In the Int. of: Y.A.M., a Minor
This text of In the Int. of: Y.A.M., a Minor (In the Int. of: Y.A.M., a Minor) 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-A04012-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: Y.A.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: Y.A.M., A MINOR : : : : : No. 1464 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2024-0071a
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: JUNE 18, 2025
Y.A.M., a minor (Child) (born September 2017), appeals from the final
decree,1 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Orphans’ Court
Division, terminating the parental rights of Child’s mother, L.M. (Mother), 2
after a hearing before the Honorable N. Christopher Menges.3 ____________________________________________
1 Laura L. Smith, Esquire, represented Child at the termination hearing and
represents Child on appeal. Daniel D. Morley, Esquire, was appointed guardian ad litem for Child (and her siblings) at the termination hearing. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a); see also Matter of Adoption of A.C.M., 333 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2025).
2 Child’s father’s parental rights were also terminated. Child’s father was incarcerated in South Carolina prior to termination, but has since been released. His current whereabouts are unknown and he has not had contact or involvement with Child.
3 Mother’s parental rights to three other children were also involuntarily terminated by Judge Menges. Mother’s appeals in those cases, and her appeal with respect to Child, are docketed at 1465 MDA 2024, 1466 MDA 2024, 1467 (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-A04012-25
In January 2023, York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families
(CYF) received a referral regarding allegations of abandonment. Child, along
with two siblings, was found in a motel room without Mother; the referral also
alleged that there was “marijuana, crack, and a scale” observed in the room
with the children. See N.T. Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)
Hearing, 7/19/24, at 2, Ex.1. Mother was later located at the back of the
motel. Mother was arrested, was charged with endangering the welfare of
children, and faced additional drug charges.
At the time of her arrest, Mother had fifteen outstanding warrants.
Mother is currently out on bail, continues to reside at the Red Roof Inn in York
City, and reports that she is employed at OSM Worldwide and works Monday
through Friday, eight hours each day.
At a shelter care hearing, the godmother of one of Mother’s children
offered to be a resource for all three children.4 CYF recommended Child’s
physical and legal custody remain with the agency for placement with this
individual as emergency kinship caregiver. All parties agreed to this
arrangement.
On January 18, 2023, Child was adjudicated dependent. The initial goal
was return to parent or guardian. Four family service plans (FSP) were ____________________________________________
MDA 2024, and 1468 MDA 2024. Mother’s cases were consolidated below, and the trial court’s opinion in the instant case, Child’s appeal, is an incorporated opinion with respect to Mother’s consolidated cases and addresses Child’s issues in this appeal.
4 At this time, Mother’s fourth child had not yet been born.
-2- J-A04012-25
prepared for the family—on July 13, 2021, January 26, 2023, July 24, 2023,
and January 5, 2024. See N.T., TPR Hearing, supra at 13-14. Mother’s goals
were as follows: maintain safe, stable housing for Child; maintain
employment; complete drug and alcohol evaluations and testing and follow
through with recommendations; cooperate with in-home team and early
intervention; and complete a mental health evaluation.
In a June 21, 2023 permanency review order, the court found no
compliance by Mother. In a December 7, 2023 permanency review order, the
court found Mother had minimally complied with the permanency plan. On
March 6, 2024, following a status review, the court confirmed its prior
adjudication of dependency and changed the placement goal to adoption.
See id. at 97.
On April 29, 2024, CYF filed a petition for involuntary termination of
parental rights with respect to Child. The court directed counsel enter into a
Stipulation of Counsel,5 after counsel complied with the court’s order, the
court held a termination hearing on July 19, 2024 and September 6, 2024. At
the hearing, the court heard testimony from Abbie Fulton, Catholic Charities;
Ellie Williams, executive director and lead mental health therapist at EquiTeam
Support Services; Susan Scott, program director at PA Child Support Services;
and Tanner Swarr, CYF caseworker.
____________________________________________
5 The Stipulation of Counsel was filed on July 15, 2024 and admitted into the
record. See N.T. TPR Hearing, supra at 15.
-3- J-A04012-25
At the time of the hearing, Child had been in placement for 20 months,
Mother had been incarcerated on and off throughout the case, and Mother had
not completed her court-ordered permanency plan goals.
Following the hearing, the court entered a decree terminating Mother’s
parental rights. See Final Decree, 9/6/24. Child filed a timely appeal. Both
Child and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Child raises the
following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2)?
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5)?
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8)?
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?
Appellant’s Brief, at 5-6.
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for
-4- J-A04012-25
doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty[,] and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.
In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). See also In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A04012-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: Y.A.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: Y.A.M., A MINOR : : : : : No. 1464 MDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 7, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2024-0071a
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: JUNE 18, 2025
Y.A.M., a minor (Child) (born September 2017), appeals from the final
decree,1 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Orphans’ Court
Division, terminating the parental rights of Child’s mother, L.M. (Mother), 2
after a hearing before the Honorable N. Christopher Menges.3 ____________________________________________
1 Laura L. Smith, Esquire, represented Child at the termination hearing and
represents Child on appeal. Daniel D. Morley, Esquire, was appointed guardian ad litem for Child (and her siblings) at the termination hearing. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a); see also Matter of Adoption of A.C.M., 333 A.3d 704 (Pa. Super. 2025).
2 Child’s father’s parental rights were also terminated. Child’s father was incarcerated in South Carolina prior to termination, but has since been released. His current whereabouts are unknown and he has not had contact or involvement with Child.
3 Mother’s parental rights to three other children were also involuntarily terminated by Judge Menges. Mother’s appeals in those cases, and her appeal with respect to Child, are docketed at 1465 MDA 2024, 1466 MDA 2024, 1467 (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-A04012-25
In January 2023, York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families
(CYF) received a referral regarding allegations of abandonment. Child, along
with two siblings, was found in a motel room without Mother; the referral also
alleged that there was “marijuana, crack, and a scale” observed in the room
with the children. See N.T. Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights (TPR)
Hearing, 7/19/24, at 2, Ex.1. Mother was later located at the back of the
motel. Mother was arrested, was charged with endangering the welfare of
children, and faced additional drug charges.
At the time of her arrest, Mother had fifteen outstanding warrants.
Mother is currently out on bail, continues to reside at the Red Roof Inn in York
City, and reports that she is employed at OSM Worldwide and works Monday
through Friday, eight hours each day.
At a shelter care hearing, the godmother of one of Mother’s children
offered to be a resource for all three children.4 CYF recommended Child’s
physical and legal custody remain with the agency for placement with this
individual as emergency kinship caregiver. All parties agreed to this
arrangement.
On January 18, 2023, Child was adjudicated dependent. The initial goal
was return to parent or guardian. Four family service plans (FSP) were ____________________________________________
MDA 2024, and 1468 MDA 2024. Mother’s cases were consolidated below, and the trial court’s opinion in the instant case, Child’s appeal, is an incorporated opinion with respect to Mother’s consolidated cases and addresses Child’s issues in this appeal.
4 At this time, Mother’s fourth child had not yet been born.
-2- J-A04012-25
prepared for the family—on July 13, 2021, January 26, 2023, July 24, 2023,
and January 5, 2024. See N.T., TPR Hearing, supra at 13-14. Mother’s goals
were as follows: maintain safe, stable housing for Child; maintain
employment; complete drug and alcohol evaluations and testing and follow
through with recommendations; cooperate with in-home team and early
intervention; and complete a mental health evaluation.
In a June 21, 2023 permanency review order, the court found no
compliance by Mother. In a December 7, 2023 permanency review order, the
court found Mother had minimally complied with the permanency plan. On
March 6, 2024, following a status review, the court confirmed its prior
adjudication of dependency and changed the placement goal to adoption.
See id. at 97.
