The statute permitting involuntary termination of parental rights in
Pennsylvania, 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511, sets forth the certain irreducible A minimum requirements of care that parents must provide to their children. time parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable the intervention by the State may properly be considered unfit and may following
properly have his or her rights terminated. In is on J. T. wain R.T., 817 A.2d 505
(Pa. Super. 2002).
Termination of parental rights is an issue of constitutional dimensions her own child. because of the fundamental right of an individual to raise his or must prove Therefore, in proceedings terminating parental rights, the Petitioner been met. by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria have
4 165, 465 A.2d Sonatoskg v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), In 1y ec T.R., 502 Pa.
642 (1983). However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated "a parent's
child is converted basic constitutional right to custody and rearing of his or her right to have upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties to the child's healthy, proper parenting in fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent,
safe environment." Ira Re: Jr., 2003 Pa. Super. 112, citing Ira the Interest ofWillie, 719 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super 8998). A. 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 251111 (a)(2) 2511(a)(2) when: A Court may terminate parental rights under Section or refusal of the The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, parental care, control parent has caused the child to be without essential being and the or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well or will not be conditions of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot remedied by the parent.
Accordingly, Mother's parental rights to the children, DN. and N.W. can testimony at the be terminated under Section 2511(a)(2) of the statute. Credible clear and convincing termination hearing was presented and demonstrated by her mental health evidence that Mother is incapable of presently remedying is necessary for the issues and incapable of providing parental care which
physical and mental well being of the children. Although Mother completed a
outstanding concerns. parenting education program, it was completed with a supervised setting. Mother missed many visits and she was observed in observed with the children out Mother did not progress to a point where she was failure to visit on a in the public or at her home. Furthermore, Mother's her finances so as to afford consistent basis was caused by Mother not managing after placement. the cost of transportation, an issue which became a concern 5 impact upon her Mother chose to move to a location that would have a negative
ability to visit consistently with her visitation and treatment.
Ms. Deborah Ficco testified at she works for Fitzmaurice Community as a representative payee Services as a representative payee. She testified that in order to assist she receives social security benefits on behalf of individuals testified that she them in timely bill paying and money management. Ms. Ficco that when she began working with the parents in May of 2016. She testified testified began working with the parents, the parents were homeless. Ms. Ficco that the her agency helped the parents secure housing. Ms. Ficco testified Pennsylvania and that parents chose to reside in Catasauqua, Lehigh County, matter where they they would have received their social security benefits no
resided.
N.T. 5/8/17 at 60-62.
Ms. Ficco testified that Mother receives $1,too per month and Father
Once her agency receives rec ives $777.10 per month in social security benefits. parents' monthly rent, the parents' social security benefits, the agency pays the After all expenses are paid, utilities, medical bills and representative payee's fee. Mother and Father each the parents receive their remaining "spending money".
receive approximately $400-$500.00 per month in "spending money."
that their "spending money" be Ms. Ficco testified that the parents requested basis. Ms. Ficco testified that the deposited into their bank accounts on a weekly basic necessities such as food, parents' "spending money" was to be spent on Id. at 64,67,75. toiletries and any other household necessities. 'UI
Ms. Ficco further testified that Father received settlement funds from the
Social Security Administration in the amount of $8,210.50 to be paid in three
for monthly installments. Ms. Flew testified that Father was paid $2,199.00 on May 2, each of the first two installments and received his last installment of the hearing on 2017, in the amount of $3,812.50. Id. at 82, 96. As of the date his account July13, 2017, Ms. Ficco testified that Father had a total of $3,700 in
and Mother had a total of $1,069.36 in her account. Id. at 96-97.
