In the Interest of: A.K., Appeal of: A.K.
This text of In the Interest of: A.K., Appeal of: A.K. (In the Interest of: A.K., Appeal of: A.K.) 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-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.K., A MINOR : : : : : No. 934 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.K., A MINOR : : : : : No. 936 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY : OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH : AND FAMILIES : : : No. 935 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021 J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY : OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH : AND FAMILIES : : : No. 937 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT MINOR : OF PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY : COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN, : YOUTH AND FAMILIES : : : No. 938 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000156-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT MINOR : OF PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M.P., A MINOR : : : : : No. 939 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000156-2021
-2- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 9, 2023
These appeals were filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children,
Youth and Families (CYF) and by KidsVoice, the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), on
behalf of A.K. (born in August of 2019) and M.P. (born in December of 2015)
(collectively Children), from the July 20, 2022 orders issued by the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, denying CYF’s
petitions requesting the involuntary termination of the parental rights of M.F.
(Mother), the birth mother of A.K. and M.P., and of D.K. (Father), the birth
father of A.K. Following our review, we affirm the orders on appeal.1
The trial court’s extensive opinion sets forth a detailed explanation of
the facts and procedural history of this case that led to the orders now on
appeal. The opinion includes a history of the family’s interactions with CYF.
It also provides a discussion concerning the testimony of the various
witnesses, who testified at the hearings held on June 3, June 13, and June 22
of 2022. One of the witnesses was Terri Wayne, a CYF caseworker, who was
involved in the case from its inception in July of 2018. The court also heard
testimony from Scott Priestley, a retired police officer, and Joy Hall, an
investigation manager who worked for a private investigation firm, both of
whom were involved in locating the family in Tennessee, after they had left
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1This Court consolidates these appeals sua sponte in that they involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
-3- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
the Allegheny County area. The court also heard testimony from Dr. Patricia
Pepe, a psychology expert, who evaluated both Mother and Father and their
interaction with the Children. The court’s opinion also includes an extensive
recitation of the testimony given by Mother and Father, provides a discussion
about their assigned goals, and the progress they made.
Then, following its explanation of the standard of review that this Court
applies to an appeal in an involuntary parental termination matter, the trial
court set forth the language of the applicable statute, i.e., 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a) and (b), and discusses the basis for its decision to deny the petitions
filed by CYF. Specifically, the opinion explains the court’s reasons for
concluding that CYF had failed to meet its burden of proof, citing the three
incidents on which CYF mainly relied — namely, the Tennessee abscondence,
the birthday party incident, and the herb incident. The opinion also contains
specifics as to the trial court’s credibility determinations, concluding that CYF
failed to meet its burden of proof.
Both CYF and KidsVoice on behalf of the Children filed appeals. Their
briefs contain issues asserting that the trial court erred as a matter of law
and/or abused its discretion in denying the termination petitions in that the
evidence they presented proved that the grounds for termination existed
under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and that the termination would serve the
Children’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).
Essentially, the arguments asserted by CYF and KidsVoice are
requesting that this Court re-find facts and re-weigh the evidence presented.
-4- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
However, our standard of review does not permit us to function in this manner.
Rather,
[t]he standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). Applying this standard, we conclude that the trial court’s findings
are based on competent evidence contained in the record and its conclusions
are not unreasonable.
We have reviewed the certified record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable
law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable
Tiffany Sizemore of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated
September 23, 2022. We conclude that Judge Sizemore’s opinion properly
disposes of the issues presented by CYF and KidsVoice. Accordingly, we adopt
the trial court’s opinion as our own and affirm the orders denying the
termination petitions on that basis.
Orders affirmed.
-5- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 3/9/2023
-6- i Circulated 02/08/2023 02:43 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF: CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL
A.K. and M.P., : OPINION minors.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.K., A MINOR : : : : : No. 934 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.K., A MINOR : : : : : No. 936 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY : OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH : AND FAMILIES : : : No. 935 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021 J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY : OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH : AND FAMILIES : : : No. 937 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT MINOR : OF PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY : COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN, : YOUTH AND FAMILIES : : : No. 938 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000156-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT MINOR : OF PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: M.P., A MINOR : : : : : No. 939 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000156-2021
-2- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED: MARCH 9, 2023
These appeals were filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children,
Youth and Families (CYF) and by KidsVoice, the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), on
behalf of A.K. (born in August of 2019) and M.P. (born in December of 2015)
(collectively Children), from the July 20, 2022 orders issued by the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, denying CYF’s
petitions requesting the involuntary termination of the parental rights of M.F.
(Mother), the birth mother of A.K. and M.P., and of D.K. (Father), the birth
father of A.K. Following our review, we affirm the orders on appeal.1
The trial court’s extensive opinion sets forth a detailed explanation of
the facts and procedural history of this case that led to the orders now on
appeal. The opinion includes a history of the family’s interactions with CYF.
It also provides a discussion concerning the testimony of the various
witnesses, who testified at the hearings held on June 3, June 13, and June 22
of 2022. One of the witnesses was Terri Wayne, a CYF caseworker, who was
involved in the case from its inception in July of 2018. The court also heard
testimony from Scott Priestley, a retired police officer, and Joy Hall, an
investigation manager who worked for a private investigation firm, both of
whom were involved in locating the family in Tennessee, after they had left
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1This Court consolidates these appeals sua sponte in that they involve related parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
-3- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
the Allegheny County area. The court also heard testimony from Dr. Patricia
Pepe, a psychology expert, who evaluated both Mother and Father and their
interaction with the Children. The court’s opinion also includes an extensive
recitation of the testimony given by Mother and Father, provides a discussion
about their assigned goals, and the progress they made.
Then, following its explanation of the standard of review that this Court
applies to an appeal in an involuntary parental termination matter, the trial
court set forth the language of the applicable statute, i.e., 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a) and (b), and discusses the basis for its decision to deny the petitions
filed by CYF. Specifically, the opinion explains the court’s reasons for
concluding that CYF had failed to meet its burden of proof, citing the three
incidents on which CYF mainly relied — namely, the Tennessee abscondence,
the birthday party incident, and the herb incident. The opinion also contains
specifics as to the trial court’s credibility determinations, concluding that CYF
failed to meet its burden of proof.