On April 29, 2024, CYF filed a petition for involuntary termination of
parental rights with respect to Child. The court directed counsel enter into a
Stipulation of Counsel,5 after counsel complied with the court’s order, the
court held a termination hearing on July 19, 2024 and September 6, 2024. At
the hearing, the court heard testimony from Abbie Fulton, Catholic Charities;
Ellie Williams, executive director and lead mental health therapist at EquiTeam
Support Services; Susan Scott, program director at PA Child Support Services;
and Tanner Swarr, CYF caseworker.
____________________________________________
5 The Stipulation of Counsel was filed on July 15, 2024 and admitted into the
record. See N.T. TPR Hearing, supra at 15.
-3- J-A04012-25
At the time of the hearing, Child had been in placement for 20 months,
Mother had been incarcerated on and off throughout the case, and Mother had
not completed her court-ordered permanency plan goals.
Following the hearing, the court entered a decree terminating Mother’s
parental rights. See Final Decree, 9/6/24. Child filed a timely appeal. Both
Child and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Child raises the
following issues on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2)?
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5)?
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8)?
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that [CYF] had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of [Mother] should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?
Appellant’s Brief, at 5-6.
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for
-4- J-A04012-25
doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty[,] and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.
In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). See also In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.
Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of
proving by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the grounds for
termination under section 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes
emotional needs and welfare of child set forth in section 2511(b)).
We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental
rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560,
563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether
the trial court's order is supported by competent evidence. Id.
After a careful review of the record, the briefs on appeal, and the
relevant case law, we agree with the trial court that CYF presented clear and
convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s parental rights under sections
2511(a) and (b) and, therefore, we find no abuse of discretion. A.R., supra.
We rely upon Judge Menges’ considered opinion to affirm the order
terminating Mother’s parental rights. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/6/24, at
14-28 (termination proper under subsection 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5),
(a)(8), and (b) where court found CYF offered clear and convincing evidence
-5- J-A04012-25
that: Mother failed to perform parental duties and was unable to remedy
conditions leading to Child’s placement; Mother has caused Child to be without
essential parental care and the conditions and causes of neglect will not be
remedied; Child has been removed from Mother’s care for more than six
months and, it is “not clear that Mother will be able to remedy these conditions
in a reasonable time.” id. at 19; Child has been removed from Mother’s care
for at least twelve months and the conditions that led to removal continue to
exist and termination best serves Child’s needs and welfare; termination
would best Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare
as Child has “a wonderful and healthy relationship” with kinship placement
and pre-adoptive resource has been identified, id. at 26; and, even though
Child has “a familiar bond” with Mother, “knowing who Mother is,” the
“relationship is not parental,” id.; “there is clear and convincing evidence on
the record that the bond is not necessary or beneficial to [Child], id. at 27,
and maintaining that bond does not serve Child’s “developmental, physical,
and emotional needs[.]” Id. at 26).
We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Menges’ opinion in the
event of further proceedings in the matter.
Decree affirmed.
-6- J-A04012-25
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 06/18/2025
-7- #58 #58 Opinion 05/27/2025 03.21 Circulated 05/27/02025 03:21 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
IN IN THE INTEREST OF: No.: No. 2024-0069 Z.A.C.S., Z.A.CS., AA MINOR
APPEAL OF: L.S.M., LS.M.,MOTHER : 1465 MDA 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF: No.: 2024-0070 2024.0070 S.A.J., A S.AJ,, A MINOR
APPEAL OF: L.S.M., MOTHER : 1466 1466 MDA MDA 2024 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF: No.: 2024-0071 Y.A.M., A A MINOR 4NU 24PR.16 0RANS' 09±RT-PR
APPEAL OF: L.S.M., LS.M., MOTHER MOTHER 1467 1467 MDA 2024
IN THE INTEREST OF: INTEREST OT: No.: 2024-0.072 No. 2024-0072 P.O.J., P.0.J., A A MINOR TPR
APPEAL OF: L.S.M., MOTHER 1468 1468 MDA 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1925(a)(2)(ii) 1925(a(2Mil) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
AND NOW, this 4" 4"' day of November, 2024, the court is in receipt of
Mother's Notice of Appeal Appeal and Concise Statement of Errors Complained of Pursuant
to Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) filed on October 4, 2024. The court hereby
1 reaffirms its order entered on September September 6, 2024, 2024, after a a hearing hearing to involuntarily involuntarily
terminate parental terminate parental rights before The rights before The Honorable Honorable N. Christopher Menges. N. Christopher Menges. The court The court
determined it determined it was in Children's was in Children's best best interest interest to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate terminate parental parental
rights of rights of Mother and the Mother and three Fathers.' the three Fathers.'
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY
This appeal involves Mother's This appeal children: ten-year-old Mother's four children: ten-year-old Z.A.C.S., Z.A.C.S., whose whose
father is R.R.S; seven-year-old Y.A.M., whose father is J.W., Jr. and; two-year-old two-year-old
P.O.J. and and, eleven eleven month old S.A.J., month old S.A.J., whose whose father father is is D.J.J. DJ.J, Parties Parties stipulate stipulate that that
Mother has been involved with the York County County Office of Children, Youth and
Families Families ("the (the Agency" Agency" or or "CYF") since 2017 due to concerns regarding allegations regarding allegations
Z.A.C.S.'s truancy, of Z.A.C.S's truancy, Mother's Mother's lack lack of housing supervision, and Mother's housing and supervision, Mother's
substance abuse and mental health issues. Stip. Stip. (Y.A.M.), (Y.A.M.), 07/15/2024, at at ¶ 7.
Regarding Regarding Z.A.C.S.'s ZA.C.S.'s truancy, truancy, an an initial initial family service plan family service plan from from July July 2021 2021 noted noted
that Child had seventy-nine absences and was forty-six forty-six days truant. Termination
(TPR) Hr'g, (TPR) 7/19/2024, Ex. Hr'g, 7/19/2024, Ex 1, at 2. I, at Claims were 2. Claims noted as were noted as valid valid due due to to Mother Mother not not
having having stable stable housing housing and internet internet issues. issues. Id. Id. It It was was noted noted that that "Mother has has resided resided
with with aa friend, Days Days Inn, Inn, Bell Bell Shelter, Shelter, and back back to to Days Days Inn Inn throughout throughout the the
assessment." Id. accepted for services. In January Id, The case was accepted January 2022, a dependency a dependency
'Fathers are incarcerated and did not appeal appeal the termination of parental parental nights rights.
22 petition was filed regarding Z.A.C.S., but the petition was withdrawn the following
month month without without prejudice prejudice and court supervision ended. Id.
The relevant relevant history history began began with a a new new referral to the the Agency Agency on on January January 3, 3,
2023, 2023, regarding regarding allegations of of Mother's Mother's abandonment of the the three oldest children. 2
being Id. The three oldest children were found in the Red Roof Inn without Mother being
present and with no supplies. Id. Id. Allegations were that "there was marijuana, marijuana, crack,
and aascale observed in the hotel room with the children." Id. Mother was found at
the back of the hotel, and she could not provide explanation for why provide an explanation why the illegal illegal
substances and paraphernalia were in her motel room. Stip. Stip. (Y.A.M.), (Y.A.M.),¶ 11. 1H. Mother
was arrested and charged with Endangering Endangering the Welfare of Children and it it * was
reported reported that that Mother Mother had outstanding warrants had fifteen outstanding warrants at the the time. time. Id. Mother Mother also also
faced charges charges of Possession Possession with with Intent Intent to to Deliver, Deliver, Drug Drug Paraphernalia, Paraphernalia, and and Small Small
Amount of Marijuana for Personal Personal Use. The Agency Agency had received seven referrals
regarding Mother for substance abuse. Id., Id., ¶ 11.