Ms. Piece testified that from the $400.00 to $5oo.00 that the parents month for were each receiving per month, she was paying them $200.00 per to visit with their transportation. The transportation money was given to them that the parents children. However, Ms. Ficco later learned from Ms. Hartman for missed many visits during the months that they were given money price of a round trip transportation. Moreover, Ms. Ficco later learned that the cost $65.50 for bus ticket per person was $32.75 per person. Therefore, it would 68,69, 82. Ms. both parents for a round trip ticket and not $200.00. Id. at 66, Ad Litem that the parents Ficco confirmed on cross examination by the Guardian to visit their children. were always provided money for transportation in order
Ms. Ficco confirmed that in September of 2016 and December of 2o16 when the
available funds to visit parents missed visits with their children, the parents had 2016, the parents with their children. Furthermore, in May of 2016 and August their children. Id. at would also have had sufficient funds to use for visits with that lack of funds could not have been the reason 94-95, 99-10o. The Court finds were that the parentswere not able to visit with their children since the funds
always available to the parents for visits.
7 010
Ms. Sherri Hartman testified that she is a caseworker for Children &
Youth. She stated D.W. was born on August 29, 2013 and N.W. was born on July
15, 2014. The children were placed in January of 2015. Ms. Hartman testified
the reasons for placement were domestic violence, mental health, and drug and
alcohol abuse in the residence where the parents were residing. Ms. Hartman
testified that a family service plan was developed for the parents, including drug
and alcohol rehabilitation services for the Father, mental health services for both
Mother and Father and a requirement that the parents obtain and maintain safe
and stable housing. Id. at 101-102.
Ms. Hartman testified that the children were initially removed from
Plymouth, Luzerne County. Both parents were subsequently hospitalized to
address mental health issues. Father was discharged and he moved out of
Luzerne County to Tobyhanna, Monroe County, to reside with friends. When
Mother was discharged, she refused a shelter placement in Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania and decided to move out of Luzerne County to reside with Father.
Ms. Hartman testified that she later learned that the parents were evicted from
the residence in Tobyhanna. In June of 2015, the parents reported that they were
homeless. The parents were residing in a shelter in East Stroudsburg, Monroe
County. On July 20, 2015, Ms. Hartman indicated that Mother had telephoned
her and related to her that she was in a shelter and Father was residing outdoors. to Mother related to Ms. Hartman that he was moving back to Luzerne County -Bane the Wilkes-Barre area, and that she was not going to move back to Wilkes York with due to dislike of Father's family. Mother had wanted to move to New were her Mother. Id. at 101-103. Ms. Hartman then indicated that the parents homeless from August 25, 2015, until September 1, 2015 when they signed a lease
in East Stroudsburg. However, in November of 2015, the parents again reported
that they were homeless and resided in a shelter though March 8, 2016. By
April of 2016, the parents were residing with Mother's aunt in Allentown. Ms.
Hartman then learned that on July 1, 2016, the parents signed a lease in Whittier
Place, Catasauqua, Lehigh County. Id. at 104.
Ms. Hartman testified that initially, the parenting education services were
deferred due to the location of the parents' residence and the inconsistency of
visitation with the children. Ms. Hartman testified that the parents engaged in
mental health services initially in East Stroudsburg; however, they did not follow
through with the services. The parents later engaged in mental health treatment
at Community Counseling in Luzerne County. Id. at 104-106.
With respect to the parents' transportation for the visits with the children,
Ms. Hartman testified that a bus ticket cost $32.00 per person for a round trip
from East Stroudsburg to Wilkes-Barre. Ms. Hartman testified that after the
parents purchased their tickets, they would submit the receipt to Children &
Youth and the parents would be reimbursed for the cost. Ms. Hartman stated that
once the parents moved to Catasauqua, a farther location than East Stroudsburg,
then the price doubled for the bus pass which then would have been
approximately $64.00 per person. Ms. Hartman testified that she related to the
expense of parents that they could only be reimbursed for one bus pass due to the were the bus pass. Ms. Hartman testified that initially the visits with the children
weekly, but when the parents were not able to make the weekly visits, the visits
were then bi-weekly. Id. at 106-107.
9 Wk.
Ms. Hartman emphasized that she had recommended several times to the
parents to move back to Luzerne County. She further explained to the parents
that they did not need to return to Plymouth, where a relative with whom they
had a disagreement was residing. The parents could move anywhere in Luzerne
County. However, the parents refused. Id. at 107.