Both CYF and KidsVoice on behalf of the Children filed appeals. Their
briefs contain issues asserting that the trial court erred as a matter of law
and/or abused its discretion in denying the termination petitions in that the
evidence they presented proved that the grounds for termination existed
under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and that the termination would serve the
Children’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).
Essentially, the arguments asserted by CYF and KidsVoice are
requesting that this Court re-find facts and re-weigh the evidence presented.
-4- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
However, our standard of review does not permit us to function in this manner.
Rather,
[t]he standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). Applying this standard, we conclude that the trial court’s findings
are based on competent evidence contained in the record and its conclusions
are not unreasonable.
We have reviewed the certified record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable
law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable
Tiffany Sizemore of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated
September 23, 2022. We conclude that Judge Sizemore’s opinion properly
disposes of the issues presented by CYF and KidsVoice. Accordingly, we adopt
the trial court’s opinion as our own and affirm the orders denying the
termination petitions on that basis.
Orders affirmed.
-5- J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 3/9/2023
-6- i Circulated 02/08/2023 02:43 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF: CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL
A.K. and M.P., : OPINION minors. Docket No.: CP-02-AP• 1S `-T -2021
934 WDA 2022 936 WDA 2022
BY: Honorable Tiffany Sizemore 440 Ross Street Room 526 Pittsburgh, PA, 15219
COPIES TO:
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Bobbi Jo Wagner, Esquire Deputy Prothonotary 310 Grant St, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Erin Krotosynzki, Esquire (Guardian ad litem for Appellants) Kids Voice 437 Grant Street, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
Ilene L. Dubin, Esquire (Counsel for Appellant) Fort Pitt Commons, Suite 101 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Joseph Luvara (Counsel for parents) Two PPG Place, Suite 440 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF: : CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL
A.K. and M.P., OPINION minors. Docket No.: CP +02-AP-000130-2021
9341 WDA 2022 936 WDA 2022
OPINION
SIZEMORE, J. September 22, 2022
On July 5, 2022, following three days of evidentiary hearings on June 3, 2022, June 13,
2022, and June 22, 2022., on the above-captioned matters, this Court issued Orders denying both
of Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families' ("CYF") petitions for involuntary
termination of the parental rights of M.F. ("Mother"), the birth mother of the two minors, and
D.K. ("Father"), the birth father of A.K.
This Court denied CYF's petitions to terminate the parental rights of Mother to both
children and denied the petition to terminate the rights of Father to A.K., his biological child.
Following the Court's Orders, CYF and the Guardian Ad Litem for appellants A.K. and M.P.
timely filed aconcise statement of matters complained of on appeal. For the reasons set forth
below, the Orders of this Court should be affirmed.
1 BACKGROUND
1. History of Family with CYF
Terri Wayne, acaseworker for Allegheny County CYF (hereinafter "CYF'), provided
testimony about her history with the family. See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 13, rnB t her- 2022 ("Tr. II"), at 62. Ms. Wayne has worked with mother, , since the Al etf•Cr inception of the case. Id. at 63. Initially, in July 2018, 0101MM called CYF and said she
needed housing and financial support. Id. at 66. She reported that she had atwo- year-old
(M.P.) with no support in the area. Id. She was calling from Philadelphi jand was trying to
secure support for when she arrived in Pittsburgh. Id at 67. She presented herself and M.P.
on July 9, 2018, at afirehouse in aPittsburgh neighborhood called East Liberty. Id. The
agency connected her to Allegheny Links and alocal shelter called Womenspace East. Id. Ma t•4— However, MNM• left the firehouse with M.P. prior to being able to get services in place.
Id.
mother Ms. Wayne further testified that she went looking ford and M.P. and
employed the agency CSI unit to help. Id. She was particularly concerned because bhz•F
had been seen talking to herself and had displayed some rapid speech patterns. Id. Eventually i the agency caught up with her in an empty house, where it was believed that M.P.'s father
used to live. Id.
MA4.1- VFJN• indicated to Ms. Wayne that she and M.P, no longer needed services. Id. at
69. However, she did eventually agree to meet up with Ms. Wayne and do astandard intake mo Aer- interview. Id. During the intake interview, $hokawwsaid that she was overwhelmed and
came to Pittsburgh looking for M.P.'s father. Id. She said that she was in Philadelphia
2 working on political activism matters that were important to her. Prior to Philadelphia, she
had been in the state of Florida. Id.
reported having behavioral health issues since around the age of three. Id.
at 70. She said that these issues were the result of trauma in the child welfare system. Id. She
had been first removed from her biological parents at three-years-old and then again at age
five. Id. She indicated that she had several mental health diagnoses, including bipolar
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and sex addiction.' Id.
Following this intake interview, CYF decided not to remove M.P1 from the care of YN1va'1•tr Pylmfhe - Id. at 73. Wimii■iwpresented as cooperative and having insight into her mot-her diagnoses. tated that she had been out of mental health treatment for awhile and y4o i-h,cr needed to get back involved. Id. at 70. According to Ms. Wayne, 'd as talking
"nonstop" but had insight into what was happening. Id. at 71. Ms. Wayne assessed the
situation as aparent asking for assistance, and not as adangerous situation. Id. The agency MpAer assigned in-home services to Viand set up ateaming meeting within the first week. Mother Id. as connected to Department of Human Services (hereinafter "DHS") housing
supports and reported that she had some job interviews set up. Id.
Ms. Wayne also met with M.P. during this initial period of contact with CYF. Id. at M,4 Gr- 72. She noticed some issues► 11 o`•hhis demeanor and pointed it out t with Id. at 72-73. er • According to Ms. Wayne, idenied that the behaviors were happening. Id. I
1The Court notes that later in her testimony, Ms. Wayne stated that there were facts and circumstances from this initial interview that CYF decided were untrue. However, with the exception of one instance, Ms. Wayne's testimony was largely based on inadmissible hearsay that the Court did not consider reliable. Tr. it at 74.