The Agency filed an application for emergency emergency protective custody, which was protective custody,
granted granted on January 3, 2023. Subsequently, the 2023. Subsequently, the three oldest children were were adjudicated adjudicated
dependent on January January 18, 18, 2023. 2023. Parties Parties stipulate that that at at the the time time of adjudication,
showed: "27 unlawful absences, 21 Z.A.C.S's attendance record showed: 2I tardies, 5 S excused
and 16 unlawful unlawful [absences], [absences], [and] [and] 22days days early early dismissal." Stip. Stip. (Z.A.C.S.), (Z.A.C.S.), ¶ 14.
Youngest child, youngest Z S.A.J., had not been born yet child, SAA., yet.
3 The The court set the the current permanency permanency goal as as return return to to parent parent or or guardian and the the
concurrent goal as adoption.
. Regarding Regarding youngest youngest Child, S.A.J., the Agency received the Agency received a a general general protective protective
services referral for him because, after his birth on November 30, 2023, Mother left
3; 2023. Child had a the hospital with Child against medical advice on December 3, a
slightly raised bilirubin level which could require treatment for jaundice if it
continued to to rise. Stip. Stip. ((S.A.J.), S.A.J.), 7/15/2024, 7/15/2024, ¶" 10. Mother tested positive for
marijuana two days prior to S.A S.A.J.'s J.'s birth. Id. Child was removed from Mother's
care on December December 5, 5, 2023, two two days after leaving leaving the the hospital, hospital, and was was later later
adjudicated dependent dependent on December December 18, 18, 2023.
Mother was provided with services pursuant pursuant to reunification but after twenty twenty
months of adjudication for the oldest three children and four months for the youngest youngest
child, return to Mother is still not imminent and amended petitions to terminate
parental parental rights rights were filed filed on May May 6, 2024 2024 for for the the oldest three children. A A petition petition to to
terminate Mother's rights to the youngest child's was filed on April 29, 2024. A A
termination of parental rights rights hearing hearing was held on July 19, I9, 2024 and September 6,
2024.
At the first day of the termination hearing, hearing, Abbie Fulton of Catholic Charities
testified that the organization had opened services on January 18, 2023 and closed
services unsuccessfully on April 10, 2023. There were no concerns with supervised
4 4 visits visits at that time, but Mother's progress progress was minimal due to such a a short period period of
time. time.
Next, Next, Ellie Ellie Williams of EquiTeam Williams of Equi Team Support Services testified Support Services testified that that the the two two
oldest oldest children, Z.A.C.S. and Y.A.M. Y.A.M. are are both both receiving receiving weekly weekly therapy. therapy. Ms.
Williams testified that she is working working with the girls girls on behaviors, boundaries,
developmental trauma, trauma, and initially initially on parentification parentification with with Z.A.C.S. Z.A.C.S. Tr., Tr., 7/19/2024, 7/19/2024,
at 34. 34. Ms. Ms. Williams Williams testified testified that Z.A.C.S. has has improve improve significantly significantly in in relation relation to to
be be parentified, and she parentified, and she has has aahealthier healthier relationship relationship with with her her sister sister Y.A.M. Y.A.M. Id. Ms. Ms.
Williams testified that the girls, the two oldest children, love their mother and want
to to live live with with her, her, and if if they they cannot live live with with her, her, they they want want to aunt, to live with their aunt,
their resource parent. Ms.-Williams had not seen the girls girls interact with Mother
enough enough to to testify regarding any bond regarding any bond the the children may may have with with her. her. Id., at 40.
However, she was able to testify that that girls were bonded to their aunt.
Susan Scott Program Director of PA Child also testified that they they opened opened
services services with with Mother Mother the the first time on first time on November November 13, 13, 2023 and closed 2023 and closed on March 7, on March 7,
2024 due learning learning of Mother's Mother's upcoming upcoming incarceration. incarceration. During During those those months months of
service, Mother's fully supervised visits were two days days per per week for two hours. Ms.
Scott also testified Scott also testified regarding the parentified regarding the parentified behaviors behaviors of of Y.A.M. and to Y.A.M. and to aagreater greater
extent, Z.A.C.S., who behaves behaves more more in in aarole role of of tending tending her younger younger siblings, siblings, rather rather
than than just playing playing with them. them. Tr., 7/19/2024, 7/19/2024, at at 55-57. Ms. Ms. Scott testified that that
5 Z.A.C.S. often picked picked up the baby, baby, P.O.J., P.0.J., and once tripped tripped and fell while holding holding
raising' safety concerns. Id., at 55. The parentified him, raising parentified behaviors were observed in
Mother's Mother's presence. presence. For For example, example, Ms. Scott testified Ms. Scott testified that, that, during one visit, during one visit, Y.A.M Y.A.M
began screaming screaming from the bathroom, and staff ran to see what was going going on. Id., at
57. However, Mother told Z.A.C.S. to go go check on Y.A.M. Id. Staff had to redirect
Mother and explain that she needed to come to the bathroom. Id. Id,
Ms. Ms. Scott Scott testified testified that that Mother Mother had on-going attendance concerns, had on-going concerns, such as
missed visits missed visits for for various various reasons and was reasons and was placed on a placed on confirmation policy a confirmation policy requiring requiring
her to confirm her attendance on the day of each visit. Tr., 9/6/2024, at 58. During During
the first the time PA first time Child was PA Child was providing providing services, services, Mother brought Christmas Mother brought Christmas gifts for gifts for
the the children and brought children and brought clothing, clothing, shoes, shoes, and and toys. toys. Id., at 74-75. Id,, at 74-75. Mother did not Mother did not bring bring
meals or supplies, supplies, such as diapers. diapers.
After Mother's opened services a Mother's second incarceration, PA Child opened a second time time
on July 1, I, 2024, approximately two months after the filing filing of the termination
petitions. petitions. Id., at 59. Id., at 59. Since opening for Since opening for the second time, the second time, Ms. Ms. Scott Scott testified testified that that
Mother's Mother's visits visits were were decreased to to once per week week for one hour. hour. There There had had only only been been
three visits by the second day of the termination hearing hearing and Mother had attended
each. Id. Ms. each. Scott testified Ms. Scott testified that that Mother continued to Mother continued to bring snack foods bring snack and drinks foods and drinks
for for the children rather rather than than aameal and supplies, such as diapers. and supplies, diapers. However, However, Ms. Ms. Scott
was not sure if Mother had ever been told that this was expected expected of her. Id., at 72-
6 6 73. 73. Ms. Scott testified Ms. Scott testified that she still that she still could could not not recommend recommend going going to to unsupervised unsupervised
visits or expanded expanded visits because of the adjustment adjustment period period needed for the children.
Id., at at 64. Ms. Ms. Scott Scott noted that the noted that the biggest concern at biggest concern at this this point is making point is sure that making sure that
the the two two girls are not girls are not stepping stepping into into parental parental roles roles with their younger with their younger brothers. brothers. Id., at at
80. 80
Next, Tanner Swarr, caseworker for the Agency Agency testified. Ms. Swarr has been
assigned assigned to to Mother's Mother's case since the referral referral in in January January 2023. 2023. Ms. Ms. Tanner testified
that that Mother Mother is is on supervised supervised bail bail for for her her pending pending charges. Tr.,' 7119/2024, at 86. Tr,, 7/19/2024, 86. She
testified testified regarding regarding the the sporadic visitation visitation that that has has occurred over the the course of the the
reunification reunification period, period, noting noting Mother's many changes Mother's many changes of of address, incarcerations, incarcerations, and
time on the run mn in Florida.
BY BY ATTORNEY ATTORNEY MILLER MILLER 0. Q. As it relates to the mother, mother, since the dependency, what addresses do we have as adjudication of dependency, it it relates relates for for her? A. A. January January 4th of 2023, Red Roof Inn. March 26th of 2023, 660 West Princess Street, Unit I, 1, York, Pennsylvania 17401. May May 16th of 2023 reported I6th of2023 reported to be out of state at at an unknown location. June 7th of 2023 7th 0f reported during reported during a a visit visit to her her children children she she was was in in Miami. Miami. Then on June 16th I6th of 2023 2023 she she was was at 3400 3400 Concord Road, Road, York, York, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 17404. 17404. THE COURT: That THE That was was at York York County Prison? THE WITNESS: THE WITNESS It is. is THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. THE T HE WITNESS: THE WITNESS: August August 19th I9th of 2023, 2023, 921 North Pine Street, York, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 17403. December 5th of 2023, 415 South Court Avenue, York, PA
7 17401. 17401 On March 6th of 2024 at York County Prison. We were informed when she was released from prison and that she is she is staying at the staying at the Red Red Roof Roof Inn currently. Inn currently.
Id., at 88, 89.
Ms. Ms. Swarr testified that sporadic sporadic visits were sometimes because of active
warrants and Mother's fear of being picked up, being picked up, even though though the Agency Agency indicated to
Mother Mother that that it does not it does typically notify not typically sheriffs about notify sheriffs about warrants except in warrants except in the case of the case of
aa high crime. Id., at 93. Since the adjudications of dependency, Mother never
progressed to unsupervised or partially unsupervised visitation. Id., Id., at 92-93; Tr.,
9/6/2024, at at 55.
The Agency requested that Mother maintain safe, stable housing housing for
Children; maintain employment; complete maintain employment; complete aadrug drug and alcohol evaluation and drug drug
and alcohol testing testing to eliminate substance abuse concerns; follow through through with any any
recommendations; cooperate cooperate with an in-home team and early early intervention; and
have aamental health evaluation. Mother was asked to provide provide evidence of
compliance to compliance to include include paystubs, paystubs, a a lease, lease, releases, etc. TPR Hr'g, releases, ete. Hr' g, 7/19/2024, Ex. 2 2
at 11, 1H, 14, 16. However, Mother did not maintain employment employment or housing. housing. Mother
declined services with Early Intervention for P.O.J. P.0.J. that had been court-ordered,
and the Agency Agency had to step in and consent. Id., Id., Ex. 3, at 3. Additionally, Additionally, Mother
did not cooperate cooperate with drug testing. testing. For example, prior prior to the filing filing of the TPR TPR
petition, petition, Mother's compliance rate with Mother's call-in compliance with Averhealth Averhealth since adjudication was since adjudication was
88 only 3%. Tr., 7/19/2024, at 96. Mother no-showed sixty-six times. Since the
beginning of January 2024, her call-in compliance rate was 25%. Id., at 44. After
the the filing filing of the TPR petitions petitions and and after Mother's most recent recent release from from
incarceration, incarceration, her call-in compliance rate was 91 % in was 91% in July 2024, and 92% in in
August 2024. Mother tested positive for alcohol on five occasions in July July and
August 2024 and once for THC through through Probation and once through Averheath in
September 3, September 3, 2024, 2024, three days before three days the final before the day of final day of the termination hearing. the termination Only hearing. Only
as of August 25, 2024, about two weeks before the final day of the termination
hearing, Mother got her medical marijuana card and provided notice to the agency
the following following day. Three weeks before the last day day of the TPR hearing, hearing, Mother
reached out to reached out the Agency, to the Agency, after after her her second second incarceration, incarceration, and asked for and asked for aamental mental
health health evaluation. A A referral referral was was made to to Hugh Hugh Smith Associates. Associates. Ms. Ms. Swarr
testified that approval is pending with insurance to complete complete the evaluation. Tr., Tr.,
7/19/2024, at 96. Likewise, regarding regarding housing, housing, Mother testified that the day before
the TPR hearing hearing she received approval approval for aavoucher that will provide provide her with
rental assistance for aafew months. However, she still now needs to find a ahome.
Finally, Mother has been employed full time at aaStarbucks factory factory for three weeks
prior pnor to the final day of the TPR hearing. hearing.
Mother testified and then addressed the court directly at the close of the TR TPR
hearing. Mother told hearing. Mother told the court that the court that she she knew knew that she had that she had made made aalot of mistakes lot of mistakes
, 9 her*children while her children were were in in placement, placement, mainly mainly from from being being scared. Tr., 9/6/2024, at
89. Mother acknowledged acknowledged wasting wasting aalot of time with being being on the run. Id., at 90.
Mother noted the progress progress she has made in the weeks since release from her
second incarceration and that she has taken care of the jail jail time and her fines.
Mother indicated that Mother indicated she loves that she loves her her kids and is ready kids and ready to to work toward getting work toward getting them them
back. back.
Although Although the court believes that Mother loves her children and has made
recent recent progress, progress, the the court noted noted that Mother Mother had had not not made made enough enough progress. progress. After After
twenty twenty months of dependency for for the three oldest children and over over ten ten months for for
the the youngest child, Mother youngest child, still has Mother still pending charges has pending related to charges related to endangering endangering her her
children, which may require aalonger separation. Mother has not longer term of separation.
demonstrated the the necessary stability with necessary stability with missed missed visits. visits. Mother Mother still still needs needs to to
complete aamental complete mental health evaluation and health evaluation and any recommendations that any recommendations that may may result. result.
Mother Mother still does not still does not have have housing, and although housing, and she has although she has now secured financial now secured financial
assistance with with initial rent payments, payments, it is is not not clear clear to the the court how how long long it may may
take to find appropriate housing. Meanwhile, the children's need for permanency permanency
continues. The second youngest child, P.O.J., was adjudicated dependent at around adjudicated dependent
five months old, and the baby, S.A.J., was removed from Mother's care within his
first week week and and has only known known the the resource resource parent parent as his his parental parental figure. figure. The court
10 explained that its focus must be on the best interest of the children and granted granted
termination. appeal followed. termination. This appeal followed.
ISSUES ISSUES ON APPEAL APPEAL
Mother's Mother's concise statement are as follows: follows.
1. I. York York County Office of Children Youth Youth and Families Families.....failed failed to to present clear and convincing convincing evidence that termination of of Mother's Mother's parental parental rights best served the physical physical and emotional needs and and welfare welfare of the minor child under 23 Pa. C.S. [8$] Pa.C.S. [§§] 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5) and 2511(a)(), (a)02) and (a)(8) (a)(8) and and [§] 2511(b). [$] 2511() 2. The trial court erred in terminating terminating Mother's Mother 's parental rights rights to the minor child without without clear and convincing convincing' evidence evidence that termination best served the physical and emotional emotional [] [] needs and welfare of the minor minor child under under 23 23 Pa.C.S. [§§] 2511(a)(1), Pa.C.S. [$$] 251(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5) and (a)02), and (a)(8) and [$] (a)(8) and [§] 2511(b). 2511(b)
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
The standard standard of review by by the Superior Court of an the Superior appeal from an appeal from aadecree
terminating terminating parental parental rights rights is is limited to determining whether to determining whether the the decision of the the trial trial
court is supported by competent evidence. In re KC. W., 456 Pa. Super. K.CW., Super. 1, I, 689 A.2d
294, 294, 298 298 ((1997). 1997). Absent an abuse Absent an abuse of discretion, an of discretion, an error error of of law, law, or or insufficient insufficient
evidentiary support evidentiary for the support for the trial court's decision, trial court's decision, the the decree decree must stand. Id. must stand. Ad. Where Where aa
trial court has granted aa petition to involuntarily involuntarily terminate parental parental rights, rights, the
Superior Court must accord the trial judge's decision the same deference given given to aa
jury verdict. In re Child M., 452 Pa. Pa. Super. 230, 681 A.24 A.2d 793, 800 800 ((1996). 1996). The
Superior Court employs aacomprehensive review of the record to determine whether
11 the the trial court's decision trial court's decision is supported by is supported competent evidence. by competent evidence. In re Matsock, In re Matsock, 416 416 Pa. Pa.
Super. 520, 611 A.2d 737, 742 742 ((1992). 1992). The The "[p]ermissible "[pjermissible grounds grounds for involuntary involuntary
termination termination of parental parental rights rights are are specified specified in 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511," 2511," as as discussed
above. above. In re re C.S., 2000 2000 Pa. Super 318, Pa. Super 318,¶¶ 8-9, 761 8-9, A.2d 1197, 761 A.2d 1197, 1199-200 1199-200 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.
Ct. 2000). Ct. 2000).
Importantly, the court must only only find one factor pursuant pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §$
2511(a) to terminate 2511(a) to terminate parental rights. The parental rights. relevant 2511 The relevant sections to 2511 sections to Mother's appeal Mother's appeal
are as follows:
(a) General rule. — The rights rule. -The rights of aaparent parent in regard regard to aachild may may be terminated after terminated after a a petition petition filed on any filed on any of of the the following following grounds: grounds:
(1)The parent (1)The continuing for aaperiod parent by conduct continuing period of at least six months immediately preceding immediately preceding the filing filing the petition of petition either has evidenced a evidenced a settled settled purpose purpose ofof relinquishing relinquishing parental claim to parental claim to aa child or has child has refused or failed refused or failed to to perform perform parental parental duties. duties.
(2) The repeated repeated and continued incapacity, incapacity, abuse, neglect neglect or refusal of the of the parent parent has caused the has caused child to the child to be be without essential parental without essential parental care, control care, control or or subsistence subsistence necessary necessary forfor his his physical or mental physical or mental well-being well-being andand the the conditions conditions and causes of and causes of the the incapacity, incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by by the parent.
(5) The child has been removed removed from from the care of the the parent parent by by the court or under under aavoluntary agreement with voluntary agreement agency for with an agency for aaperiod period of at of at least least six six months, months, the the conditions conditions which which ledled to to the the removal removal or placement or placement of of the the child child continue continue to exist, the to exist, the parent cannot or parent cannot or will will not not remedy remedy those those conditions within within aa reasonable reasonable period period of time, the services or assistance reasonably reasonably available to the parent are not likely likely to remedy remedy the conditions which led to the removal removal or or placement placement of of the child within the child within aareasonable reasonable period of period of
12 12 time and termination of the parental rights rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent parent by by the court court or or under under aavoluntary voluntary agreement agreement with agency, 12 with an agency, 12 months months or more or more have elapsed from have elapsed from the the date of removal removal or placement, placement, the the conditions which led to the removal or placement placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental parental rights rights would.best best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(b) Other considerations. --The --The court in terminating the rights in terminating rights of aa parent parent shall give give primary primary consideration to the developmental, physical physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.
23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.CS.A. §$ 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(1), (2), (2), (5), and (b). (5), and (b).
The court determined determined York County Children Youth York County Youth and and Families presented Families presented
clear and convincing evidence to the court that termination of Mother's parental parental
rights rights best served Child's best served Child's emotional emotional needs and welfare needs and welfare under under 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 251l Pa.C.S.A. $$ 2511
(a)(1), (2), and (8) (2), and (8) and and §$ 2511(b) 2511(b) of the Adoption Adoption Act.
1. I. Termination of parental parental rights rights is warranted under section section (a)(1). (a)(I).
clearly. grounds to terminate Mother's There are clearly Mother's parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.
§2511(a)(1). Under $2511(a)(1). Under section section (a)(1), (a)(1), the moving moving party party in terminating terminating parental parental rights rights
must must show show the the parent, by conduct continuing parent, by continuing for aaperiod period of at -least least six months months
immediately preceding the filing filing of the petition, either has evidenced a a settled
purpose of relinquishing purpose of relinquishing parental claim to parental claim to a a child or has child or has refused or failed refused or to perform failed to perform
parental duties. 23 parental duties. 23 Pa. C.S. §$ 2511(a)(1). Pa. C.S. 2511(a)(1). The The focus of this focus of this subsection subsection is on the is on the
conduct of the the parent. parent. In In re B.L.L., B.LL., 787 A.2d A.2d 1007, 1007, 1013 1013 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2001) 2001) (citation (citation
13 omitted). Although the six months before a a petition is filed are critical to aa
determination, a considering termination of parental a court considering parental rights rights must weigh the
history of the case and determine if termination termination is is warranted warranted on on aatotality totality of the
circumstances. In re re B., NM., N.M., 856 856 A.2d A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004). 2004). A A parent parent must must
make a ""sincere sincere and genuine effort" to maintain aarelationship, relationship, use all available
resources to preserve the bond, and resist obstacles. In In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847,
855 (Pa.Super. 855 (Pa.Super. 2004). 2004). The Supreme Supreme Court has has stated:
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty duty is best understood in relation to the needs of aachild. A A child needs love, protection, guidance, protection, guidance, and support. These These needs, needs, physical physical and and emotional, cannot be met by a a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this court has held that the parental parental obligation is aapositive duty which requires requires affirmative performance. performance. duty ... requires This affirmative duty.. requires continuing continuing interest in the child and aa genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child. Because a a child needs more than a a benefactor, parental parental duty duty requires requires that that a a parent parent `'exert exert himself himself to to take take and maintain maintain aa place place of importance importance in the child's life.'
ofA.P., 692 A.2d 240,245 In Interest of 240, 245 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1997) 1997) (citing (citing In In re Burns, 379 A.2d
535 535 (Pa. (Pa. 1977)).
Analyzing Analyzing 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511(a)(D) 2511(a)(1) in relation relation to this this case, it is is clear from
the record that CYF offered clear and convincing evidence that Mother has refused
or failed failed to to perform perform parental parental duties for at least least six months months immediately immediately preceding preceding
the filing'of filing of the the petition petition to to terminate terminate her her parental parental rights rights to to the three three oldest children. children.
At At termination, termination, Mother Mother had had supervised visits visits for for one hour each each week, week, which which never never
14 progressed progressed to to unsupervised unsupervised or partially partially unsupervised, unsupervised, and which had to be decreased
due to to . Mother's absences from Children while on the run and during during periods periods of
incarceration. incarceration. Mother's Mother's incarcerations, incarcerations, time out of time out of state, and refusal state, and to attend refusal to certain attend certain
visits if all the children could not be present, present, for example, presented presented aahindrance to
her ability to perform parental duties. Due to Mother's -challenges parental duties. challenges with multiple multiple
incarcerations, incarcerations, lack of housing, lack of housing, and lack, of and lack of employment, employment, Mother was not Mother was not able able to to
provide provide either the the physical physical or emotional emotional support that that Children needed.
The court did hear testimony that Mother brought brought items for Children to visits,
Christmas gifts, and initially attended Children's medical and dental appointments. appointments.
However, However, Mother Mother stopped stopped attending these these appointments, appointments, saying that that she no no longer longer
received notice and acknowledged that she did not inquire about these appointments. appointments.
Although Mother has made progress after the filing of the petition petition to terminate her
parental parental rights, the court rights, the court must consider the must consider the totality of the totality of circumstances. Mother the circumstances. has Mother has
not addressed issues on aasystematic systematic or regular regular basis. The court recognizes recognizes that
Mother has made efforts, but they have not been diligent diligent and sustained efforts. Id.,
at 32. CYF CYF has provided provided sufficient evidence under under 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511(a)(1) 2511(a)(1) that that
Mother Mother has has failed failed to perform perform parental duties for for well well beyond beyond the the previous previous six months months
prior to the filing of the petition petition to terminate parental parental rights. rights.