Ms. Hartman testified that from April 2015 through June of 2015, the
parents' visits with the children were inconsistent. Ms. Hartman testified that
during that time, Mother was hospitalized. Father was residing in Tobyhanna and
did not have transportation for the visits. Ms. Hartman testified that in July
2015, the parents were provided assistance with transportation. However, the
parents attended only one visit out of four visits in July. In August of 2015, they
again attended one visit out of four visits. In September, they attended all
scheduled visits. In October and November, they attended one visit in each
month. In December of 2015, they attended four out of five visits.
Ms. Hartman stated that the parents moved to Lehigh County in April of
and a 2016. Ms. Hartman testified that initially the parents had family members
friend transport them prior to the use of bus transportation. Id. at 108-109. Ms.
Hartman testified that according to information she received, the parents only
had two problems with the bus transportation. The first issue was when Mother was took the wrong bus and ended up at a different location. The second issue that the when the bus experienced mechanical problems. Ms. Harman testified
parents moved to Lehigh County in April of 2016. She testifi that in May of
2016, the parents attended one visit and cancelled three visits. In June 2015, the
they parents attended two visits and cancelled two visits. In July of 2016,
10 attended one visit and cancelled three visits. Ms. Hartman testified that there
were some months where they did not visit with the children at all. Id. at no-
m. Ms. Hartman further testified that Mother did not comply with her mental
health services. She was not consistent with attending her appointments. On
November 17, 2015, Mother attended an appointment at Community Counseling
Services in Luzerne County. She attended sessions, but then later Mother was
discharged for noncompliance on September 14, 2o16. Mother did not
successfully complete mental health services. Ms. Hartman testified that Mother
reengaged in mental health services in Lehigh County; however, she did not
successfully complete the services. Ms. Hartman testified that Mother did not like
the mental health services in Lehigh County. She, therefore, stopped engaging in services and she also stopped taking her medication. Ms. Hartman testified that
Mother advised her that her primary diagnosis was bipolar disorder. Id. at 111-
113. On cross examination, Ms. Hartman testified that Mother was engaged in
mental health treatment, but did not know if the treatment included a medical
management portion. At the time of trial, Mother had not successfully or
consistently addressed her mental health concerns. Id. at 122,125.
Ms. Hartman also indicated that Mother's treatment includes Mother being
consistently engaged in medication management based treatment and that the Mother has consistently disengaged from medication management during
time the children have been in placement. Id. at 131-133.
Mother called Donald Grahm, a therapist at Haven House Treatment Mother in Center to testify on her behalf. Mr. Grahm commenced working with
11 yk,,, -CoactMuir i
outpatient therapy on January 27, 2017. Mr. Grahm testified that Mother was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder Type 1, intermittent explosive disorder. Mr.
Grahm testified that he had 18 appointments with Mother; however, Mother had
11 missed appointments which were either cancelled or rescheduled by Mother.
While the Court recognizes that mental health concerns often require lifelong
treatment, at the time of the hearing addressing the instant petition to terminate
parental rights, Mother had not remedied her mental health issues to a level in
which she was stable and consistent. N.T. 7/13/17 at 149, 151, 156.
With respect to parenting education, Ms. Hartman testified that Mother
completed the parenting education program with concerns. According to Ms.
Hartman, the remaining concerns address protective capacities and the ability to
prioritize needs. For instance, Ms. Hartman testified that when attempting to
teach the parents about budgeting their finances, the Mother's focus was always
on buying the children more "things". Ms. Hartman testified that Mother
purchased approximately 56 hair bows for the children. N.T. 5/8/17 at 111, 114.
Ms. Hartman ultimately stated that she does not believe that the Mother
remedied the circumstances that led to the children's placement. Id. at 114.
Furthermore, Ms. Hartman testified that the children initially had a bond
with the parents. However, due to the parents' lack of visitation, that bond has
deteriorated. According to Ms. Hartman, it is difficult to maintain a bond when
the parents are visiting the children once per month. Ms. Hartman testified that
she observed the children with the natural parents and she also observed the
children with the foster parents. The children spontaneously began calling the
foster mother, "Mommy." Id. at 136-137.
