In the Int. of: R.J.B., Appeal of: A.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Int. of: R.J.B., Appeal of: A.B.

DecidedDecember 28, 2022

Docket1840 EDA 2022

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Int. of: R.J.B., Appeal of: A.B. (In the Int. of: R.J.B., Appeal of: A.B.) 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.

Bluebook

In the Int. of: R.J.B., Appeal of: A.B., (Pa. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S33017-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.J.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: A.B., MOTHER : No. 1840 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered July 14, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000155-2022

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2022

Appellant, A.B. (“Mother”) appeals from the decree entered in the

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of the

Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for the involuntary

termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor child, R.J.B. (“Child”). We

affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. On

February 10, 2020, when Child was two years old, DHS received a report

alleging that Mother struck Child, showed signs of severe depression and

mental instability and did not have family support. On March 7, 2020, DHS

received a second report regarding Mother from Thomas Jefferson Hospital

after the birth of her second child. The hospital staff reported observing

Mother speak very harshly to Child, cursing and yelling at Child, and being J-S33017-22

unresponsive to the newborn baby’s needs.

As a result, the Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”) began providing

in-home services for Mother on March 25, 2020. At the time, Mother resided

at a shelter where she was observed striking Child, calling Child names and

refusing to provide basic care for Child. Staff at the shelter noted that Mother

would often refuse to allow Child entry into their room and leave Child alone

in the hallway. CUA attempted to implement a safety plan which included

services for mental health, parenting, employment, and housing. However,

Mother was largely unresponsive to CUA’s intervention efforts, often physically

turning her back to CUA staff and refusing to engage with them. Mother was

also largely uncooperative with CUA’s efforts to provide services for Child who

appeared to be developmentally behind. Additionally, CUA staff noted that

Mother was unable to appropriately redirect Child, often screaming and

cursing at her.

Mother obtained transitional housing through the Philadelphia Housing

Authority (“PHA”). After CUA staff observed Mother strike Child and curse at

her, DHS filed a petition to adjudicate Child dependent. The trial court

adjudicated Child dependent on June 16, 2020, and ordered DHS to supervise

the family. The court further ordered Mother to seek mental health treatment,

participate in anger management classes, obtain housing, obtain employment

and ensure that Child’s needs were met. After an incident where Mother

refused to allow CUA staff to enter her home while Child was screaming and

-2- J-S33017-22

crying, CUA obtained an order of protective custody on August 6, 2020.

Pursuant to the order, Child was removed from Mother’s care and placed in

foster care. At various permanency review hearings, the trial court further

ordered Mother to undergo a parenting capacity evaluation, a behavioral

health services evaluation, and to follow all recommendations.

On March 8, 2022, DHS filed a petition seeking to involuntarily terminate

Mother’s parental rights to Child. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing

on July 14, 2022. Erica Butler, a CUA supervisor, testified to the factual

history stated above. Ms. Butler further testified that Mother did not

adequately comply with court ordered requirements prior to the termination

hearing. Mother did not undergo a parenting capacity evaluation. Mother did

attend a behavioral health services evaluation but did not comply with the

recommendation that she participate in cognitive behavior therapy and mood

regulation therapy. Although Mother participated in an anger management

program and parenting classes, Mother continued to exhibit inappropriate

behavior to Child and CUA staff. During supervised visits with Child, Mother

was unable to properly redirect Child and continued to berate her, often yelling

and cursing at Child. When CUA staff attempted to redirect Mother, Mother

would become “explosive.”

Additionally, Ms. Butler testified that Mother failed to cooperate with

PHA to acquire permanent housing. At the time of the hearing, Mother was in

the process of being evicted from her transitional housing. Ms. Butler stated

-3- J-S33017-22

that she attempted to coordinate several meetings with Mother and PHA staff

to assist Mother in securing appropriate housing but Mother refused to

cooperate. Additionally, PHA staff sent Mother monthly emails of housing

leads but Mother refused to meet with PHA staff or follow-up on the housing

leads. When Ms. Butler inquired about Mother’s housing needs, Mother stated

that it was CUA’s job to find her housing. Additionally, Ms. Butler testified

that Mother provided one or two paystubs throughout the pendency of the

case as proof of employment but one of the paystubs appeared to be

fraudulent. Therefore, Ms. Butler was unable to verify if Mother was

employed.

Mother has attended between forty to fifty percent of her supervised

visits with Child. Mother has never progressed past supervised visitation and

many of the same issues persist in Mother’s ability to parent Child. Ms. Butler

testified that Child’s relationship with Mother seems very diminished and

detached. During visits, Mother does Child’s hair and there is little to no

communication between them. Child becomes devoid of personality and

completely closes up when she is around Mother. Additionally, Child has

physical reactions, such as nightmares and wetting the bed, after her visits

with Mother.

Child has been in her current foster home since May 21, 2021. Child’s

foster family provides a loving, safe, stable environment for Child and Child is

flourishing. Child is taking dance lessons and enjoying the role of being a

-4- J-S33017-22

sibling to the foster family’s new baby. Child’s primary parent-child bond is

with her foster mother. Child calls her foster mother “mom” while she refers

to Mother by her name. Additionally, when Ms. Butler first tried to speak to

Child about the prospect of returning to live with Mother, Child began

screaming and crying. Whenever Ms. Butler brings up the conversation, Child

becomes visibly upset and clearly stated that she does not wish to leave her

foster mother.

Mother chose to participate in the termination hearing via phone.

Partway through Ms. Butler’s testimony, Mother disconnected herself from

participating in the hearing and did not return or provide testimony. At the

conclusion of the evidence, the trial court involuntarily terminated Mother’s

parental rights to Child on July 14, 2022.1 On July 18, 2022, Mother filed a

timely notice of appeal and a contemporaneous concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).

Mother raises the following issues for our review:

Whether the trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of Mother, A.B. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. section 2511(a)(1) where Mother presented evidence that she tried to perform her parental duties.

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