In the Int. of: M.B.-M., Appeal of: J.M.
This text of In the Int. of: M.B.-M., Appeal of: J.M. (In the Int. of: M.B.-M., Appeal of: J.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-A05028-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2512 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000648-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2513 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000071-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2514 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000642-2016 J-A05028-24
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.D.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2515 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000072-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2516 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000649-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2517 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000073-2022
-2- J-A05028-24
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2577 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002770-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.J.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2578 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000070-2022
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2024
Appellant, J.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees and orders entered
in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petitions
of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for involuntary
termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor children, M.S.B.-M,
M.D.B.-M, S.J.B.-M, and M.J.B. (“Children”), and changed Children’s
permanency goals to adoption. We affirm.
-3- J-A05028-24
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed
October 27, 2023, at 1-22). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Procedurally, we add that this Court consolidated Mother’s appeals sua sponte
on October 18, 2023.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
Did the trial [court] rule in error that [DHS] met its burden of proof that Mother’s parental rights to [her] children be terminated.
Did the trial [court] abuse [its] discretion by finding that the [Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”)] made reasonable efforts to reunify.
Did the trial court err in terminating Mother’s parental rights since [DHS] did not meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence showing that the best interest of the child was served by terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act?
Did the trial [court] rule in error that it was in the child’s best interest for the goal to be changed to adoption.
(Mother’s Brief at 11-12) (subsections omitted).
Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the
following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.”
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972
A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
-4- J-A05028-24
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. … 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2004).
In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d
1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165
(2008)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Cateria R.
-5- J-A05028-24
McCabe, we conclude Mother’s first three issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the first three
questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 23-38) (finding: court
terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5),
(8) and (b); at time of termination hearing, Children had been in care of DHS
for over six years, which is well over statutory period specified by Sections
2511(a)(5) and (8); in that time, Mother made only minimal progress towards
alleviating conditions that necessitated Children’s placement and was only
minimally compliant with objectives set forth in single case plan (“SCP”);
throughout pendency of case, CUA has continually attempted to provide
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A05028-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2512 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000648-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2513 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000071-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2514 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000642-2016 J-A05028-24
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.D.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2515 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000072-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2516 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000649-2016
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2517 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000073-2022
-2- J-A05028-24
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2577 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002770-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.J.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2578 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000070-2022
BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and LANE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2024
Appellant, J.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees and orders entered
in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petitions
of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for involuntary
termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor children, M.S.B.-M,
M.D.B.-M, S.J.B.-M, and M.J.B. (“Children”), and changed Children’s
permanency goals to adoption. We affirm.
-3- J-A05028-24
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed
October 27, 2023, at 1-22). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Procedurally, we add that this Court consolidated Mother’s appeals sua sponte
on October 18, 2023.
Mother raises the following issues for our review:
Did the trial [court] rule in error that [DHS] met its burden of proof that Mother’s parental rights to [her] children be terminated.
Did the trial [court] abuse [its] discretion by finding that the [Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”)] made reasonable efforts to reunify.
Did the trial court err in terminating Mother’s parental rights since [DHS] did not meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence showing that the best interest of the child was served by terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act?
Did the trial [court] rule in error that it was in the child’s best interest for the goal to be changed to adoption.
(Mother’s Brief at 11-12) (subsections omitted).
Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the
following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.”
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972
A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
-4- J-A05028-24
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. … 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so.
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2004).
In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d
1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165
(2008)).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Cateria R.
-5- J-A05028-24
McCabe, we conclude Mother’s first three issues merit no relief. The trial court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the first three
questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 23-38) (finding: court
terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5),
(8) and (b); at time of termination hearing, Children had been in care of DHS
for over six years, which is well over statutory period specified by Sections
2511(a)(5) and (8); in that time, Mother made only minimal progress towards
alleviating conditions that necessitated Children’s placement and was only
minimally compliant with objectives set forth in single case plan (“SCP”);
throughout pendency of case, CUA has continually attempted to provide
services and referrals to Mother to assist Mother in progressing towards
reunification with Children; concerns over Mother’s substance abuse and
mental health struggles continued to persist at the time of termination
hearing;1 Mother failed to sign consents or revoked prior consents to permit
____________________________________________
1 Mother claims that the court erred in finding that Mother did not adequately
address her substance abuse issues. The court acknowledged that Mother completed a drug and alcohol program but noted that Mother continued to test positive for substances at drug screens. Mother stated that she was prescribed opiates from her dentist at the time of the screen. Nevertheless, Mother’s dentist confirmed that had Mother disclosed her history of substance abuse, he would have prescribed her alternate medication. (See N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/15/22, at 14-17). Mother also presented testimony from Violet Anderson, a nurse practitioner, who stated that she had seen Mother three or four times between December 2022 and May 2023, and prescribed Mother opiates for pain management to address symptoms that Mother self-reported. (See N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/11/23, at 66-81). Ms. Anderson testified that she felt it was appropriate to prescribe Mother (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6- J-A05028-24
CUA to confirm her enrollment or progress with substance abuse and mental
health treatment; Mother did not progress past supervised visits with Children
due to continued concerns about Mother’s mental stability and ability to keep
Children safe; Mother’s visits were suspended for period of time and then
changed to virtual visits due to Children’s negative reactions to visits and
multiple instances where Mother had aggressive outbursts during supervised
in-person visits; Mother’s failure to timely sign consents for Children to engage
in necessary therapeutic, behavioral and educational services prevented or
detrimentally delayed Children from receiving services; while Children are
aware that Mother is their biological mother, they do not look to Mother to
meet their needs nor do they share positive parent-child relationship with
Mother; Children are well cared for and bonded with their foster families and
have indicated that they wish to be adopted by their foster families2). The
record supports the court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb
opiates despite knowing Mother’s history of substance abuse due to Mother’s diagnosis and level of pain. Ms. Anderson relied on Mother’s self-report that she was no longer abusing controlled substances but acknowledged that she did not have Mother undergo a drug test to confirm Mother’s statements prior to issuing her prescription. (See id. at 82-91). On this record, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in finding that concerns remained regarding Mother’s abuse of controlled substances at the time of the termination hearing. See In re Z.P., supra.
2 Both the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and Children’s legal counsel opined that
Children’s interests would best be served by terminating Mother’s parental rights. (See N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/11/23, at 283-85).
-7- J-A05028-24
it.3 See In re Z.P., supra. In light of our decision to affirm the trial court’s
termination decrees, Mother’s fourth issue regarding the court’s goal-change
orders from reunification to adoption is moot. See Interest of D.R.-W., 227
A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020) (holding that challenge to trial court’s
decision to change permanency goal from reunification to adoption is moot
after this Court affirms termination of parental rights). Accordingly, we affirm
the termination decrees based on the trial court’s opinion,4 and affirm the
goal-change orders at Mother’s appeal from those orders is moot.
Decrees affirmed. Orders affirmed.
Date: 5/30/2024
3 Mother contends the court’s findings are not supported by the record because
her testimony contradicted testimony from DHS witnesses in multiple areas. Nevertheless, the trial court, as the sole determiner of credibility, found the DHS witnesses to be credible and we decline Mother’s invitation to substitute the court’s credibility determinations for our own. See In re Z.P., supra.
4 We direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion to any future
filings involving this appeal.
-8- Circulated 05/10/2024 10:50 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA- PHILADELPHIA- FAMILY FAMILY COURT DIVISION - - DEPENDENCY BRANCH
IN RE:
M.S.B.-M., a aminor, D/O/B: 06/15/2015 : CP-51-DP-0000648-2016 CP-51-AP-0000071-2022 M.D.B.-M., a a minor, minor D/O/B: 12/07/2011 : CP-51-DP-0000642-2016 CP-51-AP-0000 072-2 022 CP-51-AP-0000072-2022 S.J.B.-M., a $.A.B.-M., a minor, D/O/B: 04/06/2013 CP-51-DP-0000649-2 016 CP-51-DP-0000649-2016 CP-51-AP- 0000073 -2022 CP-51-AP-0000073-2022 M.J.B., a M.A.B., a minor, D/O/B: 11/11/2016 CP-51-DP-0002770-2017 CP-51-AP-0000070-2022 CP-51-AP-0000070-202 2
51-FN-000600-2016
Superior Court No. 2512 EDA 2023 Superior Court No. 2023 No, 2513 EDA 202 Superior Court No. 2514 EDA 2023 202 Superior Court No. 2515 EDA 202 2023 Superior Court No. 2516 EDA 2023 202 Superior Court No. 2517 EDA 2023 202 Superior Court No, No. 2577 EDA 2023 APPEAL OF: J.M., Mother Superior Court No. 2578 EDA 2023
OPINION
1. I. INTRODUCTION
J.M., ("Mother"), (Mother"), appeals appeals froin from the the Order entered by by this this Court Court on September September 11, 1I, 2023,
involuntarily terminating her parental nights rights as to four of her children: children: M.D,B.-M., M.DB.-M., born
December 7, 2011, M.S.B.-M., M.S.B.-M, born June 15, 2015, and SJ.B.-M., S.J.B.-M., bom born September September 6, 2013, and
M.J.B., born November 11, 2016 2016 (the Children). Testimony for the Goal Change (the Children). Change and Termination
of Parental Rights Hearings occurred on three hearing dates: September 15, 2022, January 5, 2023, hearing dates:
and September 11, 2023, 2023, attached attached hereto hereto as as Court's Exhibits Exhibits A, A, B, B, and C, respectively.' respectively.' At the
Father, father, S.B,'s, S.B's, parental rights rights were involuntarily terminated on December 6, 202. 2022. At this hearing, it was brought hcaring, it brought to the the Court's attention that Mother Mother retained retained private private counsel, Reginald Reginald Allen, Allen, Esq. Es. Mr. Mr, Allen Allen was unable to proceed proceed illness. Thus, Mother's that day due to illness. Mother's portion portion of the the Termination Jenination of Parental Parental Rights Change Hearing Rights and Goal Change Hearing was continued on this date and Mr.Mr Allen was ordered enter his appearance appearance within 48 hours_ hours. The hearing hearing resumed on 5, 2023. January 5,2023
1 conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that clear and convincing convincing evidence existed to
involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to the Adoption Adoption Act, C.S.A. Aet, 23 Pa. C.S.A
§2511(a)(1), $2511(a¥1), (2), (5), (8) and (2),(5), and §2511(b) $2511(b) and changed the Children's pennanency permanency goals to adoption
pursuant pursuant to the Juvenile Aet, Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. C.S.A. §$6351. 6351. For the following following reasons, this Court's decision
should be affirmed.
II. IL. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. follows. This family first became
involved with with the Department of Human Services Department of Services (DHS) (DHS) in 2016 due to to concerns regarding regarding the
safety and welfare of the Children. Children. The Children were adjudicated dependent and committed to
DHS on March 24, 2016. They were subsequently reunified with Mother on January 19, 2017,
with aftercare services provided provided by the Community Umbrella Agency Ageney (CUA). (CUA). On July July 27, 2017,
DHS received a a General Protective Services (GPS) (GPS) report report alleging that Mother as well as
M.D.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. were attacked by three woman, one of whom was Father's paramour. M.DB.-M. and SIB.-M. paramour,
The GPS report was determined to be valid. There were also concerns regarding regarding domestic violence
as well as Mother's substance abuse, mental health, and housing. housing
On October 15, 5, 2017, DHS received a a GPS report alleging that the Children were being being
physical abused and neglected neglected by by Mother and Father. Father On October 16, I6, 2017, DHS obtained an
Custody (OPC) Order of Protective Custody (0PC) for the children. When Mother was informed, she fled with
the Children before police assistance could arrive. On October 17, 2017, DHS obtained an 0pc OPC
for the children and placed them in foster care, where they currently remain.
On October 24, 2017, CUA held aarevised Single Case Plan Plan (SCP) meeting. The permanency permanency
goal goal for the Children was reunification. reunification. The parental parental objectives for Mother were to comply with
dual diagnosis; to comply with medication management; management, to sign all releases and consents for her
and the Children; to comply with the Achieving Reunification Center (ARC) for parenting,
22 domestic violence, anger management, and other appropriate services; to complete three random
drug screens, a a Clinical Evaluation Unit (CEU) (CEUy assessment, and monitoring; to obtain stable
housing and employment; and to visit the Children at the CUA agency supervised weekly. weekly
On December 5, 2017,he December S, 2017, the Children were were adjudicated dependent dependent based based on present present inability inability and and
committed to DHS. They have remained in DHS care consistently since that time. time. At the
March 19, 2018, initial permanency review hearing, hearing. the Court found that Mother was minimally
compliant with with her SCP objectives. Permanency SCP objectives. review hearings Permanency review hearings were were held regularly regularly throughout throughout
case. At each permanency review hearing from 2018 10 the case. to 2022 when the Goal Change and
Termination of Parental Rights Petitions were filed, Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives Teruination
ranged ranged from from minimal minimal to moderate.' moderate.
On March 13, 2020, Mother underwent a a psychological evaluation conducted by
Ms. Bernadette Hayburn. Hayburn. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), (PTSD),
generalized anxiety disorder, and severe, recurrent major depressive disorder. disorder. Mother was also
diagnosed with cocaine use disorder, phencychidine phencyclidine (PCP) (PCP) use disorder, and opioid dependence dependence.