12 a
Ms. Alicia Singer testified that she is a senior clinician employed at
Community Counseling Services. She testified that she is familiar with the ease
e record custodian. Ms. Singer indicated that Mother had her intake at only as
the agency on December 15, 2015. When questioned on the current status of
Mother's treatment, Ms. Singer testified that Mother is terminated from
therapeutic services and Mother will not be receiving medication until she sees a
physician. However, there was no further appointments made for Mother. Id. at
47.
Ms. Singer also testified to correspondence dated September 14, 2016,
which advised Mother that she was terminated from treatment at Community all of Counseling Services. Ms. Singer indicated that the correspondence outlined
the appointments missed by Mother. According to the correspondence, Mother had cancelled or failed to appear at scheduled appointments as follows: a. December 22, 2015; b. February 16, 2016; c. March 1, 2016; d. March 8, 2016; e. March 22, 2016; 1. April 5, 2016; g. April 9, 2016; h. April 25, 2016; i. May 3rd, 2016 j. May 17, 2016; k. May 24, 2016; 1. May 31, 2016; m. June 21, 2016; n. July 12, 2016; 0. August 2nd, 2016; p. August 16, 2016; August 23, 2016:and r. September 16, 2016.
13 NN . r
Based on Mother's attendance records, Ms. Singer testified that Mother
was not consistent with her appointments. Ms. Singer further indicated that
Mother did attempt to reengage in services on October 25, 2016; however,
Mother cancelled the appointment and did not reschedule. Id. at 48-50. On cross
examination, Ms. Singer testified as to a treatment letter dated January 19, 2016
which stated that Mother had reached her goals with respect to the treatment
plan in January. Ms. Singer testified that from January 2016 to April 2016, the
agency provides updates for the patients to work on new goals. Therefore, was no although Mother reached her goals for the month of January 2016, there
testimony given as to mother reaching other goals for additional treatment pans.
Id. at 58-61.
Ms. Grace Tavaris testified that she is employed at Family Services
Association. She testified that she worked with Mother and Father as a case
manager and also in the Intensive Family Reunification Services parenting with the education program(IFRS). Ms. Tavaris testified that she began working program parents in June of 2015. Ms. Tavaris described the IFRS as a parenting
designed to work with the causes for placement so that the children can either that the return home to their parents or have permanency. Ms. Tavaris indicated issues for both concerns noted in the file by the case worker were mental health for Mother parents, drug and alcohol issues for Natural Father, domestic violence
and the need for safe and stable housing for both. N.T. 7/13/2017 at 7-9.
Ms. Tavaris testified that the parents were experiencing transportation
meeting. issues; therefore, they only met with the parents for the introductory
Ms. Tavaris testified that she attempted to meet with the parents on July 1, 2015,
14 -JVAMIMITOndlit
July 15, 2015, July 28, 2015, and August 4, 2015, but was unable to meet with Tavaris, the them. Since the parents were not able to consistently meet with Ms. The program is case was deferred until the parents were able to visit consistently. testified meant to include meetings with the parents twice per week. Ms. Tavaris
that without being able to meet on that basis, it is difficult to gauge the parents' was "on hold". progress. Id. at 9-10. Therefore, according to Ms. Tavaris, the case
Id. at 12.
Ms. Tavaris testified that the parents were referred to the same program
with the same concerns on February 25, 2016. Ms. Tavaris testified that the
testified that parents remained inconsistent with their attendance. Ms. Tavaris
she was supposed to meet with the parents twice per week, however, the parents
every two were only able to meet once per week and later where available once the IFRS weeks. Id. at 13. Ms. Tavaris testified that the parents did complete Id. at 26-27. program; however, they completed the program with "concerns".