II. Termination of parental rights rights is warranted under section section (a)(2). (a)(2).
15 There is sufficient evidence to terminate Mother's parental parental rights rights under 23
Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$2511(a)02). 2511(a)(2). This subsection can be be broken broken down into three elements: "( three elements: "()1)
repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect neglect or refusal; (2) (2) such incapacity,
abuse, neglect negleet or refusal refusal has has caused the the child child to to be be without without essential parental parental care,
control or subsistence necessary for his physical physical or mental well-being; and (3) well-being; and (3) the
causes of causes of the incapacity, abuse, the incapacity, abuse, neglect neglect or or refusal cannot or refusal cannot or will will not not be be remedied." remedied." In In
re Adoption of M.E.P. ME.P 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 1272 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations (Pa.Super. 2003) (citations omitted).
Unlike subsection subsection (a)(1), (a)(I), this subsection subsection "emphasizes "emphasizes the child's present present and future
need for essential parental subsistence necessary parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical physical or
mental well-being." In In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2008) (citations (citations
omitted). The children cannot wait for aaparent omitted). parent until he or she is prepared prepared to take on
parental responsibilities. Id. Id. at 83. Sincere efforts to perform perform parental parental duties can
preserve preserve the the rights rights of aaparent subsection (a)(1) parent under subsection (a(I) but but may may be insufficient insufficient as to
capacity to parent parent under under subsection (a)(2). In subsection (a)02). In re Z.P., 994 994 A.2d A.2d 1108, 1108, 1117 1117
(Pa.Super. 2010) (Pa.Super, 2010) (citations (citations omitted). omitted).
In regard regard to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$ 2511(a)02) Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(2) and this this case, it it is is clear clear from from the record record
that CYF offered offered clear and convincing evidence that that abuse, neglect neglect and refusal by refusal by
the Mother has caused all four children to be without essential parental parental care
necessary for their mental well-being well-being and the conditions and causes of the abuse,
neglect neglect and refusal refusal will will not not be be remedied remedied by by the the parent. parent. The The Court incorporates incorporates its its
16 summary of the facts in this case here and its answer under the previous previous factor. Here,
Mother's refusal or inability to comply comply with services, get get evaluations, maintain
employment, maintain consistent visits, or maintain housing housing throughout' throughout the
reunification period period has caused the children to continue to to be without essential
parental parental care for their mental and physical physical wellbeing. wellbeing. It is not clear to the Court that
the causes of Mother's abuse, neglect, neglect, or refusal will be be remedied, despite Mother's
recent progress made after the filing filing of of the petition petition for termination and after the first
day day of the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. Mother Mother was was involved with with CYF from 2017 2017 to t0 2022 2022 and from
January 2023 to present. This history certainly calls into question question whether Mother
will be able to remedy the conditions and causes of abuse, neglect, neglect, and refusal by by
Mother: Mother. Mother did not progress progress to unsupervised unsupervised visits with Children who have been
in placement for over twenty months, regarding regarding the oldest three. The youngest youngest child,
S.A.R., was only in Mother's care for a a couple of days out of concern for his medical
well-being and has only known the resource parent as a a parental figure. figure. The court
acknowledges that Mother's compliance compliance is better now, now, after her most recent release
from incarceration aa few weeks prior prior to termination. Yet, the court also heard
testimony during the adjudicatory period, that Mother had numerous addresses, was
incarcerated, incarcerated, went went on on the the run to Florida, run to and was Florida, and was incarcerated again after incarcerated again after her her return. return.
In twenty months, Mother has not maintained consistent visits, employment, employment, or
housing. Mother has not submitted to aamental health evaluation and had almost no
17 compliance with drug compliance drug and alcohol testing, testing, until after the filing filing of the termination
petition. Given the petition. Given the amount amount of of time time Mother Mother has been receiving has been receiving services or has services or has been been
involved involved with with' CYF, CYF, her her minimal progress, progress, the court remains remains concerned that that the
causes of Mother's abuse, neglect neglect or refusal will not be remedied. CYF has provided provided
sufficient sufficient evidence under under 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511(a)2) 2511(a)(2) that Mother's abuse, neglect Mother's abuse, neglect
and and refusal refusal has has caused Children to be be without without essential parental parental care necessary necessary for for
their mental well-being, well-being, and the conditions and causes of the abuse, abuse, neglect, neglect, and
refusal will not be remedied by by Mother.
III: Ill. section (a)(5) Termination is warranted under section (a)(5) for Mother.
In In addition, there grounds to there are grounds to terminate Mother's Mother's rights rights under under 23 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§
2511(a)(5). 2511(a)(5). This subsection can be broken down into five elements: elements: ((1) 1) the child has
been removed from from parental parental care for for at least months; (2) least six months; (2) the conditions conditions that led led
to the child's removal or placement placement continue to exist; exist; (3) (3) the parents parents cannot or will
not not remedy the conditions remedy the conditions which led to which led to removal or placement removal or placement within within a a reasonable reasonable
period period of time; (4) (4) the the services services reasonably reasonably available to to the the parents parents are are unlikely unlikely to to
remedy remedy the the conditions which which led led to removal removal or placement placement within aareasonable reasonable period period
and (5) termination of parental of time; and parental rights rights would best serve the needs and welfare
pf the of the child. See In In re re M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1273-74 A.2d 1266, 1273-74 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2003) 2003) (citation (citation
omitted). "[O]nce omitted). "[O [nce a a child is is removed of aaparent, removed from the care of parent, the the burden burden is is on on the the
18 parent to take action to regain regain parental parental rights." rights." In ofB. In the interest of C., 36 A.3d 60l, B.C., 601,
609 (Pa. 609 Super. 2012) (Pa.Super. 201 2) (citation omitted).
Here again, the court incorporates incorporates its responses above. The three oldest
children have been adjudicated adjudicated dependent for more than six months. The conditions
that led to Children's removal, such as -lack of lack of housing and supervision,
alcohol concerns, mental health concerns, etc., remain. After twenty months, it is not
clear that Mother will be able to remedy these conditions in a a reasonable time.
Although Mother Mother now now has has aahousing voucher, voucher, she still still has has to to find find suitable housing housing
for herself and four children. Mother still has to comply with aa mental health
evaluation for which an intake had not been done at the time time ' of termination and
comply with any recommendations. recommendations, Additionally, Mother still has pending charges,
and depending on the outcome, Mother may need to to complete a a threat of harm
evaluation and work toward any recommendations. It is likewise not clear to the
court that the services available to Mother are likely likely to remedy remedy the conditions within
aareasonable reasonable time. time. The court notes notes that that even with the services, Mother Mother has has not yet yet
progressed to having any unsupervised or partially partially unsupervised visits with her
children. Mother's absences necessitated aaperiod of adjustment to allow Children
time to transition. For example, with the resumption resumption of visits upon mother's second
release from incarceration, P.O.J. P.O.J, initially initially cried and did not want to leave the
resource parent. Tr., 7/19/2024, at 64-65. Additionally, the resource parents reported
19 that after the resumption of visits, P.O.J. has started hitting hitting after visits, was agitated, agitated,
and and was was not not able to fall fall asleep. asleep. Tr., 9/6/2024, at 56. 56. Mother Mother has has also received received services
prior prior to to this this current referral referral for for similar issues, issues, such as not not having having housing housing for for the the
children and years later, lack of housing has persisted.