On February 4, 2022, DHS filed petitions to change the goal from reunification to adoption
and to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to the Children. Children. The The Termination Termination of
Parental Rights and Goal Change Hearing Hearing (hereinafter (hereinafter the "TPR" TPR" hearing) for the Children began
on September September 15, 2022. 2022. Counsel for DHS called their first witness, CUA Case Manager, Manager,
David Matthews. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 7-112 7-112 (Exhibit A)). Mr. (Exhibit A)), Mr Matthews testified that he was
assigned assigned to this family's case in March 2022. 2022. He testified that he maintained the CUA file and that
he reviewed the entire file and history. history. (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, p. 7 7 at 13-19 13-I9 (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews (Exhibit A)).
testified that this family became known to DHS in March 2016 based on reports of domestic
There were also numerous continuances or status hstugs listings because Mother was appointed appointed more than six different attorneys attorneys throughout throughout the case. the case
33 violence, inadequate housing, as well as drug and alcohol concerns. Id. Id. at 22-24. He testified that
Single Case Plan (SCP) (SCP) meetings were held on a a regular basis throughout the case. case. (N.T. (N.T.
9/15/2022, 9/15/2022, p.p. 8 8 at at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A))
Mr. Mr Matthews testified that Mother's single case plan plan (SCP) (SCP)y objectives were as follows: ((I) 1)
address drug and alcohol concerns, complete an assessment at the Clinical Evaluation Unit Unit (CEU), (CEU),
and submit random drug drug screens; screens; (2) (2) address mental health concerns and medication management, management;
(3) sign all necessary consents and releases for herself and the Children; Children; (4) (4) attend the Achieving Achieving
Reunification Center Center (ARC) (ARC) for parenting, parenting. housing, employment, domestic violence, and anger anger
management management classes, and and (5) (5) comply with court-ordered visitation. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 8 (N,T, 9/15/2022,p. 8at 11-20 II-20
(Exhibit A)). A)). He He testified that Mother's Mother's single single case plan objectives remained the same throughout plan objectives throughout
the case. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 52 at 20-23 20-23 (Exhibit A)). At the September September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, hearing,
Mr. Matthews testified that Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives was minimal. He further
testified that Mother made minimal progress to alleviate the circumstances that brought brought the
Children into care. care. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 52 at 24-25; p. p. 53 at 1-9 1-9 (Exhibit A)). (xhibit A))
A. Mother's First Single Case Plan Objective Obiective was to Address Drug Drug and Alcohol Alcohol Concerns and Attend the and Attend the CEU for Random Drug Screens Random Drug Screens Mother was referred for drug and alcohol treatment as well as randoms drug screens at the
CEU due to her extensive history of substance use. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother was referred
to the CEU for random drug screens throughout the case. (N.T. (N,T 911512022, 9/15/2022, p. 88at 21-24 21-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit
A)). Mr. Matthews testified that Mother reported to tthe A)). he CEU on September 6, 2018, following following aa
permanency review hearing and scheduled an appointment appointment for aadrug drug and alcohol assessment on
October 1, 2018. 2018 The CEU progress progress report report indicated that on October 1, 2018, Mother was a "no
call/no show for her scheduled assessment." (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. 9 at 7-22 (Exhibit p. 9 (Exhibit A)). A))
Mr. Matthews testified that Mother was also scnt sent to the CEU for random drug screens on the
4 4 following following dates. dates. He testified that Mother tested positive for cocaine and PCP on
September 7, September 7, 2018. 2018. (N.T. (N,T 9/15/2022, p. p. 10 10 at 1-15; 1-15, p. p. 11. I] at 5-7 5-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). He He further further testified testified
that Mother tested negative negative on September 28, 2018, with aacreatinine level of 22. Mother tested
positive positive for PCP on October 24, 2019. 2019, Mother also tested positive positive for benzodiazepines on
January January 6, 2022. 2022. She also testified positive positive for opiates on May May 31, 2022. 2022. (N.T. 9115/2022, (N.T 9/15/2022,
p. p. 11-12; II-I,p.p. 13 at at 1-8 I-8 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)) A)) (See (See DHS-1). DHS-1). Mother Mother informed Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews that her dentist
prescribed prescribed her her aamedication containing opiates medication containing following a opiates following a dental procedure procedure she underwent underwent in in
May 2022. Mother May 2022. Mother provided provided Mr. Matthews with Mr. Matthews with a aprescription prescription for the medication. for the medication. Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews
contacted mother's mother's dentist for for confirmation regarding regarding the prescription. prescription. He testified that Mother's Mother's
history. Mr. dentist was not aware of her substance abuse history. Mr. Matthews stated that if Mother's dentist
were aware of Mother's drug and alcohol history, he would have prescribed her an alternative
medication. medication. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 14 11-25; 11-25, p. 15 at 1-16 p. I5 I-16 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A))
Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews testified testified that that he sent Mother he sent Mother for for three three random drug screens random drug screens since since he was assigned he was assigned
this case, case. He further testified that prior CUA Case Managers also attempted to send Mother for
random drug drug screens throughout throughout the case, but Mother failed to attend. attend. (N.T. 9/1512022, p. 13 at (N.T 9/15/2022,p.
24-25; p. p. 14 I4 at 1-3; p. 16 1-3,p. I6 at 6-14 6-I4 (Exhibit A)). On cross-examination by (Exhibit A)). by the Guardian ad Litem
(GAL), Mr. Matthews testified that he contacted Mother several times in August August 2022 to complete
random drug drug screens. Mother did not attend despite CUA providing transportation passes. passes. (N.T. (N.T
9/1512022, p. 9/15/2022, p. 88 at 17-25; p. p. 89 at 1-3 (Exhibit A). A). Mother also stated to Mr. Matthews that she
would obtain obtain her own own random drug drug screens but never provided CUA with documentation of such
drug screens. drug screens. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. 89 at 4-1I (N.I. 9/15/2022,p. 4-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews also testified that Mother A)). Mr.
stated that she completed completed a adrug drug and alcohol treatment program. program. However, there was no record of
engagement in Mother's engagement in or or completion of a a drug and alcohol program program in in the CUA case file. file. (N.T. (N.T
9/15/2022, p. 9/1502022, p. 17 at 24-25; p. 18 24-25:p. I8 at 1-9; 1-9, p. p. 89 a1 at 12-15 12-15 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A))
5 5 CUA Director, Sakina Gaines also testified at the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing. hearing
Ms. Ms. Gaines stated that she supervised this case for one year prior to Mr. assigned. Mr Matthews being assigned
Ms. Ms. Gaines testified that she also attempted to send Mother for random drug screens at the CEU,
which which Mother never completed. completed. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. 120 at (NT 9/15/2022,p. a1 11-25; 1125; p.p. 121 12I at 1-3 I-3 (Exhibit A)) A)).
B. Mother's Second Single Sinp-le Case Plan Objective_was Obiective was to_Address to Address Mental Health Concerns Mental_fealth_Concerns Mother was referred for mental health treatment due to continuing mental health concems. concerns. At
the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing. hearing, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother provided him with
information regarding regarding her engagement in mental health treatment that day. day. He stated that he asked
Mother for documentation previously, but that he did not receive itit until the day day of the TPR TPR
hearing. hearing. Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother provided provided him with aamental health evaluation dated
April 19, 2022, at the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. Mr. Mr Matthews also testified that Mother was engaged in aa
group therapy program at The Wedge Recovery Centers Centers (The (The Wedge). Wedge). He stated that the program
provided support to assist assist "Mothers with children and complex issues with housing." (N.T. (N.T
9/15/2022, p. p. 18 at 13-25; p. p, 19 I9 at 1-7 L-7 (Exhibit A)). Mr (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews testified that he did not have
any additional information regarding Mother's mental health treatment because Mother failed to
consents. (N.T. sign consents. (N.T, 9/1512022, 9/15/2022, p. 10-22 (Exhibit p. 20 at 10-22 (Exhibit A)). A))
While Mr. Mr Matthews testified that he was unaware of of Mother's mental health diagnosis, the
record reflects that Mother underwent a a psychological evaluation on March 13, 2020. 2020. (N.T. (N.T
9115/2022, p. 20 at 23-25; 9/15/2022, 23-25, p. 21 at 9-16 9-16 (Exhibit A)). Mr. (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews testified that prior to the
psychological evaluation Mother provided to him at the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, this
was the last psychological evaluation for Mother. Mother, (N.T. 911512022, p. 22 at 3.7 (N,T 9/15/2022, 3-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit A# A))
Mr. Matthews testified that on March 13, 2020, Mother was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD); (PTSD); generalized anxiety disorder; major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe,
without psychotic features; opioid dependence, severe, early remission; and cocaine use disorder,
6 moderate, early early remission. remission, (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 22 at 11-22 11-22 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)) A)) (See (See DHS-2). DHS-2)
Mr. Matthews stated that he was unaware whether Mother was prescribed prescribed psychotropic psychotropic medication
based on her mental health diagnosis. diagnosis. Id. at 23-25. 23-25. He reiterated that he was unable to confirm
Mother's participation participation in mental health treatment because Mother failed to sign sign consents despite
numerous attempts CUA. Mr. Matthews also stated that because Mother failed to sign attempts by CUA. sign releases
or provide provide him with her therapist's contact information, he had not been able to discuss Mother's
treatment with them or obtain a a treatment plan plan or progress progress report report from Mother's mental health
provider. provider While Mr. Mr Matthews was able to confirm Mother's participation in in the complex complex group
therapy program program at The Wedge, Wedge, it it was unclear whether this program addressed Mother's specific
mental mental health diagnoses. (N.T. health diagnoses. (N.T, 9/15/2022, p. p. 23 at at 2-25; p. p. 24 at 1-9 1-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). On
cross-examination by cross-examination by the GAL, Mr. the GAL, Mr. Matthews Matthews further testified that further testified that he he had no knowledge had no knowledge of of
whether Mother attended individual therapy at that time to address her mental health concerns concerns.
(N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 90 at at 16-20 16-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A))
On September 15, I5, 2022, Mr. Matthews testified that he continued to to have concerns regarding regarding
Mother's mental mental health stability. He testified that throughout the case, Mother demonstrated
instability in in her care of the Children. Children. He He also testified that Mother Mother exhibited irrational behaviors
which were detrimental to the Children's development. development. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. 24 a1 at 10-19 10-19 (Exhibit (Exhibit
A). A). He He further funther explained explained that Mother Mother made threatening messages to threatening calls and sent messages to the Children's
foster foster parents parents and drove past past their their homes on several occasions. Mr. M Matthews Matthews cited an incident incident on
Mother's Mother's Day Day of 2022 2022 in in which which Mother Mother drove past the foster foster parent's parent's home shouting obscenities home shouting
from the car. That same day, Mr. Matthews also received a acall from another foster parent parent of the
Children who who informed informed him him that that the same incident incident occurred outside outside their their home home as as well. well. (N.T. (N.T
9/15/2022, p. p. 24 24 at 24-25; p. p. 25 at 1-23; 1-23; p. p. 26 26 at 11-15 (Exhibit at 11-15 A). Mr. Matthews (Exhibit A). Matthews also testified
that Mother's mental health concerns and refusal to sign consents for the Children has negatively negatively
7 impacted impacted their their mental mental health health as well as as the behavioral behavioral and therapeutic supposed therapcutic services they were supposed
to receive. receive. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 26 at 16-20; p. p. 42 at 12-14 12-14 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A)
Mr. Matthews' testimony testimony was corroborated by CUA Director, Director, Sakina Gaines. Gaines. On
September September 15, 2022, Ms. 15,2022, Ms. Gaines testified that the main dependency concern for main dependency for Mother throughout Mother throughout
the case has has been been her her mental mental health health instability. instability. She testified that Mother's mental health health continued
to to be a a concern concem due to her recent erratic behaviors and outbursts. She also stated that Mother's
mental health negatively negatively impacted wellbeing. (N.T. impacted the Children's wellbeing. (N.T 9/15/2022, 9/15/2022,p.p. 129 at 1-7;p. 1-7; p. 130
at at 24-25; 24-25; p. p. 131 I3l at at 1-2 1-2 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A))
C. Mother's Third Single Case Plan Objective was to Sign Third_Single the Necessary Consents and Sig_the_Necessary Releases
One of One of Mother's Mother's SCP SCP objectives objectives was to sign was to sign consents consents and and releases of information releases of information for for herself herself
and and the Children. On September the Children. September 15, 2022. 2022, Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that he testified that asked Mother he asked to sign Mother to sign
consents and releases of information on numerous occasions. occasions. However, However, he stated that Mother
either refused to sign sign consents and releases or revoked consents that she previously previously signed. signed. (N.T. (N.T
9/15/2022, p. p. 42 at 17-20; p.p. 45 at 14-16; p. p. 46 at 1-10 1-10 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews also testified
that he was unable to confirm Mother's engagement in mental health services due to her refusal to
sign sign releases releases of of information information for her mental mental health health treatment provider. (N.T. treatment provider (NT 9/15/2022, p.p. 23 at
2-16; 2-16, p. p. 46 at 1-10 (Exhibit A). The testimony I-IO(Exhibit testimony reflects that the Children have complex complex behavioral
and therapeutic therapeutic needs which often required required consent from the mother. other MrMr. Matthews testified that,
on numerous occasions, he asked Mother to sign releases of information for the Children's medical
records to ensure that they received receiwed proper proper care, as well as consents for Individualized Individualized Education
Programs Programs (IEP) (IEP) and and for for behavioral behavioral health health services. services. Mother either refused refused to sign sign or revoked
previously signed consents, consents. (N.T. (N,T, 9/15/2022, p. 45 at 17-25 9/15/2022,p. 17.25 (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews stated that
CUA discussed with with Mother Mother the importance importance of signing consents of signing consents to to allow allow the Children to receive receive
88 the therapeutic and educational services they desperately needed. Mr Mr. Matthews testified Mother's
response was that DHS/CUA were were "out to get her" and were were "attacking her and her family." (N.T. family."(N.T
9/15/2022, p. p. 41 at 19-25; p. 41 a1 p. 42 at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit A). A)
Mr. Mr. Matthews further testified that Mother's refusal to sign consents for the Children has
negatively impacted their mental health as well as the behavioral and therapeutic services they
require. require. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T 9/15/2022. p. 24 at 21-24; p.p. 26 at 16-20; 16-20, p. p. 42 at 12-14 12-14 (Exhibit A). Specifically, (Exhibit A).