3 On July 23, 2018, CYF was noted by the shelter that RESOLVF, (crisis mental M.*-Ner health services) had to be called to the shelter because of an incident with 41NNN•. Id. at
77. It was reported that she had made some sort of herbal mixture that would cause her to
have aheart attack, as she intended to kill herself. Id at 79. Prior to inggsting the herbs, lb moth cr- Ml mmook M.P. to afirehouse where Mr. Palmer was working as an EMT. Id. Mr. Palmer
took M.P. and went back to the shelter. Id. at 78. The Shelter, in turn, cared RESOLVE. Id. ma+,,er WwW•agreed to let CYF take M.P. to Jeremiah's Place and she went to the University of
Pittsburgh Western Psychiatric Hospital (hereinafter "WPIC"). Id. WPIq admitted flaw Yin oAdr- to the hospital for psychiatric treatment. Id. at 80.
CYF applied for an emergency care authorization (ECA) to place'M.P. in its custody
and the application was approved. Id. Ms. Wayne picked up M.P, from Jeremiah's Place and
placed him in an emergency placement through Pressley Ridge. Id. He went to the foster i S. , 6, home of Id.
v In the meantime as discharged from WPIC and went back to the shelter.
but she was not permitted because she no longer had achild with her, which was a r o +-ker requirement of that program. Id. As aresult, hirrwWwwwleft the shelter and went to stay with —Fa- 1.6 er VYI oAt4-- . Id. tftdoWreported that she was attending outpatient treatment at m ofk er- WPIC but, according to Ms. Wayne, 150ftm would not sign aRelease of Information so
that CYF could get any records of her treatment. Id. at 83. In fact, Ms. Wayne testified that i
4 mo4W up until the present date of her testimony, &Swff shad never signed aRelease of
Information for the agency to receive records of mental health treatment, 2
mp4, he,r !also began working with an in-home service provider icalled Every Child,
getting her public benefits transferred from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, a*d getting transport
to employment interviews. Id CYF filed adependency petition related to M.P., and he was Y110 Aer adjudicated dependent on September 26, 2018 3.Id. The Court ordered that MOM S
Attend and complete mental health treatment; Obtain independent housing; Complete the
Arsenal parenting program; Engage in adrug and alcohol assessment; C6nnect to services for
M.P. had reported that he had an autism diagnosis). Id. at 84,
mof,her In December 2018,E obtained housing in the West Mifflin area of ma4e.r Allegheny County. Id. at 86. yNkSoft was having supervised visitation with M.P. during
this time and attending consistently. Id. M.P. was successfully evaluated and ruled out for
autism. Id at 87. However, around that time, Dr. Patricia Pepe 4 diagnosed him with S. 7F. 5.3 Oppositional Defiant Disorder. M.P. was still wither at the time. Id. 41901M
requested that M.P, be removed at the time due to physical aggression against her and her 16, 8. pets. Id at 88. The behaviors 11119110m reported were consistent with the behavior that Ms.
Wayne had previously observed. Id.
M.P. was then moved to another traditional foster home via Pressley Ridge. Id. at 89.
It was ahome with four children. Id. at 89. He stayed there until July 2019. Id. He was asked
2 It rnoth• should be noted that there was significant testimony —at times conflicting — about whethe rsigned Releases of information,when they were signed,and whether they were useful. The Court' sconclusions about that testimony will be discussed later in this Opinion. 3 M.P. was adjudicated by the Honorable Guido DeAngelis, who retired in December 2021. This Court took over this case in January 2022, at which time it was being overseen by aHearing Officer for permanency reviews. Nearly every court order,permanency finding and other decision in this case was made by this Court'spredecessor. °Another witness in this matter,whose testimony will be discussed later.
5 V11o+f ey to leave because of his behaviors and because •ept raising concerns that she Mef-her believed M.P. was being abused there. Id. In July 2019, M.P. was reunifitied wi
in her home, after having been in foster care for 13 months, Id. The agenby, pursuant to a
recommendation from Dr. Pepe, did not object to reunification because Or. Pepe believed
that it would be very detrimental to M.P. to place him in another foster hpme. Id. at 90. By rnV*1x" V-&Ae r' that time, 1dmdi• and were married and expecting ababy. Id. at 89. In r"0 heir August 2019, 111dMOM gave birth to AX Id.
The service plan, upon reunification, was for the family to: Work with in-home
services at least twice weekly; Participate in Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). Id. at
90-91. During this time, CYF conducted ahome visit following the birth of A.K. Id. at 92.
Ms. Wayne reported some of the usual acting-out behaviors that she had seen from M.P. in I the past. Id at 93. However, the home was safe and appropriate, and there was never an
attempt to remove A.K, or file adependency petition for him at that time, Id. Ms. Wayne i testified that she asked for asigned Release of Information at that visit acid that mother i signed it. However, Ms. Wayne did not realize it was signed incorrectly until she got back to
the office. Id
II. The Abscondence Incident
Ms. Wayne testified that on September 26, 2019, it was reported to her that on the /ho day before A.K. was taken to his primary care physician (PCP) where reported J: .++he - concerns about constipation and belly bruising. Id. at 97. She reported that I
had tried to squeeze or massage A.K.'s belly in the hopes that he would hove abowel
movement, but she was concerned about the effect that the squeezing had on the baby. Id i The PCP told her to go to UPMC Children's Hospital Emergency Department. Id. JO.
6 IUOAcr' GOr allegedly asked whether aCYF referral would be made. Id. at 96- 7. The PCP said e1r yes because of mandated reporting laws. Id. then brought A.K. to •a•'hur Children's Hospital. Id. Children's told l l•that A.K. wou dhave to stay Ybl06er overnight for testing. IddddUW• and WMW left with both, children before
testing and the overnight stay could be completed Id. The E.R. physicians called l Me+-h-ew phone thinking that they were elsewhere in the hospital. Id. 64REMMm4nswered the phone
but then hung up when the doctor identified herself. Id. Ms. Wayne texted idEdbmw and
directed her to take A.K. back to hospital. She did not do so. Id. Eventually 1`i■■i; Or
and the kids were located in Tennessee, and all were brought back to
Pittsburgh. Id. at 99. A.K. had amedical examination in Tennessee and another on October
Yd with the same physician at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh. Id. at 100. He was found to
be healthy at both examinations. Id
Irno fh w Subsequently, CYF obtained ECA's for both children. Id. at 106. ilrt and 10
were arrested and charged related to taking the children out of state and both
eventually plerd guilty to one IN count of Disorderly Conduct ( S). Id. at 109.
and KW According to Ms. Wayne, lid reported to the agency that they left the hospital i prematurely because it was late, and they were concerned about A.K. being continuously mss..+he_r- poked and prodded. Id at 100. said he was concerned about A.K. being
traumatized by the experience but also that he himself was sick and needed to leave. Id.
