J-S32012-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.V., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: H.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1183 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002185-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S.V., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: H.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1184 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered April 1, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000034-2023
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2024
H.V. (Mother) appeals from the order and decree, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division, changing the
permanency goal from reunification to adoption and involuntarily terminating
her parental rights to her minor child, K.V. (Child) (born 7/18). We affirm.
Mother was sixteen years old when she gave birth to Child in July 2018.
At that time, Mother was committed to the Philadelphia Department of Human J-S32012-24
Services (DHS) and was receiving services through the Community Umbrella
Agency (CUA). On September 22, 2018, DHS received a general protective
services (GPS) report that Child had been taken to DHS following a physical
altercation among Mother, Maternal Grandmother, and Maternal Aunt. The
report was deemed valid. Mother and Child were placed at Carson Valley
Children’s Aid (Carson Valley). After Mother absconded from Carson Valley
with Child, an order of protective custody (OPC) issued. Child was ultimately
placed in foster care. Following a shelter care hearing, the OPC was lifted and
Child was placed in DHS’ custody.
Child was adjudicated dependent on October 30, 2018, and placed in
foster care. In December 2018, the court granted Maternal Grandmother
temporary legal custody (TLC) of Child. On May 2, 2019, however, the court
vacated the TLC arrangement, and granted Child’s father (Father) physical
custody of Child, with DHS supervision, where they resided in a father-baby
placement. However, in January 2020, the court learned that Father had
absconded from placement. The court issued an OPC for Child and a bench
warrant issued for Father. In February 2020, Child was located and placed in
foster care. After a shelter care hearing, the court lifted the second OPC and
Child was fully committed to DHS.
On February 6, 2020, reunification was set as Mother’s permanency goal
and the following single case plan (SCP) was developed for Mother: (1) sign
all appropriate and necessary releases; (2) attend school on time daily and
complete all assignments; (3) comply with court-ordered visitation; (4)
-2- J-S32012-24
comply with mental health treatment; (5) make her whereabouts known to
CUA; and (6) comply with services. In November 2020, Mother’s plan was
revised to include the following additional objectives: complete a Behavioral
Health Services (BHS) evaluation; attend parenting classes and/or family
school; participate in domestic violence and anger management services;
comply with probation and any court orders; and obtain stable and appropriate
housing. At a March 8, 2021 permanency review hearing, Mother was granted
unsupervised day visits with Child. At a July 2021 permanency review
hearing, Mother’s visitation rights were expanded to include weekend
overnight visits with Child. However, at the October 25, 2021 permanency
review hearing, Mother’s overnight visits were suspended, see infra at 5, and
visits were ordered to be unsupervised in the community and with CUA to
supervise one visit per month.
On January 31, 2023, DHS filed petitions to change the goal to adoption
and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child. On April 1,
2024, the court held a goal change/termination hearing, at which DHS case
manager, Niema Barnet, and social worker, Roya Paller, testified. Barnet, who
had been assigned to Mother’s case since November 2021, testified that, over
the life of the case, Mother was in moderate compliance with her SCP
objectives and that she rated her progress as “moderate” with regard to
alleviating the circumstances that brought Child into DHS’ care. N.T. Goal
Change/Termination Hearing, 4/1/24, at 33-34. However, during cross-
examination, Barnet admitted that Mother has been more compliant now than
-3- J-S32012-24
she had been previously and that she would rate her current compliance as
“substantial.” Id. at 49. See id. at 52 (Barnet testifying Mother had
satisfactorily completed 7 out of 8 SCP objectives).
In particular, Barnet testified that Mother: had signed releases for any
requested information; had been recently compliant with CUA; was currently
engaged in mental health treatment as of January 2024; had completed
parenting and anger management classes; had obtained housing and a BHS
evaluation; had completed an online domestic violence class; and had been
fully compliant with her visits. Id. at 26-29, 51.1 Mother’s 2022 BHS
evaluation recommended that she participate in individual therapy. Id. at 28-
29.