Mr. Mr Matthews testified that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M, received behavioral health services through through Children's
Crisis Treatment Center (CCTC). Treatment Center (CCTC). He testified that while M.S.B.-M. MS.B.-M. initially made progress in
therapy, she began to regress and exhibit behavioral issues. M.S.B.-M. issues. CCTC recommended that MS.B.M
receive mental health medication. medication, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that a a psychiatric psychiatric evaluation for
M.S.B.-M. was scheduled, but Mother revoked her consent for M.S.B.-M. M.SB.M to receive behavioral
health services and refused to sign an updated consent. consent. While Mr. Mr Matthews attempted to obtain
the necessary authorization from Mother for M.S.B.-M.'s M.SB.-M.'s behavioral services to continue, he was
unsuccessful and M.S.B.-M.'s M.S.B.-M's trauma-focused therapy ccased. ceased. Mr. Mr Matthews testified that this
caused M.S.B.-M.'s M.SB.-M.'s behaviors to "decline" and she began to display inappropriate behavioral
issues in school and in the foster parent's home. (N.T. (N.T 9/1512022, 9/1502022, p. 26 at 23-25; p. 27 at 1-4; I-4,
p.p. 29 at 9-25; p. 29at p. 30 at 1-10; I-10; p. p. 33 a1 at 16-18 16-18 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He further testified that M.S.B.-M.'s lapse
in behavioral health services also negatively affected her academic progress. progress. (N.T. 9115/2022, (N,T, 9/15/2022,
33 at 19-25; p. 33at 19.25; p.p. 34 at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit A) A).
Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that Mother's refusal to sign consents also negatively negatively affected
S.J.B.-M.'s $JB.M's ability to receive the mental health treatment he needed. needed. He testified that in
December 2019, $.JB.-M. S.J.B.-M. presented presented at the Philadelphia Philadelphia Crisis Response Response Center (CRC), (CRC), but
Mother refused to to sign consents for him to receive treatment because she did not agree agree with the
recommended treatment. treatment. Mr. Mr Matthews stated that since then, SJ.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. has continued to exhibit
9 9 behavioral issues including including acting acting out violently, violently, biting, biting, kicking, wanting wanting to hurt himself and others,
and having having suicidal suicidal ideations. ideations. Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that these these behaviors behaviors resulted resulted in the foster foster
parent parent taking taking S.J.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. to the CRC on three occasions since he became the assigned assigned CUA Case
Manager. Manager. Following Following one visit, CRC staff staff recommended that SJ.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. enter aapartial partial stabilization
program, program, for which which Mother Mother signed consents. Mother signed consents. signed consents for S.1.B.-M. Mother also signed S.J.B.-M. to to receive receive
medication medication but but did did not not agree agree with the recommended with the treatment. Mother recommended treatment. only consented Mother only consented to to aa
different medication she found through her research. However, Mr. Matthews testified that the
medication proposed proposed by Mother was ineffective in treating S.JB.-M.'s S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral issues. He
further testified that S.J.B.-M S.I.B.M was unable to complete the partial partial stabilization program program because his
behaviors behaviors eventually eventually became so volatile volatile that he he was discharged from the partial was discharged partial program program prior prior to
completion. Mr. Matthews stated that Mother's intervention in SIB.M.'s completion. S.J.B.-M.'s mental health treatment
has impeded impeded his ability to receive the necessary necessary behavioral health services. services. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (N,T, 9/15/2022, p. 34
at 11-25; p. 35-316, 11-25,p. 35-36; p. p. 37 at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit A). A)
Mr. Mr Matthews also testified that Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for S.J.B.-M.'s $.J.B.-M's services and
medication medication has has also negatively negatively affected his his education. (N.T. p. 37 at (N,T 9/15/2022, p. at 24-25; 24-25, p. p. 38 at at
1-3 L-3 (Exhibit A). S.J.B.-M.'s school recommended that he receive an IEP for therapeutic A). SJ.B.M.'s therapeutic support.
While Wile Mother agreed to the IEP during during the IEP meeting, she failed to sign consent forms for the
IEP to be implemented. implemented. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 37 at 24-25; p. 1-10 (Exhibit p. 38 at 1-IO (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews
also testified that because S.I.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. did not receive an IEP for therapeutic therapeutic support in school, he
had had issues issues socializing socializing at school school and frequently frequently acted acted out violently violently towards other students. (N.T. (NT,
9/15/2022, 9/15/2022, p. 39 at at 24-25; 24-25; p. p. 40 at 1-21 1-21 (Exhibit (Exhibit A).
Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for the Children to receive treatment continued to be an issue
at the September September 11, 1I, 2023, conclusion of the TPR hearing. hearing. At that hearing, Mr. Matthews testified
that that CUA CUA contacted Mother to sign sign consents consents for for M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. to to receive rcecive therapeutic services. Mother therapeutic services. Mother
10 10 eventually signed the eventually signed the consent consent form, but it form. but was too it was too late. M.D.B.-M. was late. M.DB.M. was placed on a placed on waiting list a waiting list
further delaying delaying her access to necessary necessary therapeutic services. services., (N.T. (N,T 9/11/2023, p. p. 12 I2 at 19-25;
p. p. 13 at 1-17 13at 1-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit Q. C))
D. D. Mother's Mother's Fourth Fourth Single Case Single Case Plan Obiective was Plan objective was to te Attend Attend ARC to Address ARC to Address Parenting, Parenting, Housing, Housing. Employment, Employment,Domestic Violence, Violence, and Anger Anger Management Concerns Management Concerns September 15, At the September 15, 2022, 2022, TPR TPR hearing, completed earing, Mr. Matthews testified that Mother completed
parenting, parenting, domestic violence, violence, and anger anger management management classes through through ARC. ARC. Mr. Matthews Matthews also
testified that Mother had appropriate appropriate housing but had not provided regarding provided documentation regarding
whether her rent and utility utility bills were up up to date. date. Mr. Matthews further testified that while he
spoke to Mother's spoke Mother's previous employer, she previous employer, she was was unemployed unemployed at at the time. (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, p. p. 45
at 4-25;p. at 4-25; p. 46 46 at at 1-11 1-1H (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A)
E. Mother's Mother's Fifth Fifth Single Case Plan Objective Obiective was to Court Ordered Complv with Court to.Comply, Visitation
When the Children were adjudicated adjudicated dependent in December 2017, Mother's visits were
CUA agency. supervised at the CUA agency. However, they changed from supervised they were changed supervised at CUA to to
supervised at DHS for increased security due to Mother behaviors and outbursts toward CUA staff staff.
(N.T. 1/5/2023, 1/5/2023, p. p. 158 I58 at 4-13; 4-13; p. p. 162 162 at at 12-17 12-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)). Mother's Mother's visits supervised visits remained supervised
at the CUA agency until the June 25, 2019, Permanency Review Hearing. At that hearing, the
Court temporarily suspended Mother's temporarily suspended Mother's visits visits with three three of the Children, Children, M.S.B.-M., M.D.B.-M., M.DB.-M.,
S.J.B.-M. The Court found that Mother's visits were detrimental to the Children and that they and SJ.B.-M. they
displayed displayed defiant behaviors following following visits with Mother. Mother The Court further further ordered that Mother's
visits could be reinstated once once therapeutic therapeutic visits were in place. place. Mother's Mother's visits with M.J.B. M.J.B. were
ordered to be supervised at DHS. (See (See Trial Court Order 6./25/19), 6/25/19). Mother's Mother's visits with the
Children were reinstated at the January 21, 2020, Permanency Review Hearing. At that point, the
Court ordered that Mother was to have monthly visits with the Children and that the visits were to
11 II be be supervised at at DHS. The Orders for all all four Children stated: stated: "if Child's behavior becomes
negative, negative, visits will be suspended." (See (See Trial Court Order 1/21/20). 121/20). At the December 6, 2021,
permanency review hearing, permanency review hearing, Mother's visits with M.S.B.-M., M.D.B.-M., and SIB.-M. M.S.B.M., M.DB.M., S.J.B.-M. were
changed to supervised changed supervised weekly. weekly. These visits were ordered to occur virtually. virtually. Mother's visits visits with
M.J.B. M.I.B. remained in-person, in-person, supervised weekly weekly at DHS. DHS. ((See See Trial Trial Court Order 12/6/21). 12/6/21). Prior
court court orders orders reflect reflect that that Mother's Mother's visits visits remained remained the the same at at the the start hearing on start of the TPR hearing
September 15, September 15, 2022. 2022.
At the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that Mother's visits at DHS
stopped following stopped following several several incidents incidents involving involving Mother's behavior. Mr. Mother's behavior Mr Matthews testified that Matthews testified that the the
Children's foster foster parents parents informed informed him him that that Mother took took pictures pictures of them and and their their vehicles vchicles
without their consent. consent. Subsequently, Subsequently, the foster parents had to use an alternate entrance in the back
of DHS so that Mother would not not "see them coming." Mr. Mr Matthews also testified that the family family
attended a a family family function therapy therapy session, but that the session ended due to Mother's erratic
behaviors. behaviors. Mr. Mr Matthews also testified Matthews also about an testified about an incident incident during during aavisit visit at at the CUA ageney. the CUA agency. Mother Mother
held held the Children after the visit and would not release them. them. He police were called He testified that the police
to intervene. intervene. The Children were escorted out the back of the building to avoid Mother Mother. The
Children left safely safely with their respective respective foster parents. parents. (N.T. (N,T 9/15/2022, p. p. 46 at 22-25; p. p. 47 at
1-9 and 18-25; L9and p. 48 at 1-2 18.25; 0. L-2 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews also testified A). Mr testified that that there had been been issues with
Mother's visitation as recently as June 2022 due to her aggressive aggressive behaviors. behaviors. Mr. Matthews
testified that Mother Mother "acted out" again during aavisit at DHS in June 2022 between Mother, M.J.B. M.J.B.,
and aayounger younger sibling. sibling. Following Following that that visit, visit, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified testified that that DHS DHS sent a a letter letter to CUA
stating that Mother Mother could no longer longer visit with the Children at DHS as her behaviors presented presented aa
safety concern concem to Thus, Mother's visits to their staff. Thus, visits were were changed to to virtual. virtual, (N.T. 9/15/2022, (N,T 9/1 5/2022, p. p. 48
at 3-9 at 3-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A); A); (N.T. (N.I 1/5/2023, p. p. 29 at 9-11; p. p. 37 at 16-17; p. 38 at 1-3 I-3 and 21-24 21-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit
12 B)). B)). On On January 5, 2023, CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson testified that since the June 2022,
incident, Mother did not confirm visits with the Children from Jame to September from lune September 2022. She stated
that Mother was consistent with her visits since October 2022 and no further incidents were
reported. reported. (N.T. 11512023, p. 39 at 17-24; p. (N.T 1/5/2023, p. 40 at 1-14 I-I4 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B))
CUA Director, Ms. Gaines, also testified on September September 15, 2022, regarding regarding the June 2022
incident that that occurred at DHS during during a a visit between Mother and M.J.B. M.JB. The testimony reflected
that Mother attempted to give give M.J.B. M.J.B. aatemporary tattoo against wishes. Although against the Child's wishes. Although
M.J.B. M.JI. consistently stated that he did not want a a tattoo, Mother proceeded put the tattoo on him, proceeded to put him,
which upset the Child. Child. The situation escalated and M.J.B. M.J.B. became fearful, which caused the visit
to end. end. DHS security was called to deescalate the situation. situation. Following the incident, M.J.B. M.I.B. stated
to the CUA Case Aid who supervised the visit that he was seared scared and thought they they were going to
leave him with Mother. Mother. (N.T. 911512022, p. (N,T. 9/15/2022, 125; p. 126 at 1-17 p. 125;p. 1-17 (Exhibit A). (Exhibit A)
Ms. Gaines' testimony was corroborated by CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson, who testified
during the January January 5, 2023, TPR TPR hearing. hearing. Ms. Ms. Johnson testified that she began supervising supervising
Mother's visits in December 2021. 2021. (N.T. (N.T 11512023, 1/5/2023, p. p. 29 at 9-11; p. 35 at at9-11; at 9-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) She
testified that she was supervising Mother's visit with M.J.B. M.JB. when the June 2022 tattoo incident
occurred. Ms. Johnson testified that the incident began when M.J.B. M.J.B. did not want Mother Mother to give
him aatemporary tattoo because he stated he was going to get into trouble with his foster parent. parent
Ms. Ms. Johnson testified that Mother then grabbed M.J.B.'s arm and stated, "Well, I'm your mom,
and I I say you can have them." Mother also asked M.J.B. M.J.B. if he was being abused by his foster
parent, and Mother became upset upset when M.J.B. nodded his head head "a "a little bit." She indicated that
the incident escalated quickly. Ms. Johnson stated that M.J.B. was crying and reaching reaching out for her,
but Mother was holding him behind her back and keeping him from her. She testified that M.J.B.
