come forward and tell
what happened and be able to express that. (N.T., 412212021, p.334 at 20-25, p.338 at 9-
25, p.339 at 1-25, p.340 at 1-19).
Mother testified she began therapy with Dr. Silberman in April 2020, and has
gained some confidence, and is not operating on fear, using her voice, and she is severing
all the ties with the things that she needed to do. She stated she has been able to move
forward. She noted that she is in the process of obtaining adivorce from R.M. and does
not have any direct contact with him. (N.T., 4/22/2021 at p.341 at 2-25, p.342 at 1-9).
Mother stated she has to regain the trust with her eldest daughter and plans on
doing that through therapy, taking her time, not rushing the process and allowing them to
rebuild something that is solid for her and her Children. She is willing to do Family
Therapy with J.L.B. and has discussed that with Ms. Walsh. Mother stated it was
disheartening to her that her daughter is declining therapy with her at this time. (N.T.,
4/22/2021 at p.342 at 19-25, pp.343-344 at 1-25, p.345 at 1-7).
This Court finds the Expert testimony of Dr. Russell, the testimonies of Nicole
Beauchamp, Foster Care Worker from Children's Home of Easton (CHOE), Amber
Walsh, Therapist at CONCERN Behavioral Health, and Patrice Garvey, CUA Case
Manager Supervisor, to be clear, convincing and persuasive.
36 This Court gives little weight to the Expert testimony from Dr. Alan Silberman,
Psychologist, who treated Mother. After less than two months of one-hour weekly
sessions, with little or no knowledge of the facts of this case, Dr. Silberman opined in a
letter that Mother should have full custody of her Children. His opinion at the hearing on
4/22/2021 remained the same, he opined that Mother has changed and that the Children
would be safe with her. This Court disagrees.
Mother has lied and manipulated information to Therapists and Social Workers.
In fact, this Court ordered asecondary PCE because of the blatant dishonesty of the
Mother at the first PCE. Dr. Russell testified that Mother's elevated score on scale L,
(Lie scale) cannot be attributed to an inability to understand the content of the items
presented. He stated these results suggests that Mother's elevation on scale Lwas a
deliberate attempt to appear without faults. Mother's clinical results are similar to
individuals who are often described as being suspicious of others and their motive. They
see malicious intent in the action of others and often blame others for their difficulties.
Their mistrust of others can cause difficulties in interpersonal relationships: thus, these
individuals are often alienated from others. This Court finds Mother's testimony not
credible and the level of deception is so clearly refuted by the physical evidence that this
Court must question everything Mother says or does.
This Court finds that DHS has provided clear and convincing evidence Mother
continues the incapacity to parent. She lies and manipulates information and lacks the
ability to anticipate problems related to parenting. She may have decided to terminate the
abusive relationship with R.M. and may be on the path to abetter life, nonetheless her
daughter has clearly expressed she does not feel safe with Mother. Mother's conduct has
37 caused these Children to be without essential parental care and she continues to be unable
or unwilling to remedy this incapacity. These Children have been out of the parental
home for more than six months and the conditions that led to the removal and placement
continue to exist. Mother has complied with some FSP objectives, but whether she can
remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the Children in the foreseeable future
is doubtful. The Children's lives cannot be placed on hold in the hope that Mother will
summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting. This Court finds that
although the Children may have abond with Mother, this bond however is not aparent-
child bond that should be preserved.
This Court finds the termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of these Children and the evidence shows that DHS met its burden by
clear and convincing evidence to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(2), (5) (S) and 2511 (b).
Trial Court Properlv Found that the Goal Chance from Return to Parent to Adoption was in the Child's Best Interest and the Court's Disposition was Best Suited to the Safetv, Protection and Phvsical, Mental and Moral Welfare of the Child Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §6351 (f.1) (2). 3
The concept of a"goal change" is consistent with the statute which requires the
trial court, at the conclusion of apermanency hearing in achild dependency proceeding,
to order the continuation, modification, or termination of placement or other disposition
which is best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental, and moral welfare of
'42 Pa.C.S.A. §6351-Disposition of dependent Child.—{Q). Additional determinations. Based upon the determinations made under subsection (f) and all relevant evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall determine one of the following: (2) if and when the Child will be placed for adoptio n,an dthe county agency will file for termination of parental rights in cases where return to the Child's parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the Child.