Ms. Marisue Sack, also employed by Family Services Association in the
that the parents Intensive Family Reunification Program (IFRS) explained
completed the program with "concerns". Ms. Sack testified that she began
26 sessions offered to working with the family in March of 2016 and there were Sack indicated the family, however the parents only attended 10 sessions. Ms. 10 out of 26 that she was informed that the reason for the parents only attending from sessions was due to transportation issues and an inability to obtain money stated that the program the representative payee for transportation. Ms. Sack
was "completed with concerns" due to the following reasons:
sessions; a) The inconsistencies in the keeping the parenting
15 111111111111
b) The inconsistencies in visiting with children at the child welfare
agency;
c) The visits were only observed at the child welfare agency. Ms. Sack was
not able to see the children with the parents in their own home or in a public Id. at 31-32. setting. She was observing the parents in a supervised setting.
Ms. Sack testified that it was important for the parents to attend all the
sessions on a consistent basis. The goal of the program is to work with parents
hindered and children toward reunification. The lack of consistency from parents meet the that reunification. Id. at 34. Ms. Sack testified that she was supposed to to meet parents and observe the visits two times per week. Ms. Sack was only able Ms. Sack with the parents ten times over a period of nine months. Id. at 34-35. that testified that she also attempted to work with the parents by recommending
they move back to Luzerne County so that they would be closer to the agency for
did not wish to visits. However, the parents, who were residing out of county,
move back to Luzerne County. Ms. Sack stated that the parents had an issue with
not want to one of the relatives, an aunt who lives in Luzern County, and did testified that they reside in the vicinity of the aunt. Id. at 35-36. Ms. Sack further They explained to worked with the parents regarding their financial budget. that they them that their spending should be used for necessities and insuring commented that have a sufficient amount of money for transportation. Ms. Sack headbands and a pair at one time, the mother, purchased clothes and accessories, Mother needed to of new boots for the girls. Ms. Sack was concerned that the seeing the children. appropriately maintain her budget so that she could continue were advised of their Id. at 36-37. Ms. Sack testified that although the parents
16 buying nice budgeting, the Mother stated that she "couldn't help it" and she liked
things for the girls Ms. Sack noted that Mother needed to realize that if she did
not budget her money well, then she would run out of money to use for
transportation in order to have visits with the children. Id. at 57. Father did Ms. Sack testified that during the program, Mother and testified that with maintain housing and were no longer homeless. Ms. Sack also and worked with respect to domestic violence, Mother and Father made progress and their communication skills, learning to walk away during an argument regarding working with stress. However, Ms. Sack remained concerned the parents were parenting abilities. Ms. Sack testified that her observations of the parents in an solely under a supervised setting. She was not able to observe
unsupervised setting. Ms. Sack became concerned regarding the parents'
for budgeting. Although budgeting may not have been an initial reason the parents' ability to placement, budgeting later became an issue which affected
visit with the children. scheduled for a visit Ms. Sack also testified that initially the parents were
once per week. Then it was once every two weeks at the parents' request.
However, should the parents cancel a visit, the next visit would not occur until
a scenario in which the two weeks later. Id. at 39.41. The inconsistency created Ms. Sack testified that parents saw the children only once per month. Therefore, was completed with although the parents completed the program, the program cross examination by the Guardian "concerns". Id. at 45. Ms. Sack confirmed, on sufficient times for her to Ad Litem that the parents did not see the children Id. at 51. Ms. Sack further assess the type of bond they have with the children.
17 they explained that although the parents were able to apply the information was not learned in to sessions over a nine (9) month period, that time frame as all the sufficient for Ms. Sack to recommend that the children return home
visits were in a controlled and supervised environment. Id. at 53.