then stated to her, Please "Please don't leave me. I'm Fm scared." Ms. Ms. Johnson further testified that a a DHS
13 1 worker ended the visit, and Mother got got into a a verbal altercation with them. At that time,
Ms. Ms. Johnson grabbed grabbed M.J.B. M.J.B. and and escorted him him out of DHS through the back exit. through the exit. She testified that
M.J.B. M.I.B. was crying and shaken up, but that he stated he was was "scared, but brave." Since that incident,
Ms. Ms. Johnson stated that that M.J.B. M.J.B. no no longer longer wishes to visit visit with Mother Mother and and is afraid of her. her. (N.T. (N.T
1/5/2023, 1/5/2023, p. p. 29 29 at 22-25; p. p. 30 at at 3-5; 3-5; p. p. 31-34; 31-34;p.p. 35 at 19-20; p. at 19-20, p. 37 at at 3-13; p. 169 3-13;p. 169 at 2-8 2-8 (Exhibit (Exhibit
B)). B))
CUA Case Aid, CUA Case Anaies Mangum, Aid, Anaies Mangum, testified testified on on January January 5, 2023, 2023, and and corroborated corroborated Ms. Johnson's Ms. Johnson's
account of the June 2022 incident. Ms. Ms. Mangum testified that during the incident, she observed
Mother Mother holding holding M.J.B. "hostage" in M.J.B. "hostage" in aaroom room with with the the door door closed closed and and not not letting letting him out. It him out. It was was
her opinion that M.J.B. M.I.B. appeared scared during the incident. incident. Ms. Mangum Mangum also testified that after
she and Ms. Ms. Johnson were able to remove M.J.B. M.J.B. stated to them, M.JB. from the situation, M.J.B. "Iwas them, "I
scared, and I I didn't want you you to leave me." me." (N.T. (N.T 1/5/2023, p. p. 149-150 149-150 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)). M.J.B. M.JB. also
stated to her that he did not want to visit Mother anymore after the June 2022 incident. incident. (N.T. (N.T
1/5/2023, 1/5/2023,p.p. 152 at 20-25 20-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B))
Since the the June June 2022 incident, incident, Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews testified that attempted to that CUA attempted to facilitate facilitate virtual
visits between Mother and M.J.B., M.J.B., but that he was unaware of the quality quality of those visits. visits. (N.T. (N.T,
9/1512022, p. 9/15/2022, p. 48 48 at 18-19 (Exhibit at 18-19 (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that since since the the June June 2022 2022 incident,
M.J.B, MI.B. has has stated stated to to him him that that he he does not want does not want to to see see Mother and that Mother and that he he"definitely does not definitely does not want want
to to go go back to DHS DHS to to see mom." (N.T. see mom." (N,T 9/15/2022, p.p. 50 at 5-1 5-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews also
testified testified that that following following the the June 2022 2022 incident, incident, M.J.B. M.I.B. reported reported being being scared scared of Mother, feeling Mother, feeling
unsafe around her. unsafe around He also her. He also pleaded pleaded with with CUA not to CUA not send him to send him back to Mother. back to Mother. (N.T. 9/15/2022, (N.T 9/1502022,
p. p. I 10 at 10-22 (Exhibit 1H0 (Exhibit A). A), Mr. Mr. Matthews' testimony testimony was corroborated by by CUA Case Aids,
Ms. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Mangum, Mangum, who January 5, 2023, who both testified on January 2023, that M.J.B. has that M.J.B. has refused refused
14 visits with Mother following the June 2022 incident because he is seared. scared. (N.T. 115/2023, 1/5/2023,p.p. 29 at
22-25; p.p. 30 at 3-5; 3-5, p. p. 35 at at1 19-20; p. p. 42 at 3-5; 152 at 20-25 20-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B))
Mr. Matthews further testified that that since the June 2022 incident, Mother has not visited with
M.S.B.-M. (N.T. MS.B.-M. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 48 at 14-17 48 at 14-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He He stated stated that attempted to that CUA attempted to facilitate facilitate
in-person visits between them, but that the in-person in-person visits were detrimental to to M.S.B.-M. M.SB.-M
Mr. Me. Matthews Matthews testified that following testified that following visits visits with with Mother, Mother, M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.M. began to act began to act out out in in aavolatile volatile
manner, which which included cutting and scratching included cutting scratching herself herself as well well as other inappropriate inappropriate behaviors. As behaviors. As
aaresult, M.S.B.-M. stopped visiting with Mother. Mother. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 49 at 20-25; p. p. 50 at 1-4
(Exhibit A). CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson, also testified on January 5, 2023, that following following aa
virtual visit with Mother, M.S.B.-M, M.$.B.-M. reported feeling feeling scared because she thought thought she was going going
home with Mother and did not want to. to. (N.T. (N,T, 1/5/2023, p. p. 35 at 21-25; 21-25 p. p. 36 at 1-2 and 13-15
(Exhibit B)). (Exhibit B)).
Regarding the quality of M.D.B.-M.'s visits with Mother, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that she and
Mother continue to have virtual visits. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, 9/1502022, p. p. 50 at 12-15 12-15 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). He testified
that that the the visits go go "fairly "fairly well", but but that there was was little little engagement engagement between between M.D.B.-M. and Mother M.D.B.-M and Mother
until Mother offered to give her money. (N.T. until (N.T 9/15/2022, p. 50 at 21-25; p. 51 5l at 8-11 8-1H (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A)
Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews further further testified that that the last time M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. visited visited with with Mother Mother was was in m June 2022, 2022.
and and that M.D.B.-M, has that M.DB.-M. has never never expressed expressed aadesire to to see Mother. Mother (N.T. p. 54 at 8-24 (N.T 9/15/2022, p.
(Exhibit A)). Mr. Mr. Matthews' Matthews' testimony testimony regarding regarding M.D.B.-M.'s MD.B.-M.'s visits visits with Mother Mother was
corroborated by CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson, who supervised the visits. visits. During During the
January 5, 5, 2023, TPR hearing, hearing. Ms. Ms. Johnson testified that while M.D.B.-M. visited with Mother
virtually, she appeared to be be annoyed during th the visits. Ms. Ms. Johnson also testified that the visits
usually usually did not last longer longer than 25-30 minutes and that that Mother often ended the visits early. early, (N.T. (N.T.
15 1/5/2023, p. p. 47 20-23; 20-23: p. at 7-20 p. 48 at 7-20 ((Exhibit Exhibit B)). B)). She She stated stated that that M.D.B.-M. is not M.D.B.-M. is not sad when when
ended. (N.T. Mother's visits ended. (N.T 1/5/2023, p. p. 49 at 5-7 5-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B))
Finally, Finally, Mr. Mr, Matthews testified that Matthews testified that Mother Mother has has had virtual virtual visits visits with with S.J.B.-M. S.I.B.M. since since
June 2022, and that that he he communicates communicates with with Mother Mother through through a a cell cell phone phone she she bought him. (N.T. bought him, (NT
9/15/2022, p. at 19-24 p. 48 at 19-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews also also testified testified that that Mother Mother informed informed him that him that
she had s.he had unauthorized contact with unauthorized contact with the the S.J.B.-M. despite this SJ.B.-M. despite this Court's Court's order order that any visitation that any visitation is to is to
be supervised and virtual due to the negative S.J.B.-M. exhibited after visits with negative behaviors SIB.-M.
Mother. Mother (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, p. p. 51 at 12-25; p. 52 at 1-11 12-25;p. 1-II (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A)
Mr. Matthews Mr. Matthews testified testified that that Mother's visits remained Mother's visits remained supervised supervised throughout throughout the case and the case and were were
not expanded due to safety concerns regarding Mother. (N.T. regarding Mother (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 49 at 11-20 11-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit
A). Additionally, Mother's visits were moved from the CUA agency agency to DHS for more enhanced
security due to secunity to Mother's behaviors and outbursts. outbursts. However, after numerous incidents regarding regarding
Mother exhibiting erratic behaviors during visits, DHS informed CUA that thatMother could no longer longer
visit visit at at DHS. They indicated DHS. They indicated that that Mother's negative behaviors Mother's negative presented safety behaviors presented safety concerns for for their their
staff. (N.T. staff, 9115/2022, p. 48 at 3-9 (N, T, 9/15/2022, 3-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Thus, Mr. Mr Matthews stated that Mother's visits
with with all four four Children were virtual virtual at the the time time of the the September September 15, 2022, TPR hearing. TPR hearing
Mr. Matthews further testified that he believed it was in in the Children's best interest for Mother's
visits to remain remain virtual to to ensure their safety. (N.T. their safety, (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 49 at 11-20 1L-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A), The
testimony from CUA Case Aids, Anaies Mangum Taylor Johnson, reflects that throughout Mangum and Taylor throughout
their respective respective supervision supervision of the case since 2019, 20I9, there have been numerous issues regarding regarding
Mother's visits visits as as well well as as inconsistency inconsistency by by Mother. Mother Ms. Ms. Mangum Mangum and and Ms. Ms. Johnson Johnson also testified
that that throughout throughout the case, the typically do not appear the Children typically appear happy happy to to visit visit Mother they are Mother and they
not sad when the visits end. end. (N.T. (N,T 1/5/2023, p. p. 49 at 5-7; p. at $-7; p. 148 at 10-13; p. 153 at 10-23 10-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit
)y). The CUA Case Aids also testified that in B)). in their supervision supervision of the case, they they have not observed
16 any parent- child bond any parent-child bond between between Mother and the Mother and the Children. Children. (N.T. 1/512023, p. 59 at (NT. 1/5/2023,p. 10-14; p. 153 at I0-14;p. at 153 at
1-23 t-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B))
F. Mother's Relationship Relationship and Bond with MD.B.L M.D.B.-M.
At the September 15, TPR hearing, I5, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that there would not be any any
irreparable harm to M.D.B.-M. M.D._.M. if Mother's rights were wcre terminated. terminated. He testified that it it would be in
her her best best interest interest for for Mother's rights to Mother's parental rights to be terminated terminated so that be freed that she can be adoption. freed for adoption,
(N.T. 9/15/2022, (N.T 9115/2022, p. p. 54 54 at 25; 25; p. 55 55 at 1-14 1-14 p. p. 78 78 at l0-17; p. 82 at 16-18 10-17;p.82 16-18 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews
stated that stated that M.D.B.-M. and Mother M.D.B.M. and do not Mother do not share share a a parent- child bond. parent-child bond. Mr. Mr. Matthews also testified Matthews also testified
that Mother has not visited with M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. since June 2022. He stated that M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. never asks
about Mother and has never expressed a about a desire to see her. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 53 at 10-15; 10-15; p. p. 54 at
8-24 (Exhibit 8-24 (Exhibit A)). A))
In contrast, Mr. Matthews testified that M.D.B.-M. M.DB.M. has resided with her foster parent parent since
approximately 2018 and shares a a parent-child parent-child bond with her. her (N.T. 9/1512022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 81 at 7-22
(Exhibit A)). A)). He testified tthat parent is aapre-adoptive hat the foster parent pre-adoptive resource for M.D.B.-M. M.DB.-M. (N.T. (N.T.
9115/2022, p. 9/15/2022, p. 82 82 at at 8-9 8-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. is is thriving thriving in in the the foster foster parent's home, and parent's home, and they they
meet all of meet all of her her needs. needs. Mr. Mr Matthews also testified Matthews also testified that that M.D.B.-M. M.DB..M. looks looks to her foster to her foster parent parent to to
meet her basic needs nccds as well as her educational, emotional, and medical needs. needs. The foster parent parent
also provides M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.M. with love, support. support, care, and comfort. comfort. (N.T. p. 55 at 6-10; (NT 9/15/2022, p. 6-10;
p. 69 at 6-7 at 8-19; 8-19, p. p. 81 at 22-25; 22-25, p. p. 82 at 1-7 1-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr Matthews further testified that
M.D.B.-M. and her M.D.B.-M and foster parent her foster parent have have aagreat great relationship and described relationship and described the the relationship as loving, relationship as loving,
caring, nurturing, caring, nurturing, and fun. (N.T. and fun. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 81 81 at at 10-18 10-18 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A))
When When Mr. Mr. Matthews asked M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M, about about permanency, expressed that she wished permanency, she expressed wished to to
either remain living with with her her current foster parent parent or to to reside with one of her siblings' foster her siblings'
parents. parents. (N.T. (N.T, 9/15/2022, p. 55 at 11-14 IL-14 (Exhibit A)). On cross-examination by (Exhibit A)). by the TPR Child
17 I7 Advocate, Mr. Matthews also testified that M.D.B.-M. M.DB.-M. expressed aadesire to remain in the foster
parent's home on aapermanent basis. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 98 at 18-20 18-20 (Exhibit A)). Mr. (Exhibit A)). Mr Matthews'
testimony was corroborated by by the TPR Child Advocate's witness, Social Worker Roya Palter, Roya Paller,
who testified testified during the September 11, 11, 2023, 2023, TPR hearing. hearing. Ms. Ms. Paller Paller testified testified that that she spoke to she spoke
M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. about permanency permanency on March March 20, 20, 2023, 2023, and September 10, 2023. Ms. and September Ms. Paller Paller testified testified
that M.D.B.-M. is 11 Il years old, and that she has resided with this foster parent parent since 2017, 2017.