Barnet clarified that the only SCP objective left for Mother to complete
was a successful discharge from mental health treatment, id. at 58, but that
Child would not be at risk if he were returned to Mother before receiving
documentation of her discharge. Id. Barnet testified that, over the life of the
case, Mother “had a lot of intakes [for mental health treatment, and would]
begin but stop” and never successfully complete treatment. Id. at 26. Mother
had last commenced treatment in December of 2023, eleven months after
DHS filed its petition to terminate her parental rights. See infra at n.4.
Barnet also testified that DHS had concerns about Mother’s
unsupervised visits due to domestic violence issues between Mother and her ____________________________________________
1On cross-examination, Barnet admitted that foster parent interfered with Mother’s visits and that “Mother is fully compliant” with visits. Id. at 51.
-4- J-S32012-24
former partner, Mother taking Child to Maternal Grandmother’s 2 home where
there were often physical altercations between Mother and Maternal
Grandmother, Mother having unverified individuals living in her home when
she had overnight visits with Child, and Mother’s house smelling like marijuana
during a visit. Id. at 29-34. Most recently, in August 2023, Mother had been
arrested after engaging in a physical altercation with Maternal Grandmother.
Id. at 32-33. However, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother’s visits
were still unsupervised. Id. at 54. Barnet testified that because she has
never personally observed Mother and Child during a visit, she did not have
an opportunity to assess whether there is a bond between Mother and Child.
Id.
At the time of the termination hearing, Child had been residing in a
kinship foster home, a pre-adoptive resource, with his maternal aunt and
cousins for three months. Id. at 40, 42. Child had been placed in
approximately 10 foster homes beforehand because foster parents claimed
they could not work with Mother as she was “very difficult [and] ma[de]
threats.” Id. at 41.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S32012-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.V., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: H.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1183 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered April 1, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002185-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S.V., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: H.V., MOTHER : : : : : No. 1184 EDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered April 1, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000034-2023
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2024
H.V. (Mother) appeals from the order and decree, entered in the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division, changing the
permanency goal from reunification to adoption and involuntarily terminating
her parental rights to her minor child, K.V. (Child) (born 7/18). We affirm.
Mother was sixteen years old when she gave birth to Child in July 2018.
At that time, Mother was committed to the Philadelphia Department of Human J-S32012-24
Services (DHS) and was receiving services through the Community Umbrella
Agency (CUA). On September 22, 2018, DHS received a general protective
services (GPS) report that Child had been taken to DHS following a physical
altercation among Mother, Maternal Grandmother, and Maternal Aunt. The
report was deemed valid. Mother and Child were placed at Carson Valley
Children’s Aid (Carson Valley). After Mother absconded from Carson Valley
with Child, an order of protective custody (OPC) issued. Child was ultimately
placed in foster care. Following a shelter care hearing, the OPC was lifted and
Child was placed in DHS’ custody.
Child was adjudicated dependent on October 30, 2018, and placed in
foster care. In December 2018, the court granted Maternal Grandmother
temporary legal custody (TLC) of Child. On May 2, 2019, however, the court
vacated the TLC arrangement, and granted Child’s father (Father) physical
custody of Child, with DHS supervision, where they resided in a father-baby
placement. However, in January 2020, the court learned that Father had
absconded from placement. The court issued an OPC for Child and a bench
warrant issued for Father. In February 2020, Child was located and placed in
foster care. After a shelter care hearing, the court lifted the second OPC and
Child was fully committed to DHS.
On February 6, 2020, reunification was set as Mother’s permanency goal
and the following single case plan (SCP) was developed for Mother: (1) sign
all appropriate and necessary releases; (2) attend school on time daily and
complete all assignments; (3) comply with court-ordered visitation; (4)
-2- J-S32012-24
comply with mental health treatment; (5) make her whereabouts known to
CUA; and (6) comply with services. In November 2020, Mother’s plan was
revised to include the following additional objectives: complete a Behavioral
Health Services (BHS) evaluation; attend parenting classes and/or family
school; participate in domestic violence and anger management services;
comply with probation and any court orders; and obtain stable and appropriate
housing. At a March 8, 2021 permanency review hearing, Mother was granted
unsupervised day visits with Child. At a July 2021 permanency review
hearing, Mother’s visitation rights were expanded to include weekend
overnight visits with Child. However, at the October 25, 2021 permanency
review hearing, Mother’s overnight visits were suspended, see infra at 5, and
visits were ordered to be unsupervised in the community and with CUA to
supervise one visit per month.