The children were brought back to Pittsburgh on October Yd and, upon their return,
A.K. was examined by the same physician that examined him prior to the abscondence. Id. at
99. Ms. Wayne testified that the hospital found no injuries or other concerns. Ms. Wayne also
7 •'S stated that CYF assessed • h•r parents as emergency caregiversAam subsequently
placed both children in the home that night. Id.
A. Scott Priestley
At the TPR hearing on June 13, 2022, CYF also presented the testimony of Scott
.Priestley, aretired police lieutenant at the West Mifflin Police Department. See Tr. II. at 5. -Fa +n wA,5 Mr. Priestley testified that the — N0located by the Lcwisl ur8 Police
Department after the FBI notified them of the family's presence in the area. Id. at 10. The
Lewisburg Police Department was then able to locate their vehicle and initiate atraffic stop.
Id. Mr. Priestley testified that when th wci-5 found: the police discovered the
following items in the vehicle: several baggies of suspected marijuana, amarijuana grinder,
rolling papers, and awooden pipe that police suspected was used for ingesting marijuana. Id.
at 11. Furthermore, their phones were found to be wrapped in aluminum foil, which Mr.
Priestley stated is typically done to eliminate any signal being tracked from that phone. Id.
The phones were confiscated and investigated. Id. Mr. Priestley stated that there were texts Me + h- er'S discovered on the phone sent from Abend • phone to Reverend Bruce, who was located i in Lewisburg, Tennessee. Id. at 12. One text message asked for help, and'another talked rn af-hrte-- about needing to ` flee right away'. Id. also received amessage from Ms. Terri M& 4-he r Wayne on the morning of September 2b a', informing 11 that she needed to return the i children to Children's. Id.
Mr. Priestley further testified that aGoFundMe started by the was
brought to his attention. Id. at 14-15. The GoFundMe was started to raise l money to hire an
attorney that could help them regain custody of their children. Id. Mr. Priestley also stated Mo i+e.r- tea---her- I th at q0d• and . were arrested for endangering the welfare of children,
8 intimidation and retaliation or obstruction in child abuse cases, and subsgquently brought
back to Pittsburgh. Id. at 15-16. The children were transported to alocal hospital in
Tennessee for an evaluation and the CYF in Allegheny County was cons#cted. Id. The yU c+hW •i -her District Attorney made adeal with IIjff sand but Mr. Priestley
testified that he did not know the nature of the deal or what happened with the case. Id. at 16-
17.
B. Joy Hall
CYF presented testimony from Joy Hall, an investigation manager for Corporate
Security Investigations, aprivate investigation firm that provides service4 for CYF. See Tr. nmorh,rr' II, at 36. On September 26 h,Ms. Hall received areferral from CYF to locate b-111e r and the two children. Id. at 37. Ms. Hall was able to locate the family in •o•MI) was Tennessee. Id at 40. The staying at aproperty that was owned by
Reverend Bruce. Id. at 49. Ms. Hall further testified the children did not exhibit behavior that
stood out to her when she picked them up in Tennessee or during the trip back to Pittsburgh.
Id. at 50. She also noted that both children were acting appropriate for their age. Id. at 57.
III. Expert Testimony of Dr.Patricia Pepe
The County presented the testimony of Dr. Patricia Pepe as an expert witness in
psychology and child psychology. See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 3, 2022 ("Tr.
lb"), at 5. Dr. Pepe produced four evaluation reports related to this case and those are
contained in CYF Exhibit 1. Id. at 6. The salient points from Dr. Pepe's testimony are as i follows:
4-tz,-hor In 2018, jaj ii was compliant with medication management. Id. at 10-11. She i'vin+ke,#--' was taking amedication called Abilify, and she found it to be helpful. Id. at 11. WNWI•
9 was stable, in Dr. Pepe's opinion, and so she recommended reunification as long as there was
stable housing. Id. at 25. According to Dr. Pepe, her understanding was that NOD 1-her- as
compliant with taking her medication until she became pregnant with A. K. Id. at 12.
The most recent evaluations that Dr. Pepe did were in 2022. Id. at 12. She conducted mofh,w an MMPI-2 personality test o ecause she wanted to get an Objective measure of
functioning. Id. at 13. She diagnos with apersonality disorder,
which she claimed to have always been adiagnosis since her first interaction with IS mt4er &•Id. at 20. She opined that personality disorders are enduring and hard to deal with
because people with personality disorders often feel victimized. Id. She opined that if Mother Mum had been in consistent mental health treatment, her personality profile would look
differently. U at 38. Overall, Dr. Pepe diagnosed her with: PTSD, General Personality
Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder (by history).
Mv4-heor'4 She evaluated most recent 2022 interactional evaluation with the boys as Me i-he,r "fairly positive." Id. at 39 .ddwg•was comfortable with both of her sons. Id. at 43. She
believed that the abseondence to Tennessee had adeep impact on M.P. and affected the mv•hf'r relationship between kjwjbm■rs and M.P.. Id. at 38. Nonetheless, she testified that M.P. has
repeatedly expressed that he misses his mother, loves her, and wants to be with her. Id. at 46.
She also testified that he wants to feel safe and have permanency. Id. She believed that M.P.
has aprimary bond with his foster parents and that there was no spontaneous physical JAI, oA4 - Mv 4-k<-r interaction with Wndk■nw Id. at 57. She did not conduct an evaluation of both 1101106• -V -¢ ke,r and with the boys together. Id. at 59.
•a•her- Dr. Pepe also evaluated . Dr. Pepe testified that although his rating -o,.+k er scales were within the normal limits, she believed had some sort of i 10 personality disorder. Id. at 50-51. She opined that his social engagement is atypical. Id. She Vale opined that does not have the primary attachment with either child.
However, his interactional with A.K. presented no major issues for her.. d.