Ms. Paller Ms. explained the Paller explained the difference difference between between Permanent Permanent Legal Custody (PLC) Legal Custody and adoption (PLC) and to adoption to
M.D.B-M. She testified that M.D.B.-M. understood the meaning M.D.B-M. meaning of adoption adoption and was clear that
she wished to be adopted by her foster parent. parent. Ms. Paller also stated that M.D.B.-M. is bonded to
her her foster parent parent and and that the the foster foster parent parent meets meets her her daily, basic needs. explained that needs. She explaincd that the
foster parent also ensures that M.D.B.-M. visits with her siblings. siblings. Regarding Regarding adoption, adoption, Ms. Ms. Paller Pallet
testified that thatM.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. had no concems concerns about severing her relationship relationship with Mother because she
does not see Mother on aaconsistent basis. basts. Ms. Ms. Paller also testified that Mother's inconsistent mconsistent
visitation visitation has has caused caused M.D.B.-M. M.DB.-M. to to feel feel let disappointed. When Ms. let down and disappointed. Ms. Palter Paller spoke spoke to
M.D.B.-M. about permanency permanency again on September 10, 10, 2023, M.D.B.-M. maintained her position position
that she wished to be adopted and expressed frustration that adoption had not yet occurred. occurred. (N.T. (N.T
9/11/2023, p. p. 46-48; p. 51 46-48, p. 51 at 1-22 1-22 (Exhibit C)). (Exhibit C)).
G. G. Mother's Mother's Relationship Relationship and and Bond Bond with M.S.B.-M. and with M.SB.-M. and M.J.B. M.I.B, At the September 15, 2022. 2022, TPR hearing, hearing, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B.
are placed in in the the same foster foster home. home, (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T. 9/1502022, p. 84 at 21-24; p. 95 21-24;p. 95 at at 4-6 4-6 (Exhibit Exhibit A)). They A)). They
have have resided resided with their their foster foster parent parent since since December December 2021 2024 and the the foster foster parent parent is is aa pre-adoptive pre-adoptive
resource resource for for them. them, (N.T. 9/1512022, p. (N,T 9/15/2022, p. 84 at at 10-11 10-1H and 25; p. p. 85 at 1-2 and and 20-21 20-21 (Exhibit A)). At (Exhibit A)). At
the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that that there would not be any be any
irreparable harm to M.S.B.-M. or M.J.B, M.J.B. if ifMother's rights rights were terminated. terminated. (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022,
18 56 at 12-15; p. p. 56at p. 58 at 9-12 9-12 (Exhibit A)). A)). He further testified that it it would be in their best interest
for for Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to to be be terminated terminated so that they so that they can can be be freed freed for for adoption. adoption. (N.T. (N.T.
9/15/2022, p. 9/15/2022, 78 at p. 78 at 10-17; 10-17; p. 86 at p. 86 3-5 (Exhibit at 3-5 (Exhibit A)). A))
Regarding Regarding M.S.B.-M.'s M.SB.M.'s relationship relationship with with Mother, Mother, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that Matthews testified that he has never he has never
observed any connection between her and Mother and she does not share a a parent-child parent-child bond with
Mother. Mother. He stated that He stated that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M. had not visited had not visited with with Mother Mother since since June June 2022 and that 2022 and that the visits the visits
they did have they did have were detrimental and were detrimental and resulted in behavioral resulted in behavioral issues issues which which necessitated CCTC therapy. necessitated CCTC therapy.
9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 55 at 15-25; p. p. 56 at 1-3 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr. Matthews further testified that
M.S.B.-M. never asked about Mother and did not express aadesire to see her. her. (N.T. 9/1512022, (N.T 9/15/2022,
p. 56 p. at 4-11 56 at 4-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). In contrast, Mr. In contrast, Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that that M.S.B.-M, M.S.B.-M. resided resided with with her her
foster parent since December 2021 and that they they are bonded. M.S.B.-M. parent M.S.B.M. looks to her foster parent
to meet to meet her her basic basic needs as well needs as well as as her educational, emotional, her educational, emotional, and and medical medical needs. needs. The foster parcnt The foster parent
provides provides her her with with love, love, support, care, and support, care, and comfort. comfort. (N.T. 9/1512022, p. 85 (N,T 9/15/2022,p. 85 at at 1-19 I-I9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A))
Regarding Regarding M.J.B.'s M.J.B.'s relationship relationship with with Mother, Mother, Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that that while while there may may be
aabond bond between between M.J.B. and Mother, M.J.. and M.J.B. has Mother,M.JB. has been consistent that been consistent he no that he no longer wishes to longer wishes to visit visit or or
see Mother as aaresult of the June 2022 incident at DHS. DHS. (N.T. p. 50 at 5-11; (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. 5-11, p.p. 56 at
16-21; p. 58 I6-21,p. 58 at at 4-17 4-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). In contrast, Mr. In contrast, Mr. Matthews testified that Matthews testified that M.J.B. M.J.B. has resided with has resided with
his foster parent his foster since December parent since December 2021, and that 2021, and that he calls her he calls "mama." He her "mama." stated that He stated that they they have have aa
great great relationship and are bonded. M.J.B. M.J.B. looks looks to his his foster foster parent parent to to meet meet his his basic basic needs as well
emotional, and medical as his educational, emotional. medical needs. needs. The foster foster parent parent provides provides him him with love, love,
support, care, and comfort. comfort. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 83 at at1 14-25; 14-25, p. 1-9 (Exhibit A)). p. 84 at L-9 A))
On cross-examination by by the Tp TPR Child Advocate, Advocate, Mr. Matthews also testified that both
M.S.B.-M. M.J.B. expressed M.S..-M. and M.J.B. expressed a a desire to remain in the foster parent's parent's home permanently. permanently. (N.T. (NT
9115/2022, p. 9/1502022, p. 98 at 14-17 and 21-24 21-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews' testimony A)). Mr testimony was corroborated by by
19 the TPR Child the IPR Advocate's witness, Child Advocate's Social Worker witness, Social Roya Paller. Worker Roya Paller. During During the September 11, the September 2023, H, 2023,
TPR hearing, TPR hearing, Ms. Ms. Paller Paller testified that she testified that she spoke spoke to to M.D.B.-M. and M.J.B. M.D.B.-M. and M.AB. about permanency on about permanency on
March March 20, 20, 2023, 2023, and September 10, 10, 2023. 2023. M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. and and M.J.B. M.JB reside reside in the same home. home
Ms. Ms. Paller testified that when she spoke to M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.M. and M.J.B. M.JB. about permanency permanency on
March 20, 20, 2023, 2023, they they understood understood the the meaning of adoption meaning of adoption and wished to and wished be adopted to be adopted by their foster by their foster
parent. parent. She She testified testified that that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M. and and M.J.B. M.J.B. were were bonded bonded to their foster to their foster parent, parent, were were happy happy in in
the home, and looked to the foster parent parent to meet their basic needs. needs. Ms. expressed that Ms. Paller also expressed
siblings. When the foster parent facilitated visitation between M.S.B.-M., M.J.B., and their siblings.
Ms. Ms. Paller spoke to Paller spoke to M.S.B.-M. about permanency M.S.B.-M. about again on permanency again on September September 10, 10, 2023. 2023, she she expressed expressed
that she no longer longer wished to visit Mother and refused visitation. visitation. When Ms. Paller spoke spoke to M.J.B. M_JB
about permanency about permanency again on on September 10, 10, 2023, 2023, he expressed expressed frustration frustration regarding length of regarding the length
the adoption adoption process process and and why why he he has has not not been adopted yet. been adopted yet. (N.T. 9/11/2023, p. (N,T 9/11/2023, 51 at p. 51 at 23-25; p. 52; 23-25, p. 52;
p. 53 at 1-4; p.53at p. 55 at I-4; p. at 20-25; 20-25; p. p. 56 at at 1-19 1-19 (Exhibit Q. (Exhibit C))
H. Mother's Relationship Relationship and Bond withs,4B.-M, with S.J.B.-M.
At the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that S.J.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. recognized recognized
Mother as his mother, spoke to her often, and cared about her. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (NT 9/1502022, p. 58 at 18-23
(Exhibit A). However, Mr Mr. Matthews testified that while SA.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. has stated he wished to return
to Mother's Mother's care, he was not hopeful that she would ever be in aplace in a place where she was able to care
for him. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. 58 at 23-25; p. 9/15/2022,p. p. 59 at 1-8 (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Matthews testified that there
would would not not be be any irreparable irreparable harm harm to S.J.B.-M. if to S.JB.-M. if Mother's Mother's rights rights were terminated because were terminated he because he
understood that Mother's concerning behaviors needed to be addressed before reunification could
occur. occur (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 59 at 19-25; (N.T. 9/15/2022,p. 19-25; p. p. 60 at 1-4 (Exhibit A). 1-4(Exhibit A). Mr. Mr. Matthews testified testified that that while while
S.J.B.-M. may SIB.M. may be bonded bonded with with Mother Mother and and cares for for her, her, they they do do not not share share aapositive bond. He positive bond. He
testified that S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral that S.JIB.-M.'s behavioral issues are escalated following issues arc following visits visits or contact with Mother. Mother.
20 20 9/15/2022, p. (N.T. 9/1502022, p. 58 at 21-23; p. 12-25 (Exhibit p. 60 at 12-25 (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews testified testified that that it would
be be in in S.J.B.-M.'s $_JB.M.'s best best interest interest for for Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to to be be terminated so that terminated so that he he can can be freed freed
for adoption. for adoption. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T 9/15/2022, 78 at p. 78 at 10-17: 10-17; p. 82 at p. 82 at 16-18; 16-18; p. p. 87 87 at 9-11 (Exhibit at 9-11 A)). (Exhibit A))
Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that S.J.B.-M. has been that $.J.B.-M. been in in care since he he was years old. was four years old. (N.T. (NT.
9/15/2022, 9/1502022, p. p. 110 110 at 4-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He He stated stated that that S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral impacted his behavioral issues impacted
prior placements. placements. At the time of the TPR TPR hearing, hearing, S.J.B.-M. $.JB.-M. was in aastable placement placement where he
was was thriving thriving and and receiving receiving the the care and and attention attention he he needed. necded. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 37 37 at 5-22; p. at 5-22, p. 75
at at 20-23 20-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews also testified that although although S.J.B.-M, only resided in his S.J.B.-M. has only
current placement current since September placement since September 2022, the the foster foster parent parent is is a a pre-adoptive pre-adoptive resource for him. resource for him. (N.T. (N.T
9/15/2022, p. p. 86 at at 21-23 21-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A)
On cross-examination by the cross-examination by the TPR TPR Child Advocate Advocate on September 15, 2022, Mr. September I5, Mr. Matthews Matthews
testified that that S.J.B.-M. S.JB.M. wished wished to to reside reside with with Mother. Mother However, However, he he also also stated stated to to Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews
that he was was "open "open to to the idea idea of of adoption" if if reunification reunification was was not not viable. viable. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. ST 9/15/2022, p. 57
at 23; at p. 100 23; p. 100 at at 1-6 I-6 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews' Matthews' testimony testimony was corroborated by was corroborated the TPR by the Child TPR Child
Advocate's Advocate's witness, Social Worker witness, Social Worker Roya Roya Palter. Paller During the September During the September 11, 1I, 2023, TPR hearing, IPR hcaring,
Ms. Palter Paller testified that she spoke S.J.B.-M. about permanency spoke to $.JB.-M. permanency on March 20, 2023. Ms. Ms. Palter Paller
testified S.J.B.-M. struggled testified that SJ.B.-M. struggled the the most of all all the Children Children throughout throughout his his time in foster care. foster care
She expressed that when when S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M. came into care, he was acting acting out and was not behaviorally bchaviorally
stable. stable. However, since being placed in his latest foster home, he was stable, and Ms. Palter Paller saw aa
"100 100 percent percent turnaround" turnaround" in in his behavior. When his behavior. When Ms. Ms. Patter spoke to Paller spoke to S.J.B.-M. about permanency $.J.B.-M. about permanency
in in March 2023, he March 2023. he understood understood the meaning meaning of adoption, adoption, and expressed that and cxpressed that he he wished wished to to be adopted be adopted
and remain in and to remain in his foster foster home. home. She testified testified that that stability stability was very important was very important for S.J.B.-M. for S_1B.M
Ms. Palter Ms. Paller stated that S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M. understood understood that adoption adoption could mean mcan aaseverance of visitation visitation with
Mother Mother and Father, and and Father, and that S.J.B.-M. was that S.JB.-M. was ""fine fine with that." She with that." She further further testified that SJ,B.-M. testified that S.J.B.-M.
