In the Int. of: R.D., Appeal of: J.D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Int. of: R.D., Appeal of: J.D.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 18, 2026·No. 1661 EDA 2025·Published·Nichols

Opinion

2026 PA Super 128

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.D., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA :

:

APPEAL OF: J.D., MOTHER :

:

: No. 1661 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered June 2, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000035-2022

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.D., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA :

:

APPEAL OF: J.D., MOTHER :

:

: No. 1662 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered June 2, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000469-2023

BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J. OPINION BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED JUNE 18, 2026 Appellant J.D. (Mother) appeals from the order changing the dependency goal for R.D. (Child) to adoption and the decree terminating her parental rights to Child.1 We affirm the goal change order, vacate the termination decree, and remand with instructions.

1 R.D. is also identified in the caption of the adoption docket as “Baby Girl [D.]” See Docket No. 469-2023, Trial Ct. Order, 6/2/25.

By way of background, Child was born in January of 2022 and tested positive for cocaine at birth. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/15/25, at 2. Shortly after her birth, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) obtained an order of protective custody and placed Child in the care of S.W. (Foster Mother), where Child presently remains in placement. See id.; see also N.T., 6/2/25, at 4. Child was adjudicated dependent on February 8, 2022. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/15/25, at 2. Over the following two years and nine months, the trial court held eight permanency review hearings in Child’s case. See id. at 3-6. The trial court appointed Neal M. Masciantonio, Esq., as guardian ad litem (GAL) for Child on January 14, 2022, and then subsequently appointed James J. DeMarco, Esq., as GAL for Child on June 7, 2022. Attorney DeMarco appeared as GAL for Child for the remainder of Child’s dependency proceedings. See, e.g., Dependency Ct. Order, 7/12/22; Dependency Ct. Order, 4/15/22.

At a permanency review hearing on November 12, 2024, the trial court found that Child was “developmentally on target” and “doing well.” Dependency Ct. Order, 11/12/24, at 2. The trial court made similar findings in prior permanency review orders. See Dependency Ct. Order, 7/2/24, at 1; Dependency Ct. Order, 3/7/23, at 1.

On November 14, 2024, DHS filed a petition for involuntary termination of parental rights (TPR) to Child. The trial court heard the petition on June 2, 2025. Mother was not present at the TPR hearing. See N.T., 6/2/25, at 4-5. However, Mother’s counsel, Lawrence J. O’Connor, Esq., was present and

conceded that “reasonable efforts were probably made” to serve Mother with notice of the hearing. Id. at 5. Also present was Attorney DeMarco, who was identified as “Child Advocate” in the transcript. Id. at 2. At the TPR hearing, DHS presented the testimony of Dr. Jennifer Cole-Pucci, a clinical and forensic psychologist; Javon Taltoan, a Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) case manager; and Jasmine Brown, a visitation coach.

Dr. Cole-Pucci was qualified as an expert in forensic psychology, as well as in parenting capacity and bonding evaluation. See id. at 7. Dr. Cole-Pucci testified that she performed a parenting capacity evaluation of Mother on July 12, 2024 and a bonding evaluation of Mother and Child on July 25, 2024. See id. at 8-9. Child was two and a half years old at the time of these evaluations. Dr. Cole-Pucci testified that during the bonding evaluation Child wanted to play with toys rather than remain seated in Mother’s lap but Mother did not notice Child’s “cues” or “desire for independent play.” Id. at 22-23. Dr. Cole- Pucci noted that as a result Child got frustrated, stomped her feet, and began “whining in protest.” Id. Dr. Cole-Pucci opined that while there was a bond between Mother and Child, it was not a strong bond and that Child sought Mother for comfort but was also frustrated with Mother. Id. at 29; see also id. at 37 (reiterating that Child became frustrated with Mother during the bonding evaluation interaction).

Dr. Cole-Pucci’s bonding evaluation report reflects that, at the time of the evaluation, Child could say words such as “ball” and “bye bye,” sing the alphabet song, answer questions such as “‘what color is this?’” and understand

when told to wait before taking an action. DHS Ex. 7, Bonding Eval., 9/7/24, at 8-10 (unpaginated and some formatting altered).

Ms. Taltoan testified that she had been Child’s case manager for the past one and a half years and, during this period, observed Child with Foster Mother about once a month, a total of approximately fifteen observations. N.T., 6/2/25, at 41-42, 63, 66. She also observed Child with Mother a “few times.” Id. at 62. Comparing Child’s bond with Mother to Child’s bond with Foster Mother, Ms. Taltoan testified that Child responds to Mother in a “disconnected” way, similar to how Child responds to Ms. Taltoan. Id. Conversely, Ms. Taltoan noted that Child is affectionate with Foster Mother and that Child typically seeks out Foster Mother for her needs. Id. Further, Ms. Taltoan testified that Child refers to Foster Mother as “mom” but does not “really call [Mother] anything.” Id. at 64, 66-67. Ms. Taltoan described Child as “doing really well in [Foster Mother’s] home” and explained that Child was already reading and was “so happy” in the home. Id. at 65.2 Ms. Taltoan also testified that she had notified Mother of the TPR hearing date in person after the previous court date. Id. at 44-45.

Ms. Brown testified that she had served as the visitation coach for Child and Mother since May of 2023. Id. at 74. Ms. Brown stated that, during the

2 We note that Ms. Taltoan testified that Child was four years old. See N.T., 6/2/25, at 65. However, the record reflects that Child was in fact aged three and half years at the time of the TPR hearing. See Termination Petition, 11/14/24, Ex. A (Child’s birth certificate).

visits, Child never said “I miss you” to Mother and that Child typically led the visits by choosing the toys and activities. Id. at 75. Ms. Brown testified that Child did not show any signs of a bond with Mother, that Mother’s presence in the room did not affect Child, and that Child would be happy in the visitation room with only the toys and Ms. Brown. Id. at 76-77.

At closing arguments, Attorney DeMarco argued for the termination of Mother’s parental rights in part because Child had been with Foster Mother for years, had bonded with Foster Mother, referred to Foster Mother as her “mother,” and was being well cared for by Foster Mother. Id. at 79. At the conclusion of the TPR hearing, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights and to change Child’s dependency goal to adoption. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/15/25, at 1; see also N.T., 6/2/25, at 79. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and a concurrent concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. 3 On appeal, Mother raises the following claims:

1. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Mother pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. [§] 2511(a)(1) without clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s intent to relinquish her parental claim or refusal to perform her parental duties.

2. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Mother pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. [§] 2511(a)(2) without clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s present incapacity to perform parental duties.

3 Mother filed two separate notices of appeal, one in the dependency case and

one in the adoption case. This Court consolidated the appeals on July 31, 2025. See Order, 7/31/25.

3. Whether the trial court erred by terminating the parental rights of Mother pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. [§§] 2511(a)(5) and (8)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI