J-S63017-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: S.D.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M. H., GRANDMOTHER : : : : : No. 1302 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered April 24, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000693-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED DECEMBER 31, 2019
M.H. (Maternal Grandmother) appeals from the order denying her
petition to adopt her minor granddaughter, S.D.R. (born September 2012)
(Child), pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101–2910. After careful
review, we affirm.
We adopt the following statement of the history of the matter,
summarized from the trial court opinion and the record. See Trial Court
Opinion, 8/29/19, at 1-5. Child was born in September 2012 to K.R. (Mother).
See N.T., 4/10/19, at 12. Until November 30, 2014, Child resided in Atlanta,
Georgia, with Mother. Id. On that date, Maternal Grandmother, upon
learning that Mother had been arrested on retail theft charges, transported
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S63017-19
Child to Philadelphia. Id. at 12-13. Maternal Grandmother also had custody
of Child’s brother, S.R., born October 2006. Id. at 13.
On December 3, 2014, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services
(DHS) received a general protective services (GPS) report alleging that Mother
had left Child alone in a motel room with two other minor children after being
arrested for theft. Id. at 13-14. The report further averred that Maternal
Grandmother had retrieved Child from Georgia and brought her to
Philadelphia. Id. During a subsequent investigation, DHS caseworker
Jennifer Sewell learned that Mother had reported Child missing and kidnapped.
Id. at 13-14.
On January 9, 2015, DHS removed Child from Maternal Grandmother’s
custody and placed her in foster care. Id. A shelter care hearing was held
January 13, 2015, and supervised visitation was ordered for Mother and
Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 14-15. DHS filed a dependency petition as to
Child, and Child was adjudicated dependent on January 22, 2015. Id. at 15.
During Child’s commitment, Maternal Grandmother attended supervised
visitation weekly from February 2015 through September 2016. Id. at 15-
16. Maternal Grandmother attended forty-one visits with Child. Id. at 16.
Child’s brother accompanied Maternal Grandmother to fifteen visits. Id. at
16-17.
In August 2015, Child was removed from her foster home due to reports
of physical abuse by her foster parent and placed in a respite foster home.
Id. at 17. In February 2016, Child was removed from her respite foster home
-2- J-S63017-19
after her foster mother was unable to continue caring for her. Id. Child was
removed from her third foster home in October 2017 after her foster mother
lost her housing and foster family members who were caring for her refused
to provide the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) with information to run
criminal and Childline clearances. Id. at 17-18. Again, Child was placed in a
respite foster home. Id. at 18. In February 2018, Child was removed from
that foster home after her foster mother became ill, and was placed with M.A.
(Foster Mother). Id.
Throughout the pendency of this case, the trial court held permanency
review hearings. During the August 4, 2016 hearing, Turning Points for
Children CUA manager James Wirt testified that CUA completed a family
profile in August 2015. Id. at 19. Maternal Grandmother was identified as
an interested relative, but ruled out as a permanency resource. Id. at 19.
On August 4, 2016, DHS filed a petition seeking to involuntarily
terminate Mother’s parental rights. On September 8, 2016, Mother’s parental
rights were terminated.1
With regard to Child’s living situation, in addition to Child, Foster
Mother’s three biological children and another foster child reside in the home.
Id. at 11-14. Shortly after Child’s placement, Foster Mother agreed to be an
adoptive resource for Child, and A Second Chance, Inc., recommended that
Foster Mother be approved as an adoptive parent. Id. at 17-18. In October ____________________________________________
1Mother appealed the termination, and this Court affirmed. See In Interest of S.D.R., 179 A.3d 580 (Pa. Super. 2017) (unpublished memorandum).
-3- J-S63017-19
2018, DHS approved Foster Mother as an adoptive resource and consented to
Child’s adoption by Foster Mother. Id. at 18-19.
Child, who is seven years old, has special needs. Id. at 19-20. She has
been diagnosed with developmental delays. Id. Child receives speech
therapy and special instruction through Elywn Seeds. Id. at 19. Child was
enrolled in kindergarten in the Philadelphia School District in 2018-2019, and
struggles academically. Id. at 20. She cannot remember her birthday, the
alphabet and numbers, and cannot spell or write her name. Id. Foster Mother
is Child’s educational decision maker and requested an individualized
education plan (IEP) for Child. Id. As a result, Child is in a blended
educational program with placement in a partial life skills classroom with
learning support in all core subjects, as well as speech and language therapy.
Id. at 21. Child also was referred for mental health services. Id. Additionally,
Child suffers from severe asthma and requires an inhaler up to three times a
day, as well as oral medication. Id.
Maternal Grandmother resides in Philadelphia, in a two-story, three-
bedroom home with Child’s brother. Id. at 19. The home is well furnished,
clean, and appropriate for Child. Id.
On December 2, 2016, Maternal Grandmother filed a petition seeking to
adopt Child. Foster Mother filed a petition seeking to adopt Child on November
9, 2018. The court convened a hearing on the petitions on April 10, 2019.
Child was represented by Marni Gangel, Esquire, as legal counsel and guardian
ad litem. Maternal Grandmother, who is hearing impaired, testified on her
-4- J-S63017-19
own behalf with the assistance of an American Sign Language (ASL)
interpreter. Attorney Gangel presented the testimony of Jennifer Sewell, DHS
investigative worker, and Dawn Potalivo, Turning Points for Children case
manager. Foster Mother testified on her own behalf and presented the
testimony of Angela Cordova, a social worker who completed the family profile
for Foster Mother.
At the conclusion of testimony, the court held the matter under
advisement. On April 24, 2019, the court granted Foster Mother’s adoption
petition and denied Maternal Grandmother’s petition.
On April 29, 2019, Maternal Grandmother pro se filed a timely notice of
appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a)(2)(i) and (b).2 Maternal Grandmother’s counsel filed an amended
notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of on appeal on her behalf
on May 19, 2019.
Maternal Grandmother raises the following issues:
1[.] The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by entering an order on April 24, 2019[,] denying the Adoption [Petition] filed by [Maternal] Grandmother, M.H. More specifically, the trial court abused its discretion as substantial, sufficient, and credible
2 While hybrid representation is generally not permitted on appeal, this Court is required to docket a pro se notice of appeal “even in instances where the pro se appellant was represented by counsel in the trial court.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 623 (Pa. Super. 2016) (emphasis and internal brackets omitted) (citation omitted). Maternal Grandmother’s counsel has submitted all subsequent filings.
-5- J-S63017-19
evidence was presented at the time of trial which would have substantiated granting the Petition for Adoption.
2[.] The trial court erred and/or abused its discretion by denying the Adoption [Petition] filed by [Maternal] Grandmother, M.H., where [Maternal] Grandmother presented evidence showing that it was in the best interest of [C]hild to be adopted by [Maternal Grandmother,] who has custody of [Child’s] brother.
Maternal Grandmother’s Brief at 7.3
We initially note that Maternal Grandmother cites no legal authority,
either statutory or case law, to support her arguments. Accordingly, she risks
waiver. See, e.g., Thomas v. Thomas, 194 A.3d 220, 229 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(noting that appellant must support each issue raised by discussion and
analysis of pertinent authority; failure to do so hampers this Court’s review
and risks waiver). Even if Maternal Grandmother did not waive her
arguments, however, we would find them to be meritless.
With regard to adoption, we review the trial court’s determinations for
an abuse of discretion. In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa. Super. 2016).
This Court has stated:
[a]n abuse of discretion does not exist merely because a reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion. Appellate courts will find a trial court abuses its discretion if, in reaching a conclusion, it overrides or misapplies the law, or the record shows that the trial court’s judgment was either manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.
3 Maternal Grandmother also argues that Child should never have been removed from her custody without Maternal Grandmother being allowed to present evidence on her behalf; however, Maternal Grandmother did not appeal the January 22, 2015 adjudication of dependency, and cannot challenge the adjudication in this appeal.
-6- J-S63017-19
Id. While we are not bound by findings of fact unsupported by the record or
the court’s inferences drawn from the facts, we defer to the findings of the
trial judge with regard to credibility and weight of the evidence. In re
Adoption of A.S.H., 674 A.2d 698, 700 (Pa. Super. 1996)
In adoption matters, the paramount concern is the best interests of the
child. K.D., 144 A.3d at 151. “This ‘best interests’ determination is made on
a case-by-case basis, and requires the weighing of all factors which bear upon
a child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.” A.S.H., 674
A.2d at 700 (citations omitted); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 2902(a). Once parental
rights have been terminated:
anyone may become an adoptive parent, and the best interest of the child is the controlling factor by which a court must be guided. Furthermore, a trial court must base its conclusions in an adoption case upon all relevant information discerned with the full participation of all interested parties.
In re Adoption of D.M.H., 682 A.2d 315, 319 (Pa. Super. 1996).
We address Maternal Grandmother’s two issues together because they
are interrelated. Maternal Grandmother argues that the court erred when it
denied her petition because there was substantial, sufficient, and credible
evidence presented to support her assertion that it was in Child’s best interests
to be adopted by Maternal Grandmother. See Maternal Grandmother’s Brief
at 12. Maternal Grandmother emphasizes that Child had lived with Maternal
Grandmother and Child’s brother; that notes from their visits show a strong
and loving parental bond between Maternal Grandmother and Child; and that
Child should never have been removed from Maternal Grandmother’s custody.
-7- J-S63017-19
Id. at 12-13. Further, Maternal Grandmother argues that the accusations of
her kidnapping Child were “made up”; that her home was evaluated and found
to be appropriate; that she has sufficient income to care for Child; that her
trial testimony was credible; and it is in Child’s best interest to be adopted by
Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 14.
The record does not support Maternal Grandmother’s claims. We begin
with the testimony of DHS caseworker Jennifer Sewell, who testified that she
was the initial investigative worker assigned in December 2014 following the
receipt of a GPS report. See N.T., 4/10/19, at 112. Maternal Grandmother
had contacted DHS for assistance in getting Child a birth certificate, social
security card, and enrolling her in daycare. Id. at 113. Ms. Sewell met with
Maternal Grandmother and conducted a home assessment. Id. At that time,
Maternal Grandmother informed Ms. Sewell that Mother had been arrested
and Maternal Grandmother traveled to Georgia to get Child. Id. at 113-114.
After the interview, Mother contacted Ms. Sewell and relayed that she
wanted her daughter back; that she had not permitted Maternal Grandmother
to take Child; and she had reported to the police that Child had been
kidnapped. Id. at 114-115. Additionally, Mother informed Ms. Sewell that as
a child, Mother had been abused and placed in foster care, and she did not
have a good relationship with Maternal Grandmother. While DHS had initially
intended to put Child in kinship placement with Maternal Grandmother, the
plan was changed to reunification with Mother. Id. at 116. In response,
Maternal Grandmother became extremely upset. Id. at 117-118. Ms. Sewell
-8- J-S63017-19
discovered Maternal Grandmother had filed for custody of Child, rather than
waiting to go through the proper process relating to kinship care. Id.
Dawn Potalivo testified that she is the case management director at
Turning Points for Children CUA. Id. at 121-122. She is familiar with Child
and became involved with the family in January 2018, when a case involving
Child’s brother, S.R., alleging medical neglect, was opened. Id. at 121-22.
CUA conducted a home visit with Maternal Grandmother; ultimately, S.R.’s
case was closed. Id. at 124-25. At that time, CUA was seeking a permanent
placement for Child. Id. at 124-26. Child had initially been placed with Foster
Mother in February 2018 as a respite home. Id. at 125-26. However, Foster
Mother expressed a desire to adopt Child because Child had quickly
assimilated to the home and bonded with Foster Mother. Id.
In November 2018, following a court order granting Maternal
Grandmother supervised visitation, CUA, despite concerns, set up visits with
Child and Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 126-127. Maternal Grandmother
continually referred to Child returning to her home, despite the order
excluding Maternal Grandmother as a placement resource. Id. at 127.
Maternal Grandmother arrived at CUA offices on at least two occasions very
upset and frustrated. Id. at 127-28. Maternal Grandmother raised her voice,
threw small objects to emphasize her points, and on one occasion, had to be
escorted out by security. Id. at 128.
Maternal Grandmother required an ASL interpreter, but CUA was not
always able to provide one because Maternal Grandmother would arrive at the
-9- J-S63017-19
office unannounced. Id. at 128-129. Following a court order, CUA employees,
through an interpreter, attempted to talk to Maternal Grandmother about
planning ahead and confirming her visits before she arrived. Id. at 129-130.
Additionally, CUA employees attempted to impress on Maternal Grandmother
the importance of not discussing court matters in front of Child. Id. at 130.
Maternal Grandmother eventually agreed to the terms of the court order, but
remained frustrated by the rules and by Foster Mother, who Maternal
Grandmother claimed did not love Child. Id. at 130.
Diamond Johnson, a case aide, and Lauren Pointer, a supervisor,
supervised the visits. Id. at 132. Initially, CUA had only one staff member
supervising visits, but after another incident, where Maternal Grandmother
alleged that Child was being abused, two staff members began supervising.
Id. at 132-133.
Ms. Potalivo described an additional visit during which Child became
hysterical and was crying that she wanted to go home to her mommy,
meaning Foster Mother. Id. at 134. Child had begun crying after Maternal
Grandmother attempted to help her with homework and criticized Child’s
crayons. Id. at 134-35. Ms. Potalivo tried to calm Child so she could continue
the visit, but Child insisted she wanted to go home. Id. at 135. Ms. Potalivo
told Maternal Grandmother that Child was feeling a little sad and would like to
go home and see her “mommy,” referring to Foster Mother. Id. at 135-36.
Maternal Grandmother said, “That’s not her mommy. This is my time.” Id.
at 136. Ms. Potalivo responded that Child had come to say goodbye and they
- 10 - J-S63017-19
could discuss these concerns later, but not in front of Child. Id. at 136.
Maternal Grandmother became very upset, packed her belongings, and stated
to Child, “Bye, [Child,]” before walking out of the room. Id. at 136. Child
was shocked, and after Maternal Grandmother left, said, “Grandmom’s mad.
Grandmom’s mad at me.” Id. at 137.
Ms. Potalivo was involved in the weekly visits because staff either came
to get her because Child was upset; Child was not able to be soothed; or
security was called because of raised voices. Id. at 137. Often, Child would
cry and ask for Foster Mother when brought to Ms. Potalivo’s office. Id. at
137-138.
Since beginning visits, Maternal Grandmother made several DHS
reports, the first alleging that Child was not dressed appropriately and was
suffering mistreatment in her foster home. Id. at 139. DHS did not accept
this report for investigation. Id. at 140. Maternal Grandmother made two
additional complaints that Foster Mother was inappropriately disciplining Child
and another boy in the home by physically abusing them. Id. at 141-42. The
report alleged that the information came from Child at a supervised visit, but,
because staff were in the room the entire time, they reported Child had never
made those statements. Id. at 142. CUA workers called the DHS hotline to
provide supplementary information about what was and was not discussed at
the visit. Id.
DHS considered removing Child from the home. Id. However, after
investigation, DHS found that the children in Foster Mother’s home reported
- 11 - J-S63017-19
no abuse, were not fearful, and were happy residing there. Id. at 142-43.
Foster Mother was a loving and attentive parent and there was no concern as
to her disciplinary practices. Id. at 143. Child was well-taken care of and
bonded to Foster Mother. Id. at 143. There was one visit where Child had
healing scratches on her arm, but reported they had come from a new family
cat. Id. at 144. Foster Mother also agreed that the Child had been scratched
by a cat. Id. Ms. Potalivo testified that after the reports of abuse, staff were
very concerned that Child might be removed from the home and that it would
be “devastating” to Child to be placed with a stranger rather than Foster
Mother. Id. at 145.
Up to the day before the April 2019 adoption hearing, there were issues
with Maternal Grandmother’s visits. Id. About an hour after the April 9, 2019
visit began, security came to get Ms. Potalivo, who found Child in the fetal
position on the floor sobbing. Id. When asked what happened, Maternal
Grandmother responded, “That woman is brainwashing her.” Id. at 146.
When Ms. Potalivo attempted to take Child out of the room because she was
crying, Maternal Grandmother denied that Child was crying and attempted to
pull Child out of the fetal position despite Child’s resistance. Id.
After Child was removed from the room, Maternal Grandmother stated
that Child had an odor and Maternal Grandmother suspected there was fecal
matter on Child’s behind and that she was not wiped properly. Id. at 147.
Maternal Grandmother wanted staff to take Child to the bathroom and wipe
her, or allow Maternal Grandmother to wipe her. Id. Ms. Potalivo responded
- 12 - J-S63017-19
that the issue should be addressed, but that it was not appropriate for staff or
Maternal Grandmother to unclothe a six-year-old to wipe her. Id. Ms.
Potalivo, who did not notice an odor about Child, offered to give Child flushable
wet wipes to clean herself. Id.
Maternal Grandmother stated she was also upset that Child was being
brainwashed and there must be something wrong with Child because she was
crying all the time. Id. at 147-48. Ms. Potalivo explained that when Child is
upset, she wants to go home to be comforted by Foster Mother, and that this
is a difficult time for Child, who is tense because Maternal Grandmother speaks
negatively about Foster Mother. Id. at 148. Maternal Grandmother denied
that this was a problem, and repeated that Foster Mother was not Child’s
mother. Id.
When Child did not wish to go to the bathroom, Ms. Potalivo offered her
two pieces of candy as encouragement. Id. at 149. When Child was finished
in the bathroom, Ms. Potalivo, again, did not smell an odor. Id. Child was
given the candy, and Ms. Potalivo returned to her office. Id. Within fifteen
minutes, however, Ms. Potalivo heard Child crying again. Id. at 149-50. Case
aides supervising the visit informed Ms. Potalivo that as Child was leaving,
Maternal Grandmother took her candy and would not give it back until Child
told Maternal Grandmother she loved her. Id. at 150. Child would not answer
at first, and eventually said, “Bye, Grandmom” but would not say[,] “I love
you.” Id. Maternal Grandmother kept the candy. Id.
- 13 - J-S63017-19
Ms. Potalivo opined that the visits with Maternal Grandmother and Child
were not in Child’s best interest. Id. at 151. Child was very stable in Foster
Mother’s home. Id. Since visiting with Maternal Grandmother, staff noticed
such a change in Child that they made a referral for individual therapy for
Child. Id. Staff unsuccessfully attempted to help Maternal Grandmother and
show her how to redirect Child. Id. Maternal Grandmother criticized staff for
their interventions and believed they were trying to sabotage her visits by
telling Child “no.” Id. at 152.
Ms. Potalivo additionally opined that it is in Child’s best interest to be
adopted by Foster Mother. Id. at 152-53. Child is very bonded to Foster
Mother, wishes to remain with her, and considers Foster Mother to be her
mother. Id. at 153. Child is bonded to the other children in the home and
considers them her siblings. Id. at 153. Child picked out a new name for
herself for when she is adopted. Id. It would be detrimental to Child to be
removed from the home. Id.
Angela Cordova, a social worker and independent contractor for Second
Chance, testified that she completed the family profile. Id. at 155-56. She
first became involved in 2016, when Child was transitioning from another
resource family to Foster Mother’s home. Id. at 156-57. Child adjusted very
quickly in Foster Mother’s home. Id. at 157. Foster Mother was dedicated to
Child’s care and quickly got Child current on medical and dental care. Id.
After being placed with Foster Mother, Child became more outgoing, and was
excited to live with other children her age. Id. at 157-58. Child quickly began
- 14 - J-S63017-19
calling Foster Mother “mommy” and the other children in the home her
siblings. Id. at 158.
Ms. Cordova testified that Child would like to stay with Foster Mother.
Id. at 159. She described the affectionate bond between Child and Foster
Mother as a loving, warm, mother-daughter relationship. Id. at 159. While
Child does not fully understand the concept of adoption, Child indicated that
she would like to remain with Foster Mother, and had chosen Foster Mother’s
surname to use after adoption. Id. at 160. Ms. Cordova believed that removal
from Foster Mother’s home would be devastating to Child. Id. at 161.
Foster Mother testified that she works in housekeeping at a local hotel.
Id. at 163. When Foster Mother is working, children are either at after-care
or with Foster Mother’s sister. Id. at 164. Foster Mother is the mother of
three biological children and a foster son. Id. at 163-65. She described Child
as outgoing, silly, and “a little diva”; she further stated that they bonded so
quickly it was like Child was always hers. Id. at 163. Foster Mother described
Child’s demeanor after visits with Maternal Grandmother, noting that while
Child normally sleeps in her own bed, she usually asks to sleep with Foster
Mother after visits. Id. at 164. Child seems worried she is going to have to
leave Foster Mother and wants to be comforted by only her. Id. at 164-65.
Foster Mother’s oldest son is autistic and she was used to providing
educational support for him, and believed she could do the same for Child.
Id. at 168-69. Previously, she had fostered children and maintained good
relationships with them and their birth families. Id. at 165-69.
- 15 - J-S63017-19
Finally, Foster Mother testified that she would be devastated if Child
were removed from the home, and believed that removal would hurt Child as
well, due to their strong bond. Id. at 167. Foster Mother described herself
as “a little old lady in a shoe,” because she only worked and took care of her
kids. Id.
Maternal Grandmother testified that she lives in Philadelphia with S.R.,
who has been in her care since his birth. Id. at 31. Maternal Grandmother
stated that she previously had temporary custody of Child in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, before Child was reunited with Mother. Id. at 33. Maternal
Grandmother testified that in late 2014, she was contacted through Facebook
by someone who averred that Child and two other children were left in a hotel
room alone in Georgia, and went to a nearby restaurant with Mother’s phone
to seek help. Id. at 34-35. Maternal Grandmother claimed that she did not
know where Mother was at the time, because Mother had been arrested, and
Maternal Grandmother agreed to go to Georgia to get Child. Id. at 35-36.