On January 31, 2023, DHS filed petitions to change the goal to adoption
and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child. On April 1,
2024, the court held a goal change/termination hearing, at which DHS case
manager, Niema Barnet, and social worker, Roya Paller, testified. Barnet, who
had been assigned to Mother’s case since November 2021, testified that, over
the life of the case, Mother was in moderate compliance with her SCP
objectives and that she rated her progress as “moderate” with regard to
alleviating the circumstances that brought Child into DHS’ care. N.T. Goal
Change/Termination Hearing, 4/1/24, at 33-34. However, during cross-
examination, Barnet admitted that Mother has been more compliant now than
-3- J-S32012-24
she had been previously and that she would rate her current compliance as
“substantial.” Id. at 49. See id. at 52 (Barnet testifying Mother had
satisfactorily completed 7 out of 8 SCP objectives).
In particular, Barnet testified that Mother: had signed releases for any
requested information; had been recently compliant with CUA; was currently
engaged in mental health treatment as of January 2024; had completed
parenting and anger management classes; had obtained housing and a BHS
evaluation; had completed an online domestic violence class; and had been
fully compliant with her visits. Id. at 26-29, 51.1 Mother’s 2022 BHS
evaluation recommended that she participate in individual therapy. Id. at 28-
29.
Barnet clarified that the only SCP objective left for Mother to complete
was a successful discharge from mental health treatment, id. at 58, but that
Child would not be at risk if he were returned to Mother before receiving
documentation of her discharge. Id. Barnet testified that, over the life of the
case, Mother “had a lot of intakes [for mental health treatment, and would]
begin but stop” and never successfully complete treatment. Id. at 26. Mother
had last commenced treatment in December of 2023, eleven months after
DHS filed its petition to terminate her parental rights. See infra at n.4.
Barnet also testified that DHS had concerns about Mother’s
unsupervised visits due to domestic violence issues between Mother and her ____________________________________________
1On cross-examination, Barnet admitted that foster parent interfered with Mother’s visits and that “Mother is fully compliant” with visits. Id. at 51.
-4- J-S32012-24
former partner, Mother taking Child to Maternal Grandmother’s 2 home where
there were often physical altercations between Mother and Maternal
Grandmother, Mother having unverified individuals living in her home when
she had overnight visits with Child, and Mother’s house smelling like marijuana
during a visit. Id. at 29-34. Most recently, in August 2023, Mother had been
arrested after engaging in a physical altercation with Maternal Grandmother.
Id. at 32-33. However, at the time of the termination hearing, Mother’s visits
were still unsupervised. Id. at 54. Barnet testified that because she has
never personally observed Mother and Child during a visit, she did not have
an opportunity to assess whether there is a bond between Mother and Child.
Id.
At the time of the termination hearing, Child had been residing in a
kinship foster home, a pre-adoptive resource, with his maternal aunt and
cousins for three months. Id. at 40, 42. Child had been placed in
approximately 10 foster homes beforehand because foster parents claimed
they could not work with Mother as she was “very difficult [and] ma[de]
threats.” Id. at 41. Child told Barnet that he “wants a family [and] doesn’t
want to move [homes] again.” Id. at 57. Barnet testified that Child never
asks about Mother or says that he has a desire to see her, that Child looks to
his current caregiver for “love, support, care, and comfort,” and that Child
would not suffer any irreparable harm if Mother’s parental rights were
____________________________________________
2 Barnet also testified that Maternal Grandmother is an indicated perpetrator
of sexual abuse. Id. at 31. -5- J-S32012-24
terminated. Id. at 35-36. To the contrary, Barnet testified that Child would
suffer irreparable harm if he were removed from his foster parent/Maternal
Aunt’s home. Id. at 44.
Barnet stated that it was in Child’s best interest to be adopted, where
he “was safe” living with pre-adoptive foster parents who met his needs. Id.
at 42. See id. at 43-45 (Barnet testifying placement successful where Child
has adapted to Maternal Aunt and cousins and wants to stay with them).
Finally, Barnet testified that after watching Child and Maternal Aunt interact
during visits for the past three months, a total of 30 minutes overall, she
believes that “there’s an unbreakable bond there [between Child and foster
parent/Maternal Aunt].” Id. at 56.