38 the child; an order to continue, modify, or terminate the current placement, as required by
the statute, is synonymous with adecision to continue or change the permanency plan
goal. 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6351(g).
This Court heard credible, persuasive testimony from Ms. Beauchamp who
testified she has observed the interaction between the two Children and their current
Foster Care Parents. She noted that the relationship is very positive. J.L.B. expressed to
her that she likes living with the Foster Parents very much and they are willing to adopt
the two girls. She feels they love her very much and are agood support system for her.
She gets along well with her three Foster siblings and feels safe there. The two sisters,
J.L.B. and S.M. are very attached to each other and have spent most of the time together.
J.L.B. has expressed she does not want to be separated from her sister under no
circumstances. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.44 at 7-25, p.45 at 1-25, p.46 at 1-11).
Regarding J.L.B.'s relationship with her Mother, Ms. Beauchamp testified the
Child has expressed to her that she loves her Mother, however, the past two and ahalf
years the relationship has been rocky. The Child has been hurt because Mother's
communication with her has been inconsistent. J.L.B. told her that she is not sure what
living with her Mother would be like and if given the opportunity to stay where she is at,
she would want to do that. Ms. Beauchamp stated her last conversation with J.L.B. was
in December 2020 and the Child's view has remained consistent. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.46
Ms. Beauchamp further testified she last saw the Children at the Foster Home on C4skr Fa-re*,h• 4/19/2021 and spoke privately with J.L.B. about her relationship with the 10, the .
i Foster Parents. The Child told her she was comfortable being with them and she wants to
39 11 I
remain with them. She has agood relationship with both Foster Parents and sees them
both as her primary set of parents. The Foster Parents have three biological children,
ages 16, 14, and 8years old, and the Child and her sister, S.M., fit right in together. Ms.
Beauchamp testified the Foster Parents want to adopt both Children. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p
286 at 3-25, pp.287-289 at 1-25, p.290 at 1) .
Ms. Walsh testified that when the Child speaks of her Foster Parent, she is more
engaged with the conversation and expresses emotions of happiness, feeling safe and but
also feeling sad. The Child is happy because her Foster Parent helps her with her
homework and they have family time, movie nights and she gets along well with
everyone at the house. She noted that when the Child speaks of her Mother her body
language is very withdrawn, her head is down, and she does not make great contact with
her. When the Child speaks of her Mother's home, she feels unsafe and angry. (N.T.,
1/20/2021, p.62 at 17-25, p.63 at 1-24). I
Ms. Walsh testified the Child feels unsafe and angry with her Mother because her
Mother did not protect her. J.L.B. has related to her that she does want to be adopted.
She has stated that to her at least three times, the last time being last Monday, 1/18/2021,
and the Child has not waivered at all about desiring to be adopted. Ms. Walsh opined
that J.L.B. would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated.
The Child would suffer irreparable harm if she was removed from the Foster Parent's
home. (N.T., 1/20/2021, p.64 at 1-25, p.65 at 1-22, p.66 at 1-8). Vvbti •grF&re-K•sj Ms. Garvey testified J.L.B. was placed with the •ft, the current pre-adoptive
family on 6/21/2019. On or about Jantyary 2020, the Child told her she wanted to remain ,C-fV44-crP 4arev,-ts] with the 40 because she felt safe and wanted to be adopted by them. The Child stated i
40 i
she did not want to go back home to her Mother because she did not feel safe because her
Mother did not stop the beatings. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.232 at 13-25, p.233 at 1-25, p.234
at 1-16).
Ms. Garvey also testified she supervised some of the virtual visits between
Mother and the two Children in March 4, and March 19, 2021. The visits were virtual
instead of in person because of the Mother's work schedule and how it conflicted with
visitation times at Children's Home of Easton. So, it was decided Mother could do
virtual visits for approximately six weeks because it corresponded with Mother's work
schedule. They were FaceTime group visits and Mother showed the Children her home
and the bedrooms she had set up for them. They painted and played games. She stated
the visits went well, however, she felt Mother was misleading the Children by telling
them they would be corning to her home soon. On March 24, 2021 she did ahome visit
with Mother that did not involve the Children. She noted that J.L.B. is very protective of
her younger sister, S.M. ,and has abig sister-parent relationship with her. She keeps an
eye on her and they have aloving bond together. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.234 at 17-25, p.