She then contacted DHS in Philadelphia to let them know Child was in her
care. Id. at 36. A DHS representative came to her house to evaluate the
home and found it appropriate. Id. at 36-37. Maternal Grandmother testified
that S.R. also has special needs, and when the school district would not offer
him an IEP, she retained a lawyer to get S.R. an IEP and additional assistance.
Id. at 66-68.
Maternal Grandmother admitted that Child had been removed from her
care due to allegations of kidnapping. Id. at 40-42. Maternal Grandmother
- 16 - J-S63017-19
also admitted that Mother had previously been in foster care and a group
home. Id. at 26, 42. At some point in her childhood, Mother accused her
older brother of having molested her, beginning when she was six years old.
Id. at 75-76. Mother, who was fourteen when she gave birth to S.R., was
deemed unsafe around the baby. Id. at 26, 42-43. Additionally, Maternal
Grandmother testified that she had lived in five different homes since moving
to Philadelphia, including a shelter, and that previously she had lived in
Oklahoma, New York, and North Carolina. Id. at 50-52, 62-64, 85-87. She
also denied being subject to eviction proceedings, despite the fact that one of
her landlords had filed a suit against her. Id. at 71-72, 87.
Maternal Grandmother testified that she is very close to Child, and that
she loves Child and Child loves her. Id. at 32. However, Maternal
Grandmother alleged that Child had been “brainwashed” and that “they” kept
pushing Child and making her say things she did not want to say. Id.
Maternal Grandmother admitted she had never met Foster Mother, but
claimed that Diamond Johnson, the case aide who supervised some of the
visits, had tried to separate Child from Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 53-54.
Maternal Grandmother had previously made allegations that Foster Mother
was not providing Child with clothes that fit properly; not feeding Child
properly; that Child had scratches and bruises on her arm; and that Foster
Mother was abusing Child emotionally and physically. Id. at 96-100. Maternal
Grandmother claimed Child had disclosed this abuse during a supervised visit.
Id. at 100-101.
- 17 - J-S63017-19
After hearing this evidence, the trial court concluded:
This court, in assessing what is in the best interest of [Child], in the instant contested adoption, is called upon to choose the more appropriate party. The trial court gives great weight to [Foster Mother’s] petition as she has been involved in the day to day parenting of [Child] and has provided her continuous care. The court, in making its best interest analysis, must also consider bonding . . . Courts must consider the effect upon children of removing them from a known physical environment . . . it would be destructive and certainly not in the best interest of [Child] to remove her from the family unit created by [Foster Mother] and given the interwoven parent-child and sibling relationships that have developed and flourished. This familial dynamic has become integral to [Child’s] welfare and personal growth.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/29/19, at 8-9 (citations omitted).
The trial court found the testimony of Ms. Sewell, Ms. Potalivo, and Ms.
Cordova credible, reliable, and professionally competent. Id. at 4. The trial
court found Foster Mother’s testimony very credible. Id. Conversely, the trial
court found Maternal Grandmother’s testimony to be evasive, non-responsive,
inaccurate, and lacking in full candor, i.e., not credible. Id. As noted above,
we defer to the trial court’s findings of credibility and weight accorded to the
evidence. A.S.H., 674 A.2d at 700.
In light of the foregoing, we discern no error in the trial court’s
conclusions. The evidence does not support Maternal Grandmother’s
contention that it is in Child’s best interest to be adopted by Maternal
Grandmother. As noted, supra, the paramount concern in adoption cases is
the best interests of the child, which is a determination made on a case-by-
- 18 - J-S63017-19
case basis, with consideration of a child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and
spiritual well-being. A.S.H., 674 A.2d at 700.
Here, the evidence showed that Maternal Grandmother attended most
visits with Child and consistently expressed an interest in adopting her. She
testified that she loves Child and that Child should be in a home with her
biological relatives, including Child’s half-brother, S.R. However, the
testimony reflects that Maternal Grandmother is not suited to parent Child.
The record reflects that Maternal Grandmother is unable to place Child’s
welfare and best interests above her own frustrations and emotions. On the
other hand, Child has benefitted from a loving, stable placement with Foster
Mother. Child is thriving in Foster Mother’s home and has expressed a desire
to remain with her. Accordingly, the record reflects that it is in Child’s best
interest to be adopted by Foster Mother, such that the trial court did not err
in denying Maternal Grandmother’s adoption petition, and granting the
adoption petition of Foster Mother.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 12/31/19
- 19 -