21 experienced trauma and disappointment due to Mother's expressed that Mother 's inconsistent visitation and expressed
he had no wishes regarding future contact with Mother at that time. time. (N.T. 9/11/2023, p. (N T, 9/11/2023, p. 53 at
12-25; 12-25; p. p. 54; p. p. 55 at at 1-19 1-I9 (Exhibit Q. (Exhibit C))
On September 11, 11, 2023, 2023, this Court involuntarily involuntarily terminated terminated Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to the the
Children, M.S.B.-M., Children, MS.B.-M., M.D.B.-M., MD.B.-M., S.J.B.-M, and M.J.B., SJ.B.-M, and M.J.B., pursuant pursuant to to 23 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), Pa. C.SA. $2511(a)(),
(2), (5), and (8). (5), and (8). In In accordance with 23 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$25114b), Pa. C.S.A. 251 l(b), this Court found that termination termination of
Mother's parental nights rights best best served the developmental, developmental, physical, physical, and emotional needs and welfare
of the Children. Children. Mother filed a a Notice of Appeal Appeal and a a Concise Statement of Errors Complained Complained
of on Appeal as to M.S.B.-M, M.D.B.-M., S.J.B.-M on October 2, 2023. MD.B..M., and S.1.B.-M 2023. Mother filed aaNotice
of Appeal as Concise Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on Appeal Appeal as to M.J.B. on
October 10, October 2023. 3 10, 2023'
111. It. STATEMENT OE OF MATTERS COMPLAINED COMPLAINED ON ON APPEAL APPEAL,
In the the Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement 1925(b) Concise Statement of of Matters Complained of Matters Complained of on on Appeal Appeal
regarding the Order changing the Children's permanency goals goals to adoption adoption as well as the Order
Terminating Mother's Parental Rights, Rights, the Appellant Appellant identifies the following following issue(s): issue(s):
1. L. The Judge ruled in error that the Philadelphia City Solicitor's Office met its burden of proof proof to terminate Mother's parental parental rights. rights
2. The Judge 2.The Judge ruled ruled in in error that it it would would be in in the the best best interest interest and/or and/or termination termination would would best serve serve the the needs needs of the child. the child
3. 3 The Judge ruled in error that the City City met its burden that the goal goal should be change to to adoption. adoption
4. The Judge ruled in error that that the CUA agency agency made reasonable cfforts efforts to reunify. reunify
a Counsel for Counsel for Mother filed three Mother filed separate Notices three separate of Appeal Notices of on October Appal on October 2, 2023, ote 2, 2023, one for each of for each of the Children as the Children as to to the the TPR ad and Goal Change to Adoption. Adoption. Counsel for Mother filed aaseparate Notices of Appeal Appeal for M.J.B. M_1B. on October 10, 2023. 203 Mother's child. Te Mather's Notices of Appeal state essentially the same errors for each chit4 The matters are related and arise out of the same facts and circumstances. Thus, a from the Trial Court is most a single submission frorn appropriate appropriate to avoid duplication. avoid duplication
22 IV. IV. STANDARD OE REVIEW STANDARD OF REVIEW
The proper standard of review when considering a a trial court's determination of aapetition to
terminate parental rights rights is abuse of discretion. discretion. This standard of review requires appellate court requires an appellate
to to accept the findings findings of fact fact and credibility the trial credibility determinations of the trial court court if if they supported they are supported
by by the the record. record. In Irere R..I R.IT,T., 608 608 Pa. 9A.3d Pa. 9 A.3d 1179, 1179, 1190 (2010). "An 1190(2010). abuse of "An abuse of discretion discretion is is not not merely merely
an error of judgment; judgment; if, in reaching reaching aaconclusion, the court overrides or misapplies misapplies the law, law, or the
judgment exercised exercised is is shown by by the record record to be be either manifestly manifestly unreasonable or or the product product of
partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused." Bulgarelli Bulgarelli v.v. Bulgarelli, Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d
107, 111 IHI (Pa. Super. 2007). (Pa. Super. 2007). Additionally, in order to affirm, an appellate Additionally, in appellate court need only agree nced only agree
with the trial with the court as trial court as to any one to any one subsection of §$ 2511(a), subsection of 2511(a), as well as as well as 8§ 2511 2511 (b). (b). In re BL, hnre B.B.W.,843 843
A. 2d 24 380, 384 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2004). 2004)
Our standard of review of dispositional orders in juvenile proceedings settled. The Juvenile proceedings is settled.
Act grants broad discretion to juvenile courts in determining appropriate dispositions. ct dispositions. In Irere CA.G C.A. G.,
89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. (Pa. Super.2014). Super.2014). Indeed, the Superior Superior Court will not disturb the lower court's
disposition absent a disposition a manifest manifest abuse of discretion. In the Interest of discretion. of J.D., Interest of JD,, 798 A.2d A.2d 210, 213 (Pa. 210, 213 (Pa
Super. 2002). Appellate review of a a weight weight of the evidence claim is limited to aareview of the
judge's judge's exercise of of discretion. discretion. See Commonwealth •v. Widmer, Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 211 (Pa. 1997), and (Pa. 1997),
Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 1189-1192 (Pa. (Pa. 1994). 1994)
V. DISCUSSION
A. The Trial Court Properly Trial Court Found that 'roperl found that DHS pts_ met its Burden by Cear met_its_Burden Clear and Convincing and Convincing Evidence Evidence to Terminate the to_ Terminate the Parental Rights of Parental Rights of Mother Mother Pursuant Pursuant to t@ 23 Pa. CSA 2 Pg. C.S.A. V511(a)(1), $2511(a)(1, 2),(2), (5), (5), and and (S) (8)
Mother alleges alleges in her Concise Statement of Matters Complained Complained of on Appeal, Appeal, that that this Court
erred erred when when itit found found that that there there was clear and was clear convincing evidence and convincing that Mother's evidence that Mother's parental parental rights rights
should be terminated. disagrees. terminated. This Court disagrees
23 23 Under Pennsylvania law, the burden of proof proof is on the party party seeking seeking termination of parental parental
rights to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of grounds grounds for termination.
In Irere J.L. C.,837 AL.C, 837 A.2d 1251 (Pa. A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). 2003). It I is is well well established that that courts must examine
the circumstances of the circumstances of each each case and consider case and all explanations consider all explanations provided provided by by the the parent parent facing facing
involuntary involuntary termination of his or her parental parental rights rights "to determine if if the evidence, in light light of the
totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary involuntary termination." Id. Id. Clear and
convincing evidence has been been defined as testimony testimony by by credible witnesses witnesses who who clearly clearly relate facts
convincing as to that are so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing to enable enable the the trier of fact fact to come to aaclear
conviction without conviction without hesitance of the hesitance of the truth of precise facts truth of facts in in issue. ofJM, issue. In Interest of I. M., 166 166 A.3d 408, A.3d 408,
427 427 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2017) 2017) (citing (citing In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89, 107 A.2d 89, 107 (Pa. (Pa. 2010)). 2010))
This Court found This Court found that that grounds grounds for involuntarily termination for involuntarily of Mother's termination of Mother's parental parental rights rights existed existed
pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$2511(a)(1),(2),(5), to23Pa.C.S.A. 251 l(a)(1), (2), (5), and and ((8) 8) and and §2511(b). $2511(). This This Court will address each
subsection separately subsection separately.
1. This Court I. This Court Properlv Properly Terminated Terminated Mother's Parental Parental Rights Rights Pursuant Pursuant to &2511(a)(1) (u $25LI(a(I of of the Adoption Act the Adoption Act With respect With respect to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$2511(a(), to23Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(1), Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law law provides that the provides that the rights of aaparent rights of parent
may be involuntarily involuntarily terminated after aapetition petition has been filed if: if
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for aaperiod of at least six () months immediately preceding preceding the filing filing of the petition petition either has evidenced aa settled purpose of of relinquishing relinquishing parental parental claim to aachild or has has refused refused or failed failed to to perform perform parental parental duties. 23 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1). $2511(a)0)
Under Under these facts and these facts and circumstances, this Court circumstances, this Court found clear and found clear convincing evidence and convincing evidence that that
Mother Mother demonstrated aasettled purpose purpose of relinquishing relinquishing parental parental claim to to the Children and failed
to to perform perform her duties. The her parental duties. The Children have have been been in in DHS continuously since an DHS care continuously OPC an OPC
was obtamed obtained in in October 2017 2017. The record reflects that M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. has resided with her current
24 foster parent since sine approximately 2018. 2018. M.S.B.-M, M.SB.M. and M.J.B. M.JB. have resided in the same foster
home since December 2021. 2021 S.J.B.-M. S.1B.M. has resided in his current foster home since
September 2022. Mother's failure to perfom perform parental duties since the Children's placement placement was
demonstrated by her failure to fully or substantially comply with her SCP objectives objectives prior prior to the
filing filing of the the petition petition to to terminate terminate her her parental parental rights rights in February February 2022. 2022. At the the September 15, 2022, 2022,
TPR hearing, CUA Case Manager, Mr. Matthews, testified that Mother was minimally minimally compliant compliant
with her SCP objectives, and had made minimal progress progress to alleviate the circumstances which
brought the Children into care. care. Throughout the case, Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives objectives
and her her progress progress towards towards reunification never never advanced beyond beyond moderate. moderate
Mother has an extensive substance use and mental health history. While Mother completed completed a a
drug and alcohol program at at Gaudenzia in March 2022, she has since tested positive for substances
during random CEU drug screens. Mother also did not complete the Gaudenzia drug drug treatment
program until after the filing of the TPR petitions. petitions. While Mr. Matthews testified that in his opinion, opinion,
Mother should be engaged in aadrug and alcohol program, program, the record reflects that Mother is not
currently in any drug and alcohol program. Mother also underwent aapsychological psychological evaluation in
March 2020. Her mental health diagnoses at that time included PTSD, generalized generalized anxiety anxiety
disorder, and major depressive disorder. The testimony reflects that Mother was engaged engaged in group group
therapy at at The Wedge. Wedge. However, Mr. Matthews has not been able to confirm her participation participation or
speak to Mother's therapist due to Mother's refusal to sign sign consents and releases for her mental
health treatment. Similarly, Mr. health treatment. Mr Matthews Matthews has has also also been been unable to to obtain a plan or a treatment plan
progress report report from The Wedge Wedge or any other mental health provider. provider. Thus, it is unclear whether
The Wedge has full picture of Mother's mental health history and whether the group group therapy therapy
program addresses Mother's specific diagnoses. diagnoses. Additionally, Additionally, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that because
of Mother's inconsistent mental health treatment and erratic behaviors, he continued to have
25 concerns regarding Mother's mental stability. stability. Mr. completing aa Mr. Matthews also testified despite completing
concerns due to her persistent irrational parenting and anger management course, he still had concerms
behaviors. behaviors. The testimony also reflects that that Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for the Children
has negatively impacted their mental health and impeded their behavioral and therapeutic services services.
Mother's visits have remained supervised throughout the case and have never been expanded
to unsupervised due to concerns regarding Mother's mental stability stability and ability to keep keep the
Children safe. safe. Since the Children came into care in 2017, Mother has not visited consistently, consistently,
which has caused the Children frustration and disappointment. disappointment. Mother's visits visits initially began began
supervised at the CUA agency. agency. However, due to Mother's aggressive behaviors and outbursts, the
security. Following an incident during a visits were moved to DHS for increased security. avisit at DHS in
June 2022, DHS informed CUA that Mother could no longer longer visit with the Children at DHS due
to safety concerns. concerns. Thus, Mother's visits were changed to virtual for their safety and wellbeing wellbeing.
Since Since the the start of the TPR hearing hearing on September 15, 2022, September I5, 2022, M.S.B.-M. M.J.B. have refused MS.B.-M. and M.J.B.
visits with Mother. Mother M.S.B.-M. MS.B.-M. has exhibited detrimental behavioral issues following visits with
Mother. Mother. M.J.B. indicated that he was fearful of Mother following the June 2022 visit and no longer longer
wished to visit her. M.D.B.-M. and SIB.-M. visit her S.J.B.-M. at times have virtual visits with Mother. Mother However,
the testimony testimony reflects that there is little engagement between Mother and M.DB. M.D.B.-M. -M. and that
Mother often ends the visits early.
Fully complying with her objectives would have demonstrated Mother's interest in caring caring for
the Children. However, prior to the filing of the TPR TPR petitions in February 2022, Mother made
minimal effort to fulfill these objectives. Mother has had more than six years years to complete complete her SCP
objectives and achieve reunification, which is much longer longer than the statute requires. requires. She has has failed
to do so in that time. time. Accordingly, Accordingly, this Court found that termination tenination of Mother's parental rights parental rights
was warranted pursuant pursuant to §2511(a)(1). $2511(a(I)
26 2. Court Properly 2. This Court Properly Terminated Mother's Mother's Parental Rights Rights Pursuant Pursuant to V511(a)(2) to &2511(a¥2) of the Adoption of_the_Adoption Act
When terminating parental rights pursuant to §2511 (a)(2), the moving to &2511(a)(2), moving party party must prove prove by by
clear and convincing evidence: evidence
(2) The The repeated repeated and continued incapacity, incapacity, abuse, neglect neglect or or refusal refusal of the parent has caused the the child to be be without essential parental parental care, control or subsistence necessary necessary for physical or for his physical or mental mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, incapacity, abuse, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not not be be remedied by the remedied by the parent. parent. 23 Pa.CS. 23PA. C.S.A. A. §$2511(a)02) 2511(a)(2).
This ground for termination is not limited to affirmative affinnative misconduct. It may may include acts of
refusal to perform parental duties but focuses more specifically on the needs of the child. child. In re
of CA.MW., Adoption of C.A. W., 683 A.2d 911, 914 A.24911, 914 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super 1996). 2511(a)(2) of the 1996). Section 2511(a(2) the Adoption Adoption Act Aet
focuses on the child's present and future need for essential parental care, control, or subsistence
necessary for their physical or mental well-being. well-being. In h re Adoption of of MJ.H., MAH, 501 A.2d 648, 654
(Pa. Super. Super. 1985). 1985). Even if aaparent demonstrated love for their child or makes efforts to perform perform
their duties, if a a parent's incapacity cannot be remedied, their parental rights rights may may be terminated terminated.
Id. Id
Applying Applying §2511(a)(2) 5$251l(a)2) to to this case, it is clear that DHS met its burden of demonstrating demonstrating that
termination of Mother's parental rights and changing the Children's goals to adoption was proper proper.