235 at 1-25, p.236 at 1-15, pp.237-238 at 1-25, p.239 at 1-23).
Ms. Garvey testified she spoke to J.L.B. on 4/21/2021, and the Child told her that
she wants to remain with the Foster Parents, feels safe there and wants to be adopted by C-* o5+z-f-eo•ru+fe, 3 them. She wants to remain with her sister and feels like the lWare her parents and
wants to remain with them. She told her returning to Mother's home was not what she
wanted. She opined that the Children would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother's
parental rights were terminated and it would be in the Children's best interest to be
41 adopted. S.M., who is 3'/2 years old has never lived with her Mother and has been in
care since her birth. (N.T., 4/22/2021, p.242 at 6-25, p.243 at 1-25, p.244 at 1-14).
This Court heard credible, persuasive testimony from Melanie Silverstein,
Esquire, TPR Counsel for J.L.B., who is almost 12 years old. Ms. Silverstein had two
conferences with the Child on 1/07/2021 and 4/19/2021, and her requests both times
remained the same: to remain living with her sister in asafe house and that it would be
with her Foster Parents, the Days. When she asked the Child about not seeing her Mother
anymore, J.L.B. responded that she would still want to be with her Foster Parent,
although she did not want to hurt her Mother's feelings. She further stated she did not
want to testify in the courtroom because she did not want to talk in front of her parents.
Ultimately, her position is that she wants to stay where she is, even if doesn't continue to
have visits with her Mother or her biological Father. (N. T., 4/ 22/2021, pA39 at 19-25, p.
44 at 1-25, p.441 at 1-25, p.442 at 1-7).
This Court finds the Record sustains the factual findings and legal conclusions
regarding the Children's current placement, and most importantly, the Record
demonstrates that Reunification is not feasible and not in these Children's best interest.
Competent, credible, persuasive evidence exists to change the Permanency Goals of the
Children from Reunification to Adoption. Once Reunification is ruled out, the second
preferred permanency option is Adoption. Adoption has been clearly established as the
appropriate goal in the best interest of these Children and is best suited to the safety,
protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of these Children.
42 A
CONCLUSION
At the Hearing on 5/08/2019, this Court concluded:
There are anumber of things that are very troubling to the Court, and not the least of which is the lack of any credibility by Mother and Father; credibility throughout the history of this care; the attempts at deception; the attempts at concealment. Were it not for the diligence of DHS, we would have never been made privy to the fact that both Mother and Father, R.M., have this criminal history which they denied. And Dr. Russell would never have made the mistake of confusing criminal history with child abuse. I've had the doctor in front of me numerous times. That mistake is not believable. That presents another issue to the Court. And that is, given the parents' level of deception and dishonesty.... strike this Court as so hostile to the issue of truthfulness, and the complete lack of transparency and honesty by the parties. Having had them before me on numerous occasions—in fact, I've had this case from the beginning—I am concerned now about their ability to be honest and forthright. And that complete lack of honesty present asafety issue to the Court. (N.T., 5/08/2019, p.95 at 11-25, p.96 at 1-14).
The Court Record shows that J.L.B. was the victim, of repeated physical and
emotional abuse while in Mother's care and Mother allowed it to happen. Mother has
failed to protect J.L.B. and keep her safe in the past and this Court is not convinced
Mother is capable of providing the protection necessary to keep both Children safe.
Safety and loving care is essential to the growth and well-being of any child, and this
Court cannot place these Children in an environment where their well-being and safety
may be at risk. Perhaps Mother is on the road to recovery in her individual struggles,
however, these Children's lives cannot be placed on hold to wait for Mother to perhaps
acquire the skills necessary to provide asafe environment. Further, these Children have
been placed in aloving, caring, nurturing home with the pre-adoptive Foster Family, and
43 i
this Court believes they deserve the opportunity to experience aloving, caring home
where they are protected from harm. Therefore, this Court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that DHS has met its burden and Mother's Parental Rights are Involuntarily
Terminated. These Children's lives can now move to Adoption.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that the Decrees of
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Mother, A.M. and the Goal Change to
Adoption Orders issued by this Court on July 21, 2021, be AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
ALLAN L. TERESHKO, Sr. J.
o n , 1 - DATE
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Int. of: J.L.B., Appeal of: A.M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-int-of-jlb-appeal-of-am-pasuperct-2022.