Ms. Sack further testified that the parents had chosen to reside outside of
benefits Luzerne County. The parents receive their income from social security Luzerne County. and thus, would have received the money even if they resided in
Ms. Sack noted that had the parents chosen to reside in Luzerne County, they
would have been able to see their children more often. Id. at 55-56. Luzerne County The Court finds that Mother had opportunities to reside in
close to her children. However, she chose to follow Father to Tobyhanna, Monroe
to Luzerne County, County. When Father subsequently contemplated returning family. Mother Mother refused because she did not want to be near Father's town and away from could have certainly resided in Luzerne County in a different when given the aforementioned aunt, but Mother refused. The court finds that own interest above the choice to have visits with the children, Mother chose her mental health issue the children's interest. The court further finds that Mother's
contributed to her failure to appreciate the consequences of not visiting with her
in a different county and children on a consistent basis. Mother's choice to reside to Mother's choice to thus, create a more difficult situation for herself, in addition that she had purchase unnecessary items for her children versus insuring impaired judgment. sufficient funds to visit her children also reflects Mother's
Based on the Petitioner's evidence, the Court finds that Mother is incapable of
providing the children with essential parental care, control or subsistence
18 164
finds that necessary for the children's physical or mental well being and further choices have not Mother's mental health issues and thus her attendant parental witnesses, the Court been remedied. Therefore, based on the all testimony of the conditions that further finds that Mother has not been able to remedy all of the health concerns. gave rise to the placement of the children, namely her mental
Unlike 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), subsection (a)(2) does not emphasize a emphasizes the parent's refusal or failure to perform parental duties, but instead control or subsistence child's present and future need for essential parental care, the language in necessary for his physical or mental well-being. Therefore, ignore a child's need for subsection (a)(2) should not be read to compel courts to of the family has a stable home and . .. this is particularly so where disruption reuniting it." (our already occurred and there is no reasonable prospect for
emphasis added) In re FOAOPO, 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super 2008). in fulfillment At this juncture, the children's right to have proper parenting outweighs Father's of their potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment
interest.. In It e: JAS., Jr., 2003 Pa. Super. 112, citing In the Interest of Mile, 719 A.2d. 327 (Pa. Super 1998). 23 P.A.C.S.A, V. AD'i ITI NAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDER SECTION 251301
FOR M TEE
A, ENVI MENTAL FACTORS
Title 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b) specifies that a court may not terminate
factors such as the parental rights "solely on the basis of environmental
19 to inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing, and medical care if found
be beyond the control of the parent."
As "environmental factors beyond the control of Mother" was not the of linchpin in the placement of the minor children and because of the presence
other, independent factors utilized in the placement of D.W. and N.W., this
consideration does not apply and will not be addressed.
ft; NEE S AND WELFARE F THE CIULDR1EN
Once the Court has found that involuntary termination of parental rights is
to the warranted under the Act, the court must then "give primary consideration This is to developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." needs be a separate inquiry and even where the court has already considered the
and the welfare of the child under one of the grounds of termination, the court must do so again. Ilya re Matseek, 611 A.2d 738 (1992). The term "needs and wefare" of a child refers to both tangible and intangible
needs. The intangible needs of a child include love, comfort, security and
closeness. In re Matzoth, 416 Pa. Super. 520, 611 A.2c1737, 747 (1992). There is nothing in the record that shows that the natural Mother is presently capable of
providing a safe, secure environment for the minor children. These Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. interest in needs, both physical and emotional, cannot be met by a mere passive duty that the development of the child. Meeting a child's needs is a positive 225, 525 A.2d requires affirmative performance. ]M re Shives, 363 Pa. Super.
8oi, 8o2 (1987).
20 IraMak( .11
A parent is not relieved of his or her responsibility relating to the needs of
a child when a child has been placed in foster care. A non -custodial parent has a
duty to exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance in the child's life.
In re Adoptiorni ofM.J.H., 348 Pa. Super. 65, 301 A.2d 648 (1985). A parent
must demonstrate a continuing interest in the child and make a genuine effort to
maintain communication and association with the child. lit re Adoption of Meeray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1973). Moreover, a parent with a child in foster care has an affirmative duty to work toward the return of the child. /a Re: William L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A.2d 1228 (1978).
When considering the needs and welfare of the child, it is also important
for the court to consider the bond between the parent and the child because
severance of a strong parental bond can have a detrimental impact on the child.
Matzoth, supra. Petitioner presented credible testimony regarding the needs, welfare and
best interest of minors D.W. and N.W. in relation to their Mother. Ms. Hartman,
testified that the children have been with the foster parent, Sharon Anderson,
since September 21, 2015. N.T. at 7-8. Ms. Hartman testified that she observes
the children on a monthly basis. Ms. Hartman testified that the children have been assimilated into the
as uncles, family. They attend all family outings and refer to family members parent is an aunts and grandparents. Ms. Hartman also testified that the foster
adoptive resource for the children.