IV. Parent Goals & Progress
1'hvf t1 6y •► goals D Obtain and maintain stable housing: At the time of the heari ng , and IM 1 ;Ae,r- i resided in a3-bedroom apartment. The home was last assessed in. May 2021, and it
was assessed as appropriate. There was ahistory of them living at multiple addresses, including
with family. There was also atime in October 2019 where they had been evicted due to unpaid o ••,ev- rent. However, Ms. Wayne believed that l ufi• and - NOW had made great
progress on that goal.
Engage in appropriate and ongoing mental Health treatment: As has been previously 0 discussed, rt" reported along mental health history to the agency, which is why this IY1a +-her became agoal in the case. According to Ms. Wayne initially, all of mental health
treatment had been self-reported to the agency. However, as her testimony progressed, it became
clear that •M•w o has provided some documentation regarding billing for services, but
nothing that shows her actual attendance at mental health sessions. According to Ms. Wayne, rno • had "never" properly filled out aRelease of Information for CYF. However, on cross-
examination there was significant testimony about the topic of releases:
May 2021: Ms. Wayne received validly signed Releases of Information from N6 mnth-er db ■ They had been filled out for both Mercy Behavioral Health and WPIC
with the help of aservice coordinator. Ms. Wayne submitted both of those forms
11 to the respective agencies and neither responded to CYF's request for records.
Ms. Wayne testified that when she called Mercy Behavioral Health to fallow- up
they told her they needed anew one, but did not say why.
May 2022: Ms. Wayne told A•filolmmaw o and d•he• hat the releases 3•a+ANCr - were out of date and asked her to send out new ones. The forms
were sent back but there was some sort of delay in doing so. rho fii cr Parent coaching: 19b9bammucccssfully completed Arsenal parenting class in 2018 or
2019. She was on awaitlist for POT in 2019, but was removed during her abscondence to I Tennessee. She was referred for therapeutic alternative parenting services in `2021, but the
service provider declined to accept the family for service and did not provide areason for doing
so.
fthAw Maintain Employment: AkIghwhas had multiple jobs during the time of
involvement with the agency. She provided proof of employment at Amazon through her counsel
but Ms. Wayne was unclear about whether that was still her current employer. During her Mo--her testimony, VfkjNlb■r testified that she was currently employed part-time at arestaurant called
The Yard as acook.
Participate with In-Home Services: work with in-home services stopped .•Pr 1'Ylo+ke ^ in 2019. According to Ms. Wayne, there was acomprised ability figi to access some
services due to COVID. Most services have been resumed for about one year but there are still
staffing issues, which can limit afamily's access to services.
YhO44%e,t-'5 Visitation: The primary witness on the matter o visitation was Laura
Burlbaugh. See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 3, 2022 ("Tr. I") at 15. Ms. Burlbaugh is a I
12 treatment coordinator for Pressley Ridge and afoster care caseworker. Id. Among her duties was
to be an intermediary between the child's biological and foster family for visitation. Id. at 16. In mrf w her role, she was able to both observe visits between Adodim wand M.P., as well as receive
reports from others regarding those visits. Id. She authenticated CYF Exhibi# 2, which are the Y1fl61 Riker visitation notes from • visits. 5 Id at 36-37. Ms. Burlbaugh testifil ed that P•
visited with her children consistently. Id. at 41. Since March 31, 2020, there were atotal of 28 1'•lo•ler missed visits -- 14 were the fault of andl4 were due to non-parent fault. Id.
Additionally, Ms. Wayne testified that there was aperiod of 7-8 months where could /ho fhu-1s only visit virtually due to COVID. Ms. Burlbaugh testified that generally, P1. 10 W p all w
oAW interactions with the boys were fine. Id.at 43. NVENO usually brought games and activities for M e, the children. Id. She did observe tha has consistently struggled with engaging both
boys at the same time, in part because 4PM.P. would become agitated when the focus was not on Ale f -4e+-- him. Id. She testified that she saw affection flow both ways — fro mi to the boys and
vice versa. Id. at 44. It was her opinion that it was clear the boys loved their mother. Id.
Ms. Burlbaugh testified that she saw M.P. exhibit behavioral issues that have been e4-her- hAq4vr$, 6 described by other witnesses both wither and with the foster parents. Id. I
parenting strategy has largely been to ignore the behaviors, and to ask visit staff to do the same.
Id. at 45. Ms. Burlbaugh testified that the strategy was not effective. Id. When that strategy was yao' ker 114 •to not effective, ould sometimes end visits early because* was unable to calm down.
OYI Id. at 45-46.Ms. Burlbaugh testified that INJOUN did not appear to be the cause of M.P.'S
behavioral issues during visits. Id. at 46.
5These visitation notes were admitted as abusiness record only and subject to double hearsay restrictions without additional exceptions to cover additional hearsay.
13 koqv.r- %bMw■a had an occasionally contentious relationship with visit staff and there was
significant focus placed on this issue by the County. Ms. Burlbaugh testified, however, that there t04%1-C are times when staff corrects 111110-PbRoftand, although she may ignore them, the does respond to
the redirection. Id. There was much focus placed on adisagreement regardin* abirthday party I that she wanted to have for M.P. in December 2021, and on home-grown herbs that she brought
to visits. For reasons that will be discussed later in this opinion, the Court di4 not find the
emphasis placed on these issues to be warranted. IWiirmwas prohibited ftom bringing food
for M.P. but it was not due to any behavior or misconduct on her part. Id. at 1-52. Ms. rY1•rh•,r- Burlbaugh never saw any propensity of Zito be violent towards the ghildren and has
never witnessed any conduct by llllldlffi• that would endanger the children. Id, at 81. The
County did not put on any other witness to court-ordered visits.
`J'-x4+a 0 mN_m*WwGoals
Obtain and Maintain Stable Housing: The report from CYF was the same as i 1o*er's in sum and substance.
Maintain Employment: Ms. Wayne's testimony was largely based on self-report from :o - rh , er- • IiM•t.See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 13, 2022 ("Tr. la") at pg. 153.1&
,•=&r reported having several medical concerns since 2019 which led to periods of
unemployment. Id Nonetheless, he has been employed for the most part, but could improve on I his stability in maintaining jobs, according to Ms. Wayne. Id.
Participate in mental health treatment: Ms. Wayne acknowledged that this only Ta"4,►^ I became agoal for - because he disclosed that he was experiencing anxiety and
depression as aresult of CYF's involvement with his family and his incarceration as aresult of
14 the Tennessee incident. Prior to his disclosure in that regard, there was no information about a
history of mental health treatment, nor had the agency received any reports pf concern in this
regard. Nonetheless, it has been acourt-ordered goal since 2019 and, as of the time of the
hearing, no proof of mental treatment has been provided. At the time of the termination hearing, -a.+h,tr ,6 CYF was requesting aclarification of diagnosis, if any, and the appropriate
level of treatment.
-:Fa+lur Visitation: --Jim" has had liberal supervised visitation at the home of his
parents since A.K. was placed with them at approximately 8weeks old. He Was visiting several
days aweek at first and then there were several months in 2021 where he did not visit at all. At
the end of 2021, he resumed visits with A.K. and is currently visiting approximately every other xiL4-1 6e.e - month. reported to CYF that the reason for his reduction in visits was because I
of the cost of gas to attend the visits was prohibitive and he wanted to use the money they had to ►Ybfhtr go to JOJJM! for her visitation. He was offered gas cards by the agency but did not ever take
advantage of that offer. In May 2021, ➢ ir asked his parents whether I
could visit A.K. at their house along with him, but his parents declined to do that.
reported seeing A.K. regularly both at his parents' house and at his grandmother's
house, and that they have agreat relationship with one another.
'-pad-heX' does not currently visit with M.P. There was an unfounded ChildLine 17 a_-iHhe.rr in May 2020 involving M.P. and Visits resumed after that time but then
stopped again due to transportation and logistics. No witness, including the pI arents, seemed to
have aclear understanding of why is not visiting with M.P. but there is no
court-ordered prohibition against it.
Family Teaming Meetings
15 I'1'IoAtr" According to Ms. Wayne, WOO.Smar attended family teaming meetings alone until she er and were married and then he began attending as well. The have missed
approximately 3meetings during the life of the case. Some were hostile between the agency and
the parents and had to be terminated early. More recently, since obtaining pri*ate counsel, their
lawyer speaks during the meetings, but they do still attend.
V. Testimony of the Parents
W 46r 1' - 44 - er Both iiodinft and provided testimony, the pertindnt portions of
which will be summarized here.
*•kfir J M.V: ►1'). • testified that her full legal name is and that lei is a
family nickname. At the time of her testimony she lived in McKeesport, PA with her husband,
and was employed part-time as acook in arestaurant. They two have been
married since 201.9. They have been living in their current housing for two years. Prior to that,
they have experienced some of the same housing instability as many people whose employment
situations changed, but what ultimately led to their eviction in 2019 was being arrested in
Tennessee and not being able to pay for their firial month or so of rent.
Me f+tw AAW•described her initial contact with CYF as being for the purpose of getting
assistance. She had just relocated from Philadelphia and was focused on getting hour NI he
described that as being when she was the most forthcoming because she did not believe she had
to hide anything. However, she described that, over time, she perceived that anything she told to
CYF personnel was reported back differently than what she had said and that often things were
blown out of proportion. Examples of this that she provided included: questions about her Native
American heritage (presumably for ICWA purposes), the relationship between her sons, issues
16 around the signing of releases of information and the scheduling of ahome visit, Over time, for UriAto dft•described, essentially, abreakdown in the relationship with CYF because of her
perception of how the case was being handled.
She described her concerns about M.P.'s current foster care placement. She reported that
M.P, was calling the foster parents "Mommy" and "Daddy" within acouple of weeks of being in
the placement. Around the same time, he started calling iter, m VA*M," 9̀ Ms.ltft," and/or M. "Mommyi." He had never referred to his mother by any of those names before nor had she
even told M.P. her first name. M.P. also began asking her whether he was ge t ing adopted and
whether it was illegal for him to go home with her. Moreover, she indicated that she had
repeatedly expressed concerns about marks, scratches and even black eyes on;M.P. She insisted
that she never directly accused anyone of anything, and only recently began receiving updates
about M.P. in foster care.
She relayed that she had been seeing the same therapist consistently for more than two
years and that she even followed the therapist from one practice to another. On cross-
examination, she acknowledged that she had just acquired the records in June 2022, and she had
not done so earlier because she did not believe it was her responsibility. Ultiroateiy, she denied i having ever intentionally incorrectly fi11igc out arelease of information form. She acknowledged
that she is not regularly taking medication but said that medication was not the focus of her
treatment. However, she did testify that she had been prescribed Klonopin and that she used it for
panic attacks. She acknowledged her mental health issues but said that, on adaily basis, they
affect her minimally and do not prevent her from being able to function normally.
►7r1 0f-hae^ With regard to visitation,0120100 reported that she enjoyed visitation with her sons.
She agreed with Ms. Wayne regarding the number of visited she'd both attended and missed. She
17 did note the difficulty of visitation during the time of virtual visitation because of COVID. She
also provided explanations (as well as evidence in the form of email communication between she
and CYF) regarding the birthday party incident and the herbs incident. See Exhibit 5.
to#Aq^ acknowledged the Tennessee incident was aresult of pooh decision-making
and was abad idea. During her testimony she provided some explanation about having apre-
planned vacation there, but also acknowledged using foil to wrap her phone Ao that her
whereabouts could not be tracked.
:roAtr -
iiP also provided testimony. In relevant part, he testifigd that he and I O lYlo qtr are in asupportive, happy marriage. He confirmed that they live in aspacious apartment
with enough room for both children and that they are both working as much as possible.
gave his account of the Tennessee incident. He indicated that, at the
time, A.K. was between nursing and getting an iron-rich formula for food. He became •at'it,•r constipated and irritable for about two days. A.K.'s stomach was bloated.
attempted to do astomach massage in order to get A.K. to have abowel movement. He had no
intention to hurt A.K, but about an hour later he realized that he had gotten overly zealous
because there were bruises on A.K. The next day, they took A.K. to the doctor's office. At the
same time, he ) was also sick. In any event, A.K. had abowel movement as
soon as they got to the doctor's office.
mo` er- While they were at the doctor's office, iftm made the comment about the doctor
being amandated reporter and he perceived that it made the doctor uncomfortable. The doctor
told them to go to the hospital so they went and got M.P. and went to the hospI ital. The hospital
18 process was taking long, both children were highly irritated and he felt as thdugh enough had
been done. The family left the hospital and went home.