The Children were brought into care in October 2017 based on concerns coneems regarding regarding Mother's
substance substance abuse, abuse, mental mental health, health, domestic violence, violence, and and parenting capacity. Mother's parenting capacity. Mother's incapacity incapacity
under under §52511(a@2) 251 l(a)(2) exists in that thatMother failed to demonstrate a a concrete desire or ability ability to remedy remedy
the conditions that led to the Children's placement. Mother has an extensive history history of substance
use and mental health issues. issues. Since completing completing aadrug program at Gaudenzia in 2022, drug and alcohol program
she has tested positive for substances. Mother is not currently engaged in a currently cngaged adrug and alcohol
program despite CUA Case Manager, Mr. Matthews' recommendation for treatment. While
27 Mother enrolled in a agroup therapy session at The Wedge, it is unclear whether she engaged engaged in
individual therapy to address her specific mental health diagnoses. diagnoses. Mr. Mr. Matthews also expressed
that he still had concerns regarding Mother's mental health stability due to her inconsistent
'treatment and aggressive and irrational behaviors. treatment behaviors. CUA also had concerns regarding Mother's concems regarding
mental health treatment at The Wedge due to Mother's refusal to sign sign mental health releases
allowing CUA to obtain Mother's treatment plan and progress report. report. Mother's aggressive aggressive and
threatening behavior continue to be aaconcern despite her completion of anger anger management management and
parenting. As aaresult, Mother's visits remain supervised supervised for the Children's safety safety and have never
progressed further. Due to a a June 2022 incident during a a visit at at DHS that threatened the the safety of
the Children and DHS staff, Mother's visitation has been virtual. virtual. The record reflects that Mother
did not consistently consistently visit throughout throughout the case, often ended the visits early, early, and that some of the
Children refused visits and exhibited behavioral issues after visits with Mother. Mother
Mother's incapacity is also demonstrated by her failure to sign sign the necessary necessary consents and
releases for the Children's treatment. As aa result, the Children experienced experienced lapses in their
behavioral and therapeutic services or have not been able to engage in services at all. M.S.B.-M. M.S.B..M
was previously engaged in CCTC trauma therapy. However, the services stopped because Mother
revoked the consent for her to receive treatment. treatment. As a a result, there was regression in M.S.B.-M.'s
progress and her behavioral issues began began to resurface. resurface. Mother's refusal to sign sign consents has also
negatively affected S.JB. S.J.B.-M.'s .M.'s ability to receive the mental health treatment he needed. S.J.B.-M. needed. S.JB.-M.
has presented at the Crisis Response Center Center (CRC) on three occasions since Mr. Matthews was
assigned the case in March 2022. His behavioral issues include acting out violently, biting, kicking, violently, biting, kicking,
and suicidal ideations. idcations. S.J.B.-M 5.I.B.-M was also forced to leave aa partial stabilization program program
prematurely prematurely because his his behaviors eventually became became too too volatile control. On volatile to control, On multiple multiple
occasions, Mother refused to to sign sign consents for him to to receive treatment because she did not agree not agree
28 with the recommended treatment or medication. medication. Mother's intervention in S.JB.-M's S.J.B.-M.'s mental
health treatment has impeded impeded his ability to receive necessary necessary behavioral health services services.
Additionally, Additionally, Mother Mother refused to sign refused to sign a a consent for for S.J.B.-M.'s S.JB.-M.'s IEP IEP to be implemented, which be implemented, which
caused S.J.B.-M.'s SJ.B.-M's behavioral issues in school to worsen. Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for the
Children to receive treatment continued to to be be an an issue at the September 11, 2023, TPR hearing. September 1l, hearing.
The testimony reflected that M.D.B.-M. M.D.B..M. recently recently required therapeutic services but was placed placed on
a a waiting waiting list because Mother did not sign the necessary necessary consents in time. time. The Children have
complex behavioral and therapeutic needs, which have been impeded by by Mother's refusal to to sign sign
consents for consents for services services to to be implemented. Mother's be implemented. Mother's refusal refusal to to consent consent to therapeutic services to therapeutic services for for
the the Children Children has negatively impacted has also negatively impacted their their mental health. health
This Court found that Mother's failure to fully or substantially comply with her SCP objectives
throughout the case left the Children without the essential parental care, control, and subsistence
necessary necessary for their physical physical or mental well-being, and the cause of such neglect, neglect, refusal, and
continued incapacity incapacity would not be be remedied by by Mother. The Children have been in DHS care since
2017. They have spent over six years years outside of the care and control of Mother Mother. Mother's
compliance with her SCP objectives objectives ranged ranged from moderate to to minimal throughout case. There throughout the case.
has not been sufficient progress made to reunify reunify the Children with Mother. Mother. For these reasons, the
Court found that clear and convincing convincing evidence existed to justify the involuntary of Mother's
parental rights pursuant to §$25 2511(a)(2). 11(a)(2
3. This Court Properly Properly Terminated Mother's Mother's Parental Rights Rights Pursuant Pursuant to &2511(a)(5) to $2511(a(5) and (8) of the Adoption Act and(8of As As the requirements for terminating terminating parental parental rights under §$2511(a)(5) rights under 2511(a)(5) and and (8) (8) are similar, this
Court will will address them them simultaneously. To To terminate parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to §2511(a)(5), 52511(a)(5), the
petitioner petitioner must must prove prove that: that
29 (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent parent by the court court or or under under aavoluntary agreement with voluntary agreement with an agency for an agency for aaperiod period of at at least six months, least six months, thethe conditions which which led to the removal led to removal or placement placement of of the the child continue continue to to exist, the the parent parent cannot or will will not not remedy remedy those conditions within within aareasonable reasonable period period of of time, time, the the services services or assistance reasonably available to assistance reasonably to the parent are not parent are not likely likely to remedy remedy the conditions which led to to the removal or placement placement of the child within aa reasonable period period of time and termination of the thc parental parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare welfare of the child. 23 Pa. the child. C.S.A. §$2511(a)65) Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(5).
DHS, as aachildren and youth agency, is not required to extend services beyond beyond the period of period ot
time time deemed deemed as reasonable by by the legislature. legislature. A A child's life cannot be put child's life put on hold in in hope that that the the
parent parent will will summon summon the ability ability to to handle the responsibilities of parenting. parenting. In J.T.,817 In re JT, 817 A.2d A.2d 505,
509 (Pa. 509 (Pa. Super. 2001). The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Court has recognized recognized that aachild's needs and
welfare require agencies welfare require agencies to work work toward toward termination parental rights termination of parental rights when aachild has has been bcen
placed placed in foster foster [kinship] [kinship] care beyond beyond reasonable temporal limits and after reasonable efforts for
reunification by the reunification by the agency agency have have been been ineffective. ineffective. In Irere NW, X W.,859 859 A.2d A.2d 501, 508 (Pa. 501, 508 Super. 2004). (Pa. Super. 2004)
Tn In order to terminate parental parental rights rights under under §$2511(a)(8), 2511(a)(8), the petitioner petitioner must prove prove that: that
(8) (8) The The child child has has been been removed removed from the parent by the care of the parent by the court or under under aavoluntary voluntary agreement agreement with with an agency, 12 an agency, 2 months months or more have elapsed from the date of of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and and termination of parental rights would parental nights would best best serve the needs needs and welfare welfare of the child. 23 the child. Pa. C.S.A. 23Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(8). $2511(a68)
Unlike §2511(a)(5), 52511(a)(5), termination under §$2511(a(8) 2511(a)(8) does not require require an evaluation of aaparent's parent's
willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially led to placement. In re Adoption placement. See ln
of R.J.S., of R.JS,90I901 A. 2d 2d 502, 511 (Pa. 502, 511 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations Super, 2006) omitted). (citations omitted)
In the instant casc, case, this Court determined that DHS satisfied the requirements of Sections
§251l(a)(5) and 52511(a)65) and ((8). 8). M.DB..M. M.D.B.-M. was born on December December 7, 2011, and is 11 years old. IH years old. S.1.B.-M S.J.B.-M.
was born born on September 6, 2013, and is 10 I0 years years old. M.S.B.-M. MS.B.M. was bom born on June 15, 2015, 2015, and and
30 30 is 8 8 years old. M.J.B. was born on November 11, 2016, 2016. and is 66years years old. old. The The Children have been
in care continuously since an OPC 0PC was obtained on October 17, 1.7, 2017 2017. They They have spent over six
years outside of the care and control of Mother. The record reflects that M.D.B.-M. M.DB.M. has resided
with her current foster parent since approximately approximately 2018. M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. 2018.M.$.B.-M. M.I.B. have resided in the
since December 2021. $.JB.-M. same foster home sice S.J.B.-M. has resided in his current foster home since smce
September 2022. 2022. The conditions that led to the Children's placement placement included Mother's substance
abuse, mental health, housing, housing, parenting parenting capacity, and ability ability to keep keep the Children safe. SCP
objectives were established for Mother to reunify reunify with the Children. Children. Since the Children have been
in placement, Mother has made minimal progress to alleviate the circumstances that brought brought the
Children into care despite attempts by CUA to facilitate reunification. CUA Case Manager, Manager,
Mr. Mr Matthews testified at the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing hearing that throughout throughout the case, Mother
was minimally compliant with her SCP objectives and made minimal progress progress toward
reunification. The Children have reunification. have been been in in foster care for for over six years, years, which which is is an an inordinate inordinate
of time and is much longer amount of longer than the statutory period requires requires for permanency. permanency.
When the TPR hearing began on September 15, 2022, Mr. Matthews expressed concerns
regarding regarding Mother's mental health, substance use, anger anger management, management, and parenting parenting capacity capacity.
When the TPR hearing hearing concluded on September I1,2023, 11, 2023, these concerns concers continued to exist. exist. The
conditions that brought brought the Children into care continue to exist and are not likely to be remedied
within aareasonable time. While Mother engaged in in a a group group therapy therapy program program at The Wedge, Wedge, it is
unclear whether she takes mental health medication or if the program program addressed her specific specific mental
health diagnoses. CUA has also been unable to confim confirm Mother's treatment at The Wedge Wedge or any any
other other mental health provider mental health and has provider and has been been unable unable to to obtain obtain aatreatment treatment plan plan and and progress progress report report
because Mother refused to sign releases for her mental health treatment. treatment. Mother's mental health
stability stability has also been questioned questioned due her threatening threatening and erratic behaviors toward CUA and DHS
31 31 staff, the Children's foster parents, staff, parents, as well as courtroom observation. While Mother completed completed an
anger management course, she continues to anger management to display display aggressive aggressive and erratic behaviors, behaviors, which CUA
attributes to Mother's mental health issues. Mother's mental health has also had a anegative negative impact
on the Children's mental health. Her refusal to sign consents has also negatively negatively impacted their
engagement engagement in in the the necessary necessary therapeutic, therapeutic, behavioral, behavioral, and and educational services. As educational services. As aaresult, result, some
of of the Children have experienced experienced lapses lapses in their services or or have been been unable to to receive receive services
at at all. all.
There There have have also been numerous numerous issues issues and incidents during Mother's incidents during Mother's visits throughout the visits throughout the
case, which continued to exist as recent as Mother's Mother's last in-person visit in June 2022, 2022. Mother's
supervised visits with the Children were moved from CUA to DHS for increased security due to
Mother's behaviors. behaviors. However, following following an incident in June 2022, which M.JB. M.J.B. observed,
Mother's Mother's visits changed to visits changed to virtual virtual for for the the safety of the Children Children and DHS DHS staff. Mother's visitation visitation
never progressed beyond supervised, she was inconsistent with visitation throughout throughout the case, and
the testimony testimony reflects reflects that Mother Mother currently currently ends ends virtual virtual visitation early. Visitation visitation early. Visitation with with Mother Mother
has has also had aadetrimental detrimental impact impact on the the Children, specifically M.S.B.-M. Children, specifically M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. They are M.LB. They are
currently refusing refusing visits. visits. While M.D.B.-M. and S.J.B. While M.D.B.-M, S.J.B. may may visit visit Mother virtually at times, the Mother virtually the
testimony The CUA testimony reflects that there is little engagement, and that the conversation is superficial. 'The
Case Aids also testified that they have not observed a a parent- child bond between the Children and parent-child
Mother during their supervision of Mother's visits throughout the case.
The evidence reflects that while there has been some compliance by Mother to complete complete her
SCP objectives, objectives, there has not been enough enough progress to enable reunification of the Children with
Mother. Mother. Mother Mother has has failed failed to to complete her her SCP SCP objectives to alleviate the the need for for placement. placement. As
aaresult, result, Mother Mother will will not remedy remedy the conditions that that led to to the placement within aa the Children's placement
reasonable time. time. The Children deserve permanency and should not wait indefinitely. Moreover,
32 the evidence the evidence clearly clearly established established that termination would that termination would best best serve the needs serve the needs and and welfare welfare of of the the
Children. The Children. The Children Children are are well-adjusted, well-adjusted, happy, happy, and thriving in and thriving their respective in their respective foster foster homes. homes
They are bonded They are bonded to to their their foster foster parents parents who they look who they look to to for for safety and stability. safety and stability. They They look to their look to their
foster parents parents to meet their basic needs as well as their emotional, therapeutic, therapeutic, and educational
needs. Thus, this needs. Thus, Court properly this Count terminated Mother's properly terminated Mother's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to both both §$25114a)(5) 2511(a)(5)
and (8). and (8)
B. The Trial€ourtProperl Trial Court Properly Found that it Would would be in the Best Interest of the the_Best_interest_of Children to the_Children Ferminate the Terminate the Parental Parental Rights of Mother Rights of Mother Pursuant to $2511(b! Pursuant to 42511(b) 4
Having found that the statutory Having statutory grounds grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights rights have been
satisfied pursuant pursuant to 23 Pa. to23 C.S.A. §2511(a), Pa.CS.A. 52511(a), this Court further found that termination of Mother's
parental parental rights serves the rights serves best interests the best interests of of the Children pursuant the Children pursuant to § 2511(b). 5 1o $25114b).