21 Ms. Hartman testified that the foster mother meets the children's physical
needs. She provides the children with food, shelter, and clothing. The children's
medical needs and immunizations are also up to date. Id. at 9.
Ms. Hartman further testified that the foster mother meets the children's activities. developmental needs. She works with the children on age -appropriate
She is teaching D.W. her numbers and alphabet. She engages the children in play
dates so they are interacting with other children. The foster mother also "potty -
trained" the children.
Ms. Hartman testified that the foster mother also meets the children's
emotion& needs. According to Ms. Hartman, the children seek the foster mother
children for comfort and affection. The foster mother is very nurturing with the
and very affectionate toward them. Ms. Hartman testified that the children have
been with the foster parents since the date of placement. Id. at 8, 21.
Ms. Hartman also testified that there is a bond between the Mother and
the minor children. Ms. Hartman describes the children's bond with their that the Mother as a "play date bond." She testified that although D.W. identifies There is natural mother is her mother, there is not a lot off affection in the room. Ms. not much "kissing or hugging" between the Mother and the children.
Hartman testified that N.W. just follows her sister, D.W. N.W. does not identify
According to Mother as her mother and views the foster mother as her mother.
Ms. Hartman, D.W. exhibits some behavioral issues when she has to visit the
to return to the natural parents. After the visits, she easily separates from them was a period foster mother. Id. at 11-12. Ms. Hartman testified that when there and the of time when the visits did not take place between the natural parents
22 SL-VaPittaWffraSE?....a. Dlial tl - ..,11111,1
children, the children did not inquire about the visits. D.W. also was having less
behavioral issues.
Ms. Hartman described the bond between the foster mother and the
children as a parent/child bond. She also described the bond as a positive bond.
Both children call the foster mother "Mommy" and also follow the rules she puts
in place. Id. at 12-13.
Ms. Hartman testified that that the foster parent mother is willing to be aware legally and financially responsible for the children. The foster mother is
that the children can inherit from her as if she is their own natural mother. Id. at 32. Ms. Hartman also believes that if the natural parents' rights were terminated,
it would have a positive effect on the children. The children would have stability
and would be adopted into a loving and caring family. Ms. Hartman further
stated that the children would not be negatively affected should the contact with
the natural parents be terminated. She explained that there was a lack of Other consistency. At times, the parents only saw the children once per month. were times, the children did not see the parents at all in a given month. The visits
not consistent. Ms. Hartman believes that adoption of the children by the foster
mother serves the best interest of the children. Id. at 12-13. finds Accordingly, based on the testimony of Ms. Hartman, the court further and that the termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the needs
welfare of the children.
23 of long expired to remedy parental incapacity and there is little rational prospect
the timely reunification of D.W. and N.W. to their Mother.
MIL CONCLUSION issues The Court finds that Mother had not addressed her mental health
and thus, her attendant parenting deficits so that she is capable of providing finds that she essential care and control of the minor children. The Court further mother for is not able to meet her children's needs. In stark contrast, the foster
each child has amply demonstrated she can and does meet the physical, have developmental and emotional needs of the minor children. N.W. and D.W. home with a thrived under her care. The children need and deserve a permanent the rights of loving capable parent. The only way to provide this is to terminate
the Mother. Clearly, it is in the children's best interest to do so. "Notice of In the event this Honorable Superior Court entertains Father's will file a Fast 'hack Appeal," then, upon being advised of same, this Court
supplemental opinion addressing same. Respectfully submitted,
BY E COURT,
JIENNI RS
DATE:
25 a Irn a
COPIES TO:
Jena Piazza Braunsberg, Esquire Children & Youth Services of Luzerne County in North Pennsylvania Boulevard Wilkes-Barre, PA187o1
Stephen Palubinski, Esquire Attorney for Mother P.O. Box 656 Nuremberg, PA 18241
Paul L. Delaney, Esquire Guardian Ad Litem 16 Institute Street Wyoming, PA 18644