'V444►Gr According to , they had been planning atrip for awhile. So the next nI o+hW'S day they left to go to Tennessee and also planned to go to Florida to see i'i — IMAN family.
According torll•!!1!•! , they planned to return in about 7-10 days and he also was
unaware that they were not permitted to leave the jurisdiction with the children. He also said that fAbAe"r he had no idea about the alleged texts sent by k&MMOMduring the time that they were departing
and/or driving to Tennessee.
With regard to mental health treatment, indicated that it was his
understanding that CYF never directed him to have mental health treatment. He had aPOWER
evaluation that suggested he continue the mental health treatment that he was already receiving
on his own at the time. The therapist that he was seeing at the time left the agency where he was
seeing them. He went to adifferent therapist briefly, and is currently looking for anew one. He
indicated that he had last met with aservice coordinator in May 2022 and that he had not had any
prescription medication in more than ayear. He stopped attending group therapy because he
found it to be unhelpful as it was focused on wellness, not on specific mental health issues.
He testified regarding one major mental health episode in October 2021. It was a
voluntary stay precipitated by the circumstances of this case. He said that the stress of the case
had been building for him. The previous judge in his case had announced he was retiring and that
there would not be any additional proceedings until April 2022. He felt despondent about his
children coming home and he had asuicide attempt. He voluntar`f admitted himself to WPIC.
They told him to continue in the treatment he was doing at theqband they would put him on a
19 list for expedited individual therapy services. They prescribed him amedication but he does not
remember the name of it, however, he was not currently taking it.
IdAer testified that his understanding is that the only dia4nosis he had was
generalized anxiety disorder and his only other mental history is that he had mother suicide
attempt as ateenager. He provided other testimony regarding his employment and housing Moller history. He also testified regarding astrained relationship between his family and Wit.
Overall, he felt that CYF had been adestabilizing presence in his family's life.
STANDARDS
In cases involving the termination of parental rights, "[the appellate court's] standard of
review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent
evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such adecree
on the welfare of the child." In re C. W. U., Jr. 33 A.3d 1,4 (2011) (quoting In Ire LJ, 972 A.2d 5,8
(Pa.Super.2009)). It is well-established that:
When applying this standard of review, an appellate court must accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by evidence of record. Id. Where the trial court's factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court's ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion. Id An abuse of discretion is found where there is ademonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Id. at 359 (citing S.P., 47 A.3d at 826).
In re Adoption of LAX, 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021).
Furthermore:
The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would not support adifferent result. [The appellate court has] previously emphasized its deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. [internal citations omitted].
20 In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013).
The termination of parental rights can result in permanent consequences for both
the parent and the child. Id at 591. Thus, "in recognition of the gravity attendant to the
termination of parental rights, the moving party must establish the statutory grounds by
clear and convincing evidence." Id. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that it is
"clear, direct, weighty [...] and convincing as to enable atrier of fact to come to aclear
conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Id. ( quoting
Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 1I, 708 A.2d 88, 91).
Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a), aparent's rights can be terminated on any of the
following grounds:
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.
[ ... I
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under avoluntary agreement with an agency for aperiod of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within areasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within areasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under avoluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
21 (b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights of a arent shall give primary consideration to the develop men tal, phy si ca lan demoti•nal needs
and welfare of the child. The rights of aparent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control •fthe parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
23 Pa, C.S. § 2511.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The theme throughout the County's presentation of evidence is that the parents'
behavior is inappropriate and impulsive due to untreated mental health issues. In the
County's view, the abscondence to Tennessee is the pinnacle of that failure to get treatment a+-hzr and shows the danger inherent in having M.P. andA.K. reunify with andW
This Court disagrees with the County's assessment and finds that the County failed to MoAdr'S meet its burden of proof and thus declined to terminate V■mWWmMR rights to A.K. and M.P., -00 4% r ,4 and rights to A.K. The analysis used in determining whether to terminate
parental rights is two-fold. In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 99 (2011). First, the Court must assess
the conduct of the parent. Id. Then, the moving party must prove "by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in
Section 2511(a)." Id. at 99-100. It is only when the Court determines that the parent's
conduct is such that atermination of parental rights is warranted, that it engages with the
second part of the analysis. Id. at 100. The second prong of the analysis focuses on Section
22 2511 (b), which considers "the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best
interests of the child." Id. One aspect of this analysis that the court examines is "the nature
and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the
effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond." Id.
There are three incidents focused on by the County that this Court believes bear
addressing, in turn:
The Tennessee Abscondence lY loth- - 1:AW There is no question in the Court's mind that Viand l•yNP
made an intentional decision to leave the jurisdiction following the Children's I Hospital incident. The Court finds, based on the testimony and reasonable
inferences therefrom, that they were afraid of another removal of the children.
However, the Court does not find that their intent was to stay permanently or
never return to Pittsburgh. They left asubstantial amount of their personal M# Ae,r belongings behind. The Court finds that was the primary driving force za*he-r1,6 behind this incident. The Court also finds that 1--1 - testimony was
the most credible and thorough around the incident and the events that led up to it.
The Court is not convinced that --.•_ _ _ l was attempting to hurt or abuse
A.K. However, given the circumstances of their involvement with the agency, the
Court believes that the couple intentionally fled because they believed CY'F
would initiate another removal.
The Birthday Party Incident
23 In short, the Court finds that this incident was precipitated in large pao by the M04-ha- County's failures. WROMIks sent an email with aclear request that stie be able to
have abirthday parry for M.P. with food. The language of the email i$ clear. She
also got aclear response that she was able to do that.b When the day cpf the party 1'h# fh w came, Npr&r came to have what she reasonably believed was asanctioned
event. The failure of those who supervise visits to know what had beon approved
led to asituation where ayoung child saw what was set up for him and his mother
was put in the position of appearing as though she was doing something wrong.