Roya Paller testified that she met with Child 3 in January and March of
2024 during which they discussed Child’s bond with foster parent/Maternal
Aunt. Paller explained the adoption process to Child, and Paller asked Child
where he would like to live. Id. at 60. Paller stated that Child is happy living
with his aunt and cousins, he feels stable living there, and does not want to
move to another foster home. Id. at 61. Paller testified that Child suffers
from trauma as result of frequent moves within the foster care system at such
a young age, that he has some behavioral issues, is asthmatic, and “does
express his anger.” Id. at 61-63. However, Paller also testified that foster
mother/Maternal Aunt provides Child stability, meets his permanency needs, ____________________________________________
3 Pallernoted that Child is “very articulate” for his age and is “wiser in the sense of being able to tell [her] where he is emotionally.” Id. at 62.
-6- J-S32012-24
and has offered Mother unlimited phone contact and extra supervised visits
with Child, as long as Mother “present[s as] stable.” Id. at 61-62. Paller
recommended “permanency” for Child and that he receive medical and mental
health services. Id. at 64. Paller, however, acknowledged that she had never
observed Child with Mother and, as a result, could not speak to whether there
was a parent-child bond. Id. at 66.
Following the hearing, the court entered an order changing the
permanency goal to adoption and a decree terminating Mother’s parental
rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) 4 of the ____________________________________________
4 § 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child 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 parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-7- J-S32012-24
to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable 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 a 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 a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist[,] and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing[,] and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. 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 first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) (emphasis added).
-8- J-S32012-24
Adoption Act.5 Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the order and
decree, along with a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for our review:
(1) Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 2511(a)(1)[,] without clear and convincing evidence of [M]other’s intent to relinquish her parental claim or refusal to perform her parental duties.
(2) Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 2511(a)(2)[,] without clear and convincing evidence of [M]other’s present incapacity to perform parental duties.
(3) Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§§] 2511(a)(5) and (8)[,] without clear and convincing evidence to prove that reasonable efforts were made by [DHS] to provide [M]other with additional services and that the conditions that led to the placement of [C]hild continue to exist.
(4) Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of [M]other[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 2511(b)[,] without clear and convincing evidence that there is no parental bond between [M]other and [C]hild and that termination would serve the best interest of [C]hild.
(5) Whether the trial court erred by changing the permanency goal to adoption[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6351[,] without clear and convincing evidence that adoption is in [C]hild’s best interest.
(6) Whether the trial court erred by changing the permanency goal to adoption[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]6351[,] without clear and convincing evidence that reasonable
5 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.
-9- J-S32012-24
efforts were made by the servicing agency to reunify [C]hild with [M]other.
(7) Whether the trial court erred by changing the permanency goal to adoption in contravention of the mandate of 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302 to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible.
Appellant’s Brief, at 8.
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. 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.” It is well[-] established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.
In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). We review a trial court’s decision to
involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of
law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review
is limited to determining whether the trial court’s order is supported by
competent evidence. Id. We may uphold a termination decision if any proper
basis exists in the record for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197,
1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc).
Mother first claims that the trial court improperly concluded that she
“refused to perform her parental duties [or] indicated a settled intent to
relinquish her parental rights [to Child],” under subsection 2511(a)(1), where
- 10 - J-S32012-24
she substantially complied with seven out of eight of her SCP objectives and
consistently visited with Child. Appellant’s Brief, at 14.
At the time of the termination hearing, Child had been in placement for
almost five years, having been out of Mother’s care for that duration while he
moved “from foster home to foster home—adapting.” Id. at 36. Moreover,
CUA case manager Barnet testified that Mother had failed to complete her SCP
objectives, in particular Mother had not provided documentation that she had
successfully completed mental health treatment. See N.T. Goal Change/
Termination Hearing, 4/1/24, at 52. Barnet was also unaware as to whether,
at the time of the termination hearing, Mother was still actively engaged in
mental health treatment. Id. at 26-27. Additionally, Mother’s difficult
behaviors caused Child to bounce from foster home to foster home—a total of
10 homes, in fact—over the span of five years. This turmoil has significantly
traumatized Child and left him without consistent emotional and physical
support over the majority of his time in placement.