Termination serves the needs and welfare of Children who need permanency, permanency,
stability, and support. For example, Z.A.C.S, whose truancy issues caused her to be
behind in her classwork, necessitating necessitating that she attend summer school in order to be
promoted to the first grade, made the honor roll last year. 33-34.; year. Tr., 9/6/2024, at 33-34.
TPR Hr'g, Hr'g, 7/19/2024, Ex. 1 I at 2. Additionally, Additionally, she has improved improved in her parentified parentified
behaviors, interacting interacting with her siblings siblings more as an older sibling sibling rather than aaparent. parent.
Both girls continue to receive weekly weekly therapy. therapy. Child, P.O.J., continues to receive
occupational and physical physical therapy therapy through through Early Intervention Intervention in in the the resource resource home, home,
and S.A.J. is involved with Early Intervention as well. All of the children are doing doing
well and have their needs met with their resource families who also make sure that
the children have visits with their siblings. siblings.
III. IHI. Termination of parental rights is warranted under 23 Pa.C.S.A Pa.CS.A 2511 (8) (8)
Once the child has been removed from the care of the parent, parent, the burden is on the
parent parent to take take action to rights. See to regain parental rights. See In In re Z.P., ZP., 2010 2010 PA Super 56, 994 PA Super
A.2d 1108, 1118-19 1118-19 (Pa. 2010) (holding (Pa. Super. 2010) (holding that parental obligation obligation is a a positive
duty which which requires requires affirmative performance). performance). We We do not not permit permit parental parental inertia inertia to to
20 toll the permanency toll permanency needs of the Child. In re N.M.B., 2004 PA Super 311, 856 A.2d
856 (Pa. 847, 856 2004) ("[A] (Pa. Super. 2004) right to tthe ("[A] parent's basic constitutional right he custody and rearing rearing of his or her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill his or her
parental parental duties, to the child's right right to have proper proper parenting and fulfillment of his or
her potential potential in aapermanent, permanent, healthy, environment. "). Although healthy, safe environment."). Although aaparent parent has
cooperated with CYS in providing providing the necessary releases, when the fact remains that
the parent's mental and emotional issues, which require require additional treatment,
remained remained unaddressed unaddressed at the time time of the termination hearing, hearing, the the issues issues that that lead lead to to
placement continue to exist. In the Interest of placement ofB. C., 36 A.3d 601, 609-610, 2012 Pa. B.C.,
Super. Super. LEXIS 7, 18, * 18, 2012 PA Super 7.
When examining claims in relation to Section 2511(a)(8), the court follows
established case law. law. In In order to to demonstrate that that termination termination is is proper proper pursuant pursuant to
Section 2511(a(8), 2511(a)(8), CYS must prove by by clear and convincing convincing evidence that: ((I) 1) the
child has been removed from the care of the parent parent for at least twelve months; months; (2) (2)
the conditions that led to the removal or placement placement of the child continue to exist; and
(3) termination of parental parental rights rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
In re C.L.G., CL.G,, 2008 PA Super 198, 956 A.2d 999, 1005 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2008).
Termination under Section 2511(a)(8) does not require require the court to evaluate aa
parent's current willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused
placement placement or the availability or efficacy ofCYF of CYF services. services. In re D.A.T., D.A.T, 91 A.3d A.3 197,
21 205, 205, 2014 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS Pa. Super. LEXIS 228, 228, *19, 19, 2014 2014 PA Super 86, PA Super 86, 2014 2014 WL WL 1687812. 1687812.
Where Where aaparent parent has addressed some some of the the conditions that led led to to aachild's removal, removal,
but other conditions but other conditions still exist, this still exist, this element may be element may be deemed deemed to to be satisfied. See be satisfied. See In re i C.L.G.; CL.G., 2008 PA Super Super 198, 198, 956 A.2d 999, 1005 1005 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Pa. Super. 2008) (en (en banc). bane).
Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511(a)(8), 2511(a)(8), it it is clear from is clear from the the record record that CYF offered that CYF offered
convincing evidence that clear and convincing that the the three three oldest children have have been removed removed from from
the care the care of of the the parent parent by the court by the court or or under under aavoluntary voluntary agreement with an agreement with an agency, agency,
twelve months twelve or more months or more have elapsed from have elapsed from the the date date of of removal removal or or placement, placement, the the
conditions which conditions which led to the led to the removal or placement removal or placement of of the the child child continue continue to to exist, exist, and and
termination of parental rights rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
The three oldest children were adjudicated dependent were adjudicated dependent on January January 18, 2023; 18, 2023;
therefore, therefore, more more than twelve months than twelve months have elapsed since have elapsed since the the Children Children were removed were removed
from the care of Mother. The The Court incorporates incorporates its summary of its summary of the the facts. facts and
answers above above regarding regarding the continued existence of conditions that that led led to to removal. removal.
The The Court stresses again that, stresses again that, at this time, termination would this time, would serve Children's Children's needs needs
and welfare. and welfare. Although, Mother has Although, Mother has made made progress progress in in the the weeks leading to weeks leading to
.termination, termination, such securing employment, such as securing employment, signing signing up up for for aa housing voucher, housing voucher,
requesting requesting aa mental mental health evaluation, securing health evaluation, securing aa medical medical marijuana card, and marijuana card, and
improving improving her call-in rate with alcohol and drug drug testing, testing, the court may may not consider
these late efforts under this factor. Mother has never progressed progressed to unsupervised unsupervised
22 visits, and the three oldest children have already been dependent for twenty twenty months.
The children have aa wonderful parental parental bond with the resource parents, parents, and
termination would best serve Children's needs and welfare at this time, time, as will be
discussed below. Mother has not been able to provide provide for Children's developmental,
physical, or emotional needs. Child's needs are being being met by by the resource parents. parents.
CYF has provided sufficient evidence under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511(a(8) 2511(a)(8) that
Child has been removed from from the care of the Mother by by the court -or under aa
voluntary agreement agreement with an agency, agency, twelve months or more have elapsed elapsed from from the
date of removal removal or placement, placement, the the conditions which which led led to the the removal removal or or placement placement
exist, and termination of parental of the child continue to exist, parental rights rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child.
IV. IV, Termination of parental rights is in the best interests of Child.
A A court must give primary consideration "to the developmental, give primary developmental, physical physical and
emotional needs and welfare of the child." 23 Pa.C.S. §$ 2511(b). "Intangibles "Intangibles such
as love, comfort, security, security, and stability stability are involved in the inquiry inquiry into needs and
welfare of the child." In In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 re CM.S., 1287 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2005). 2005). The bond
between parent and child must be examined, to determine if termination would
destroy an existing, necessary, and beneficial relationship. In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95,
103 103 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2011) 2011) (quoting (quoting In In re re T.B.B., T.B.B., 825 A.2d 387 (Pa.Super. 2003)). 387(Pa.Super. A child 2003)). A
has the right right to care in aapermanent, permanent, healthy, safe environment. See In In re re K.M., 53 K.M., 5S3
23 792 (Pa.Super. A.2d 781, 792 2012) (citing (Pa.Super. 2012) (citing In re Adoption Adoption ofR.J.S., R.JS., 901 A.2d at 507). 507)
"[T]he mere existence of aabond or attachment of aa child to a "[Tlhe a parent parent will not
necessarily necessarily result result in the the denial of aatermination termination petition petition. .... courts considering considering
termination must also consider whether the children are in aapre-adoptive pre-adoptive home and
whether they they have have a a bond bond with with their their foster foster parents." parents." In re T.S.M., T.SM.,7171 A.3d A.3d 251, 267- 251,267.
68 (Pa.Super. 68 2013) (citations (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations omitted). Additionally, Additionally, appellate appellate courts have stated
that the trial court should consider the importance of continuity continuity of relationships relationships and
whether any existing parent-child bond can be severed without detrimental effects
on the child.