Supervised visitation situations are already inherently difficult and tense. One or
more adults is closely monitoring every interaction, every conversation, and every
meal aparent is having with their child. Vlllrreaction was one of i frustration and understandable anger after she had followed the proper channels to
get approval for the parry. The Court does not find this to be evidence of amental
health episode, poor parenting or other reason to weight in favor of termination.
The Herb Incident t her Throughout this proceeding, the County tried to weave in atheory that NOWilsom
perceived herself to be "awitch" and/or was trying to hurt or help herself and
others with natural herbs. The theory was unconvincing to the Court. However, I apparently, there were afew visits where mom brought herbs that she was
growing at home (or showed herbs duringiM avirtual visits) to show to M.P.,
have him smell, do aproject with during the visit, and even taste one time. There I is nothing in the record that shows the interactiorswere dangerous, harmful, or m0A e4.— otherwise negative in any way. Staff told SWCOMM that M.P. could not eat the
6 See Parent Exhibit S.
24 41 04e-r herbs because they were not sure what they were, and !lIocomplied with
that order. Nonetheless, there was just nothing wrong with these interactions and
the implication by the County was astretch at best to attempt to show that 111 MO # filer'' is adanger to her son(s).
The appellate court must only "agree with the trial court's decisions as to one
subsection of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) in order to affirm the termination of parental rights." Id.
However, in the present case, the grounds for termination of parental rights are unfounded. ►11m•hP.r' • f-htr" The County failed to prove that VIMA tand were incapable of caring
for their children. Both parents have taken reasonable steps to remedy the agency's concerns.
Furthermore, neither parent has displayed behaviors that are of such anature that termination i would be required under section (a)(2). According to our Supreme Court, the test for
terminating parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(2) requires ashowing of the
following:
Firstly, the repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal must be
shown; Secondly, such incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal must be shown to
have caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence;
and lastly, it must be shown that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or
refusal cannot or will not be remedied.
Id. at 100 (citing In re Geiger, 331 A.3d 172 ( 1975).
The County did not produce sufficient evidence to support afinding of abuse. i Even so, "the grounds for terminating parental rights under 2511(a)(2) are not limited to
affirmative misconduct." Id. These grounds can include "acts of refusal as well as
25 mot-h-cr- & fkrr incapacity to perform parental duties." Id. Both Viand have I had ongoing employment and housing, with few interruptions during the life of the case.
Moreover, the County has not met its burden of showing that andd I
mental health adversely affected their ability to parent M.P. and A.K.
such that termination is warranted.
The County also failed to prove that that there are conditions that still exist which Mo fhe - led to the removal. See Section 2511(a)(5). Aft has been in treatment consistently
since the Tennessee abscondence incident (which was the precipitating even for the M0 4W removal leading to this proceeding). INPOcredibly testified about her current
insight into that incident such that the Court is convinced that she understands what was
wrong about it and it is unlikely to be repeated. It also bears stressing that this is the
precipitating incident because the children were reunified with their parents prior to the 'Vx+w abscondcnc ) voluntarily hospitalized himself, sought appropriate
treatment, and engaged in outpatient treatment appropriately.
This Court does not agree that is in the best interests of M.P. and A.K, to have
their relationships with their parents terminated. M.P. has repeatedly expressed love and
affection for his mother and although he has also expressed adesire for permanency, this
Court is not convinced that placement in foster care with six other children is the
permanency that he needs. i• has an appropriate understanding of his behavioral CvAer-- issues and parenting needs and the Court believes and M.P. still have abond
that is intact and able to flourish. A.K. has been with his paternal grandparents since the
beginning of his removal. He has maintained regular visits with both of his parents and
this Court has no concerns about his bond with either parent. The Court also credits the
26 T•.+hVr testimony of that his family will continue to put the intere$ts of the
children first. As such, the Court believes that A.K.'s bond with his grandparents can and & Airs will continue even once he is returned to his parents. Moreover, that
parents will continue to be asupport for the couple and their sons.
The Court found most of the witnesses to be largely credible with afew ,notable
exceptions. First, the testimony of Dr. Pepe was confusing and not particularly helpful to
the Court. She was combative on cross-examination, which was troubling given that she
is aseasoned expert. Dr. Pepe testified live in the courtroom, so the Court w4s able to
observe her demeanor. She did not come across as an objective expert witnesIs providing I her opinion, but rather as adeeply invested partisan. In fact, as it turns out, she
incorrectly opined that MllfiOM had not been in mental health treatment consistently
because of her "personality profile." On one hand, Dr. Pepe testified that someone with
personality disorder would withhold information in strategic ways but also mo4e,4 — testified that she felt NIMIkoW was open and forthcoming with her, including about the
incident with A.K. but characterized it as isolated.
•a- e,r With regards ti , ,she testified that his clinical scales were within
normal limits but also opined that he may have either social anxiety or aschizoid
personality disorder. Overall, the Court was unable to rel+Ly on Dr. Pepe's testimony as
providing much insight into the mental health conditions of either parent. This is not to
say that the Court does not believe that there are issues that need to be addressed. Dr.
Pepe, however, provided little to no help with that issue. Second, the testimony of 0. rt' pow dippothad what can only be described as peaks and valleys. There were issues on which MV+JV_r the Court found INNORM to be forthright, earnest, and clear. There were other issues
27 where she was clearly not being truthful. Third, although the Court found Mi. Wayne to
be the most helpful and most credible witness presented by the County, them was one
issue within her testimony that gave the Court pause. Specifically, the testimpny about
the releases of information for treatment. Ms. Wayne testified at one point that the M0Ae -- County had never received aproperly executed release of information for in
order to get mental health records. At other points, she testified that she did receive at
least one properly executed release that she was able to submit to service prolviders, and
at yet other points, it was unclear at best what was happening with the releases of hl.o441er information. As aresult, the Court is left with adraw as to what extent INVdIbmand (,`, er i R ROM did nor did not provide valid releases of information and to the extent
they did not, whether it was intentional.
Ultimately, the County failed to meet its burden of providing clear and convincing
evidence that termination of parental rights was required under the statute.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court's Orders should be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
J.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Interest of: A.K., Appeal of: A.K., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ak-appeal-of-ak-pasuperct-2023.