Accordingly, we conclude that Mother has failed to perform her parental
duties “for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of
[DHS’ January 31, 2023] petition.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1). Because there
was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights under
subsection 2511(a)(1), we find no abuse of discretion. In re A.R., supra.6
6 We need only agree with the court as to any one subsection of section 2511(a), as well as section 2511(b), in order to affirm. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). - 11 - J-S32012-24
Mother next asserts that termination of her parental rights to Child was
improper, under subsection 2511(b), where she and Child “have a strong
emotional bond[,] Mother was actively engaged as a vital caregiver during the
formative time of [C]hild’s life[, she] cared [for C]hild, fed him, bathed him
and nursed [him] back to health when he was ill[,] and provided financial,
emotional[,] and spiritual support for [C]hild.” Appellant’s Brief, at 17.
With regard to termination under subsection 2511(b), our Supreme
Court has stated that court must consider the following factors:
[In addition to whether any parent-child bond is necessary and beneficial to the child, a court must also consider] the child’s need for permanency and length of time in foster care . . .; whether the child is in a pre[-]adoptive home and bonded with foster parents; and whether the foster home meets the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs, including intangible needs of love, comfort, security, safety, and stability. These factors and others properly guide the court’s analysis of the child’s welfare and all [his] developmental, physical, and emotional needs. Trial courts have the discretion to place appropriate weight on each factor present in the record before making a decision regarding termination that best serves the child’s specific needs.
Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1113 (Pa. 2023) (citations and footnote
omitted).
Instantly, neither witness at the termination hearing could testify
regarding whether there was a parent-child bond between Mother and Child.
The trial court made the following observations regarding a bond and why
termination was proper under subsection 2511(b):
Based on the evidence, this [c]ourt determined that the Child would not suffer any irreparable harm if Mother’s parental rights were terminated. [Child] has been in DHS[’] care consistently since February 2020. He is five years old and has spent over four
- 12 - J-S32012-24
years outside of the care and control of Mother. [] Barnet could not testify as to whether a parental bond exited between Mother and [C]hild. However, no testimony was presented regarding there being a bond between Mother and [C]hild that should be preserved. While the testimony reflects that [Child] enjoyed visits with Mother, she is a visitation resource rather than a parental figure. Thus, this [c]ourt properly found that termination of Mother’s parental rights would not destroy an existing, necessary, or beneficial relationship between [C]hild and Mother.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/24, at 18.
When the record is devoid of evidence of a bond between the parent
and the child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. In re K.Z.S., 946
A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super. 2008). In this case, such an inference is
warranted where Child was five years old at the time of the termination
hearing, had spent less than three months in Mother’s care since his birth, is
now in a pre-adoptive kinship home with his Maternal Aunt and cousins where
he wishes to remain, Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs
are being met by his Maternal Aunt, and Child has a demonstrated bond with
his kinship care provider.
Given the witnesses’ testimony about the significant amount of time that
Child has spent outside of Mother’s care, the frequency with which he has
been placed in various foster homes in his short life, and Mother’s inability to
fully comply with her SCP objectives for more than four years, we conclude
that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s finding
that termination served Child’s needs and welfare under subsection 2511(b).
See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013) (“[O]ver the past fifteen years,
a substantial shift has occurred in our society’s approach to dependent
- 13 - J-S32012-24
children, requiring vigilance to the need to expedite children’s placement in
permanent, safe, stable, and loving homes. [The Adoption and Safe Families
Act] was enacted to combat the problem of foster care drift, where children .
. . are shuttled from one foster home to another, waiting for their parents to
demonstrate their ability to care for the children.”).
Order and decree affirmed.7
King, J., Joins the Memorandum.
Stabile, J., Concurs in the result.
Date: 10/11/2024
7 Because we affirm the termination decree, the appeal from the goal-change
order is moot. See In the Interest of A.M., 256 A.3d 1263, 1272-73 (Pa. Super. 2021) (issues regarding goal change moot in light of termination of parental rights); see also In re D.K.W., 415 A.2d 69, 73 (Pa. 1980) (once parental rights are terminated, issues of custody and dependency under Juvenile Act are moot). - 14 -