Under Under §2511 (b), the $2541(b), the party seeking termination party seeking of parental termination of parental rights rights must prove by must prove by clear clear and and
convincing evidence that convincing that termination termination is is in in the best best interest interest of the child. In re Bowman, 436 Pa. the child. Pa.
Super. Super 647 A.2d 217, 218 ((1994). A.2d217,218 1994). In determining determining the best interest of the child, courts must consider
both the needs both the and welfare needs and of the welfare of the child child such such as as love, comfort, security, love, comfort, security, and and stability. stability. Id. See also Id. See also
In re Adoption of of'TT.B., 835 A.2d TT.BR835 387, 397 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. (Pa. 2003). Furthermore, Super 200.3). Furthermore, the parent-child parent-child
relationship relationship is examined in is examined order to in order to determine determine what what effect effect the the potential termination would potential termination would have on have on
child. In the child. Irere K.Z.S., K.ZS,946946 A.2d A.2d4 753, 760 (Pa. 753,760 (Pa. Super. Super. 2008). 2008). Typically, examining the nature Typically, when examining nature
of the parent-child parent-child relationship, courts must consider whether there is aanatural bond between the
4 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(b). Other considerations.The 23a.CS.A.$2511(b). considerations.--The court in in terminating the rights nights of aaparent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical physical and emotional emotional needs and welfare of the the child. child The rights tights of aaparent shall not be be terminated solely solely on on the basis of of environmental factors such as inadequate inadequate housing, housing, furnishings, furnishings, income, income, clothing and medical medical care if if found to be be beyond beyond the the control of of the the parent. parent. With respect to any petition With respect petition filed pursuant pursuant to subsection subsection (a)(1), (a(I), ((6) 6) or or (8), (8), the court shall not not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy remedy the conditions described therein which are arc first initiated subsequent to the giving of of notice of the filing of the petition petition. sSee Inre 'See reLM, L.M., 923 923 A.2d 505,511 505, 511 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2007) ("Only if the court determines that the parent's 200)(Only parent's conduct warrants termination termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second of the analysis pursuantpursuant to Section 2511(b)"). 2511())
33 )) child and parent, parent, and if termination of parental parental rights would sever "an existing, necessary, and
beneficial relationship." relationship." Id. [d. At 761. 761 In assessing the parental parental bond, the trial court is permitted permitted to
rely upon rely upon the observations and evaluations of social workers. workers. In cases where there is no evidence
of aabond between a a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. exists. Id. Id. at 762-63 762-63.
Section 2511(b) 2511(b) of the Adoption Adoption Act contains evidentiary limitations. The last sentence sets
forth an exclusion clause which states, "With respect respect to any petition petition filed pursuant to subsection
(a)(1), (6) (a(I), (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." In In Irere D. W., the D.., thc Court held that this exclusion clause within 52511(b) §2511(b) barred the trial
court from considering mother's post-petition conduct. In re D.W., DW 856 A.2d 1231, 1234 1234 (Pa. (Pa
Super. Super. 2004). Based on the evidentiary limitations set out in § 251 l(b), this Court is not obligated 5$2511(b),
to consider any efforts made by Mother to remedy the conditions that led to the Children's
placement that were first initiated after Mother was given notice that the petition petition to terminate her
parental parental rights rights had had been been filed. filed.
Based on the evidence, this Count Court determined that the Children would not suffer any irreparable
harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated. They have been in DHS care continuously since
2017. M.D.B.-M. October 2017. M.DB.M. has resided with her foster parent since approximately 2018 2018.
M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. M.J.B. have resided in the same foster home smce since December 2021. $.JB.-M. S.J.B.-M. has
resided resided in in his his current foster home home since since September 2022. 2022. The currently eleven, ten, [he Children are currently ten,
eight, and six eight, six years years old and have spent spent over six years years outside outside of the Mother. the care and control of Mother
There l here was compelling testimony presented at the TPR IPR hearing that while the Children know that
J.M. is their biological Mother, they do not share aapositive parent- J.M. child bond with her. parent-child her. The
Children's behavioral issues are escalated following visits or contact with Mother. Mother. Mother has not
consistently visited the Children throughout the case, which has caused them disappointment and
34 frustration. The frustration. The Children do not not look look forward forward to visiting with to visiting with Mother, Mother, are not not sad when visits end,
and never ask about Mother or express a a desire to see her. her. Mother's visits with the Children
continue to be supervised supervised and have never been unsupervised unsupervised due to concerns that Mother is unable
to keep safe. Additionally, keep them safe. Additionally, Ms. Paller testified that during her conversations with the Children
about permanency, permanency, the Children understood the meaning of adoption, and did not express any
concerns concems regarding the severance of visitation with Mother. Mother
In In determining determining the best interest of the child, this Court must consider both both the needs and
comfort. The Children do not look to Mother welfare of the child such as love, support, care, and comfort.
to meet these needs. needs. Instead, the Children look to their respective respective foster parents parents to to provide provide them
with love, support, comfort. They also look to their foster parents to meet their basic support, care, and comfort.
needs as well as for safety safety and stability. stability. The foster parents, parents, not Mother, have attended to the
Children's emotional and educational needs needs throughout the case. case The Children are happy
and well-adjusted well-adjusted in their respective respective foster homes. homes. Their respective respective homes are pre-adoptive pre-adoptive
placements placements for for the Children. When When Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews spoke to the the Children about about penmanency, permanency, they they
all expressed aadesire to remain in their respective foster homes permanently. Additionally, the
Children's foster parents parents ensure cnsure that sibling visits occur so that they they can maintain aarelationship relationship
despite residing residing in different homes. homes. For these reasons, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that it would be in
the Children's best interest for Mother's parental rights to be terminated so that the Children can
be he freed for adoption. freed for adoption
Social Worker, Roya Roya Paller, Puller, corroborated Mr. Mr Matthews' testimony. testimony. She spoke to the Children
about permanency permancney in March 2023 and September 2023. When she spoke to M.DB.-M. M.D.B.-M. in
March 2023, she observed that M.D.B.-M. was bonded with her foster parent and that that the foster
parent provided provided for all her needs. She testified that M.D.B.-M. understood the meaning of adoption
and was clear that she wished to to be adopted adopted by her foster parent. When Ms. Paller spoke to
35 M.D.B.-M. about permanency M.D.B.-M. about permanency again again in September September 2023, M.D.B.-M. maintained maintained her her position position that that
she wished to be adopted adopted and expressed frustration that adoption adoption had not occurred.
M.S.B.-M. MS.B..M, and M.J.B. M.LB. reside in the same foster home. Ms. Ms, Paller Puller also spoke to them about
permanency permanency in in March March 2023. She testified that that they they understood understood the the meaning meaning of adoption adoption and wished
to to be be adopted adopted by by their their foster foster parent. parent. Ms. Ms. Palter Paller testified that that M.S.B.-M. M.J.B. were M.$.B.-M. and M.1.B. were bonded bonded
to to their foster foster parent, parent, were were happy happy in in the the home, home, and looked looked to the the foster parent to foster parent to meet meet their their basic basic
needs. needs, When When Ms. Ms. Paller most most spoke to to them them about about permanency permanency again again in in September they September 2023, they
stated that they they did not want to visit Mother and expressed expressed frustration regarding length of the regarding the length
adoption adoption process. process
S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral issues $JB.-M.'s issues have have impacted impacted his prior prior placements. placements, However, However, since
September 2022, he he has has resided in aastable stable placement where he he is is thriving thriving and receiving receiving the care
and attention he needs. needs. When Ms. Paller spoke spoke to S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M, about permanency permanency in March 2023, he
understood the meaning meaning of adoption, adoption, and expressed expressed that he wished to be adopted adopted and remain in his
foster home. home. Ms. Mg. Paller Puller further testified that S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M, experienced trauma and disappointment due
to Mother's inconsistent visitation and he expressed expressed that he had no wishes regarding regarding future contact
with with Mother. Mother.
Clear convincing evidence has been Clear and convincing been presented presented to establish that that there would would be be no no
irreparable harm caused to the Children if this Court terminated Mother's parental rights. rights. The The
Children Children have have been in care for over six years. They six years. They deserve permanency permanency and and should not not wait
indefinitely. indefinitely. For For these these reasons, this Court reasons, this Court properly property found found that it would that it be in would be in the the best interests of best interests of
the the Children Children to grant DHS's to grant petition to DHS's petition terminate the to terminate the parental of Mother parental rights of Mother pursuant to pursuant to
§2511(b) and for the Children's permanency $25114b) permanency goals goals to be changed adoption. changed to adoption.
36 36 The Trial Curt C. Te Court Properlv that DHS/CUA Properly Found that DIHS/CUA made made Reasonable Reasonable Efforts Reunifv Efforts to Reunify the the Children with with Mother
Mother Mother alleged in her Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal that this Court
erred erred in finding finding that DHS/CUA made reasonable efforts to reunify reunify the Children with Mother. This
disagrees. Court disagrees
Testimony Testimony regarding regarding reasonable efforts was elicited at each hearing prior to the TPR IPR hearing
that began September 15, began on September 15, 2022. 2022. At each hearing, hearing, the Court made findings findings regarding regarding the
reasonable efforts made to provide services to help Mother remedy the conditions that brought the
Children into DHS care and to facilitate reunification with Mother. The Court found that
DHS/CUA DHS/CUA made made reasonable reasonable efforts to place place the the Children Children with with kin kin and to to reunify reunify the Children with with
Mother. Mother, The court orders from prior listings consistently reflect that reasonable efforts were made
to finalize the permanency plan. permanency plan
At At the the TPR TPR hearings September 15, hearings on September 15, 2022, January January 5, 2023, and September September 11, 1H, 2023, 2023, the
Court heard testimony testimony regarding Mother's Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives, progress toward
alleviating the circumstances that brought the Children into care, as well as reasonable efforts. At
the hearings, this the TPR hearings, this Court heard heard testimony from from the Manager assigned the CUA Case Manager to Mother's assigned to Mother's
supervised Mother's visits, as well as the CUA Director of Case case, the CUA Case Aids who supervised
Management. Management. They were directly involved in providing services and referrals to facilitate
reunification reunification with with Mother. Mother. CUA CUA Case Case Management Management Director, Director, Ms. Ms. Gaines, also testified testified at the
September 15, 2022, TPR IPR hearing that Permanency Specialists were assigned to assist Mother in
achieving achieving reunification with the Children. Children. Referrals were made throughout throughout the case for various
programs such as drug and alcohol, mental health, and the Achieving Reunification Center Center (ARC) (ARC
for appropriate reunification services. services. CUA CUA also field held numerous SCP SCP meetings throughout the case
to discuss the objectives tthat hat Mother needed to complete to reunify with the Children. Mother's
37 SCP objectives remained SCP objectives remained the the same, same, and and Mother Mother attended attended the SCP meetings meetings inconsistently. inconsistently. CUA
has has offered Mother Mother assistance throughout throughout the case, but Mother Mother has has been been resistant resistant to complying
with CUA CUA.
It lt is is apparent apparent to to this Court Court that although referrals that although referrals and services were were provided provided to to assist Mother
in n achieving achieving reunification with the Children, Mother has failed to take advantage of these services services.
The evidence reflected that although although Mother Mother completed some some of her SCP objectives, progress has
not been made to enable reunification with Mother. Mother Mother's Mother s assertion that this Court erred in m
finding finding that reasonable efforts were made to to facilitate reunification is meritless. meritless
VI. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court respectfully respectfully requests that the Order dated September September 11. 1 2023, 2023
Terminating Terminating Mother's Parental Rights Rights and changing the Children's permanency permanency goals to adoption
be AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED
BY COURT: BY THE COURT
Cateria R. R, McCabe, McCabe. Judge
38 CERTIFICATE (ERIf€ATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify hereby certify that aatrue and correct copy of the foregoing OPINION OPINION has been filed and
served upon the following parties, as set forth below: below
PACFILE PACILE
Guardian Ad Ad Litem: I item Claire Leotta, Esquire Esquire 3331 Galford Guilford Street Philadelphia, PA 19136
Child Advocate: Advocate: William A. A. Calandra, Esquire 1615 I615 Jackson Street Philadelphia, PA 19145
Counsel for Mother: Mother; Jeffrey C. Bruch, Esquire Esquire 1515 Market St., Suite 1200 Market St.. Philadelphia, PA 19102
Trial Counsel for DHS: Luisa Garcia, Esquire Law Department, Department, Child Welfare Welfare Unit 1515 15I5 Arch Street, 16` I6h Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102
Appellate Appellate Counsel for DHS: Dis: Appellate Appellate Counsel for DHS: DHs: Kathleen Kathleen Bola Kim, Kim, Esquire Esquire Robert D. D. Aversa, Esquire Law L.aw Department, Department, Child Citd Welfare Unit Law Department, Department, Child Welfare Unit 1515 Arch Street, 16`' 16 Floor 1515 15I5 Arch Street, 16' I6"h Floor Foor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, PA 19102
a• ,
• e is R. McCabe, Judge
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Int. of: M.B.-M., Appeal of: J.M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-int-of-mb-m-appeal-of-jm-pasuperct-2024.