The The trial trial court is is not not required required by by statute statute or precedent precedent to to order that that a a formal formal
bonding bonding evaluation be be performed performed by by an an expert. In re KK.R. -S., 2008 PA Super K.K.R.-S., Super 231,
958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008). There (Pa. Super, There are are some instances instances where where direct
observation of the interaction between the parent parent and the child is not necessary necessary and
may even be detrimental to the child child. Id., Id., 946 A.2d at 762. This Court explained explained that,
in cases where there is no evidence of any any bond between the parent parent and child, child, it is
reasonable to infer that no bond exists. Id. at 763.
As stated in the statute: The court in terminating terminating the rights rights of aaparent parent shall
give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and
welfare of the child. The rights rights of aaparent shall not be terminated solely solely on the basis
of environmental factors such as inadequate inadequate housing, housing, furnishings, furnishings, income, clothing
24 and medical care if found to be beyond beyond the control of the parent. parent. With respect respect to any any
petition petition filed pursuant pursuant to subsection (a)(1), to subsection (a(), (6) (6) or (8), (8), the the court shall not not consider
any efforts by any by the the parent parent to to remedy remedy the the conditions described therein which which are first first
initiated subsequent to the giving giving of notice of the filing filing of the petition. petition.
In In 2023, the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Court Court issued a a ruling ruling that that clarified for
Pennsylvania trial courts that determinations of whether involuntary involuntary termination
meets aachild's needs and welfare requires requires aamulti-factor analysis analysis that cannot be
limited to merely whether aaparent-child parent-child bond exists that would be adverse to
terminate. The The Court Court' explains explains that the the multi-factor multi-factor needs needs and welfare welfare analysis in
termination-of-parental-rights cases requires applying a "necessary and beneficial" beneficial"
standard in considering the parent-child bond as one of those factors.
"But aacourt conducting the Section Section 2511(b) 2511(b) needs needs and and welfare welfare analysis must consider more than proof of an adverse or detrimental detrimental impact from severance of the parental bond. We emphasize analysis of the parental parental bond is but one part of of the overall subsection (b) (b) analysis, analysis, which includes aa determination determmation of whether whether the the bond bond isis necessary necessary and and beneficial to the child, i.e., ie., whether maintaining maintaining the bond serves the developmental, physical, child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.
The Section 2511(b) The 2511(b) inquiry inquiry must must also include consideration of other important important factors factors such such as: the child's need need for permanency and for permanency and length length of time in foster care.,; care ... ; whether the child is in aapre[-] adoptive home pre[-Jadoptive and bonded bonded with with foster foster parents; parents; and whether whether the the foster foster home home meets meets the the child's developmental, physical, physical, and emotional emotional needs, needs, including including intangible needs of love, comfort, security, safety, and stability stability .... .... The court court must must not not truncate truncate its its analysis and and preclude preclude severance severance based based solely solely on on evidence ofof an an "adverse" "adverse" or "detrimental" impact impact to to the the child. Therefore, to grant termination when a a parental bond exists, there must
25 be clear and convincing evidence that the bond is not necessary necessary and beneficial.
As we have explained, "an emotional bond" with a a parent is legally insufficient to preclude preclude termination of parental rights without parental rights determining determining whether such bond is necessary necessary and beneficial to the child and weighing weighing the other factors present present in the record. Likewise, an "adverse "adverse effect" or "detrimental impact" of severance alone cannot demonstrate aanecessary and beneficial bond.
In the Interest ofK.T., K.T, 296 A.3d 1085, 1105, 1113-15 1113-15 (Pa. (Pa. 2023)
In analyzing this case under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §8 2511(b), it is clear from the record
that CYF CYF offered clear and convincing convincing evidence that that the developmental, physical, the developmental, physical,
and emotional needs and welfare of Child is best served by by terminating parental
rights. Regarding Children's bond, the court heard testimony that the two oldest
children have aawonderful and healthy relationship relationship with their aunt, their kinship kinship
placement placement and pre-adoptive resource. resource. Tr., 46-47. The resource Tr., 7/19/2024, at 46-47, resource parent parent
provides comfort and support. The girls are old enough enough to know mom and they they have
expressed their desire to live with her as their first choice. However, Caseworker
Swarr testified that that Z.A.C.S.'s bond with with Mother is is not not healthy healthy due to to the the
parentification issue and that Y.A.M. has aafamiliar bond, knowing knowing who Mother is,
but the relationship is not parental. Tr., 9/6/2024, at 14-15. The caseworker also
reported reported that P.O.J.'s P.O.J's bond with with Mother Mother is is familiar familiar but not not parental parental and noted that that
after recent visits he's been defiant, hitting, hitting, and spitting. spitting. Id., Id., at 15. The caseworker
also testified that S.A.J. does not have aaparental bond with Mother. Child is only only
26 about ten months old and has never lived with Mother. Id. The youngest children are
bonded to their resource parents who are their pre-adoptive resource.
Maintaining the bond does not serve the Children's developmental, physical,
and emotional needs. Unfortunately, the nature of Mother's instability with
employment, housing, sporadic visits, mental health concerns, etc., impact the
Children's developmental, physical, and emotional needs. Since January 18, 2023,
and February 18, 2023, Children's needs have been and are being addressed by the
resource resource .families families who who are pre-adoptive pre-adoptive resources resources for for Children and with with whom whom
Children are bonded. Z.A.C.S.'s improvement in school and with parentification is
aa prime example. example. Resource parents meet Children's intangible needs for love,
comfort, safety, and stability, as well as, their physical and developmental needs
related schooling, therapy, Early Intervention, etc. Although the two oldest children
have have a a parental parental bond bond with with Mother, Mother, there is clear there is clear and convincing evidence and convincing evidence on on the the
record that that. the bond is not necessary or beneficial to Children. Children. The three oldest
children have been in placement for over twenty months as of the date that
termination of parental rights rights was granted. All the Children's need for permanency permanency
is paramount at this time. CYF has provided clear and convincing evidence under
23 Pa.C.S.A. PA.CS.A. §$ 2511(b) that the parental parental bond in this case is not necessary and
beneficial to Child.
27 In In summary, CYF provided summary, CYF clear and provided clear and convincing convincing evidence evidence that termination that termination
best served Child's best served emotional needs Child's emotional needs and and welfare welfare under under 23 23 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)1),
(a)(2), and (a)02), and (a)(8) (a)(8) and under under §$ 2511(b). 2511(b). Therefore, the Court did not err in finding finding
that that Mother's Mother's conduct met met at least least one of the the grounds grounds for for termination termination under under the
statute. statute.
In this case, the court notes Mother's efforts and her current progress progress and does
not doubt that she loves Children and hopes hopes to provide provide for them. However, in
reviewing reviewing termination of parental termination of parental rights, rights, the the Superior Court has Superior Court has stated that "[t]he stated that "[t]he
court cannot and and will will not not subordinate indefinitely indefinitely aachild's child's need need for permanence permanence and
stability to stability to aaparent's parent's claims of progress progress and hope hope for for the the future." future." In re Adoption Adoption of of
R.J.S., R.JS.,, 2006 Pa. Super 2006 Pa. Super 127, 127, $¶ 29, 29, 901 901 A.2d 502, 513 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. Ct. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). 2006). The court The court
believes that termination is in Child best interest at this time time.
CONCLUSION
After review of the record and for the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, the court hereby hereby
reaffirms reaffirms its its order terminating Mother's order terminating Mother's parental parental rights entered on rights entered on September September 6,
BY THE COURT,
N. CHRISTOPVVR R MENGES, JUDGE 28
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Int. of: Y.A.M., a Minor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-int-of-yam-a-minor-pasuperct-2025.