J-S03036-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: B.W.P., FATHER : : : : : No. 1194 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered July 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000260-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF: K.P., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: B.W.P., FATHER : : : : : : No. 1195 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Order Entered July 24, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000261-2021
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED: APRIL 25, 2025
B.W.P. (“Father”) appeals from the orders entered by the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas (“orphans’ court”) granting the petitions to
terminate his parental rights to M.P., born August 2017, and K.P., born
December 2018, (collectively “Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § J-S03036-25
2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).1 Because we conclude that the orphans’ court
did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights, we affirm.
The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“CYF”)
first became involved with the family in April 2019, after a Mercy Behavioral
Health caseworker observed M.P. put marijuana in her mouth. CYF identified
Father’s mental health, intimate partner violence between the parents, and
both parents’ substance use as concerns. CYF obtained emergency custody
of Children and placed them in a foster home in May 2019. After a shelter
care hearing in June 2019, the orphans’ court ordered Children to remain in
foster care.
CYF filed petitions for dependency, and after a hearing, the juvenile
court adjudicated Children dependent in July 2019. Father’s court-ordered
goals and Family Service Plan goals included, inter alia, participating in mental
health treatment, obtaining stable housing, completing a substance use
evaluation and a batterer’s intervention program, participating in coached
parenting, and engaging in supervised visits with Children. Father was also
ordered to sign release of information forms (“ROIs”), with his mental health
providers, comply with probation, and allow CYF to obtain information from
his probation officer. After numerous permanency review hearings, the court
____________________________________________
1 The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of mother, C.U. (“Mother”). Mother has not appealed this decision.
-2- J-S03036-25
determined that Father had demonstrated only moderate compliance with his
goals.
Children had psychological and medical issues that led to some
complications with their foster care placements. Specifically, K.P. had an
ADHD diagnosis, for which she was receiving psychiatric care, and exhibited
aggressive behaviors as well as fits of rage. M.P. often took cues from K.P.’s
behavior and would engage in similar aggressive outbursts, though with less
frequency and severity. M.P. also had eye development issues that, according
to her treating optometrist, will eventually require a surgery and additional
medical care. In July 2021, CYF moved Children into a foster home with J.M.
and N.M. (“Foster Parents”). On December 22, 2021, CYF filed petitions to
involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights. In the petitions, CYF noted
that Father has longstanding mental health issues, his progress and stability
in mental health treatment was unknown, and he did not maintain consistent
contact with Children.
In April 2023, CYF moved Children to a new foster home placement in
Mercer County after Foster Parents expressed concerns about their ability to
effectively address K.P.’s behavioral health needs. CYF and KidsVoice (acting
as the child advocate) noted their concerns regarding K.P.’s extensive
-3- J-S03036-25
psychiatric care2 during the Mercer County placement, which led CYF to
contact Foster Parents to see if they were again willing to serve as a placement
for Children. Foster Parents accepted and confirmed that they had additional
support in place to effectively address K.P.’s needs, and Children returned to
Foster Parents’ home in December 2023.
The orphans’ court held evidentiary hearings on the termination
petitions on June 6, 2024 and July 23, 2024,3 at which several CYF
caseworkers, two of Father’s medical providers, a child and forensic
psychologist, and Father testified.4 The orphans’ court issued separate orders
involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to M.P. and K.P. pursuant to
2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). Father filed a timely appeal and both he and
the orphans’ court have complied with Rule 1925 of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
2 Specifically, CYF and KidsVoice were concerned that the foster parents in that placement were overtreating and overmedicating K.P., who had been seen by ten different psychiatric providers at that point.
3 The hearing on the termination petitions was originally to be held on January
19, 2022, but it was continued on multiple occasions because of Children’s movement between foster homes.
4 At the hearing on June 6, Attorney Erin Krotoszynski of KidsVoice stated that
she had not identified a conflict that would prohibit her office from serving as both guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and legal counsel for Children. N.T., 6/6/2024, at 8. See In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1235 (Pa. 2020) (stating that “where an orphans’ court has appointed a GAL/[c]ounsel to represent both the child’s best interests and legal interests, appellate courts should review sua sponte whether the orphans’ court made a determination that those interests did not conflict”).
-4- J-S03036-25
Father raises the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law by involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8)?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that CYF met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?
Father’s Brief at 4.
Our standard of review regarding the involuntary termination of parental
rights is well settled:
In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the decree of the termination court is supported by competent evidence. This standard of review corresponds to the standard employed in dependency cases, and requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but it does not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences or conclusions of law. That is, if the factual findings are supported, we must determine whether the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion; we reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.
Matter of Adoption of L.C.J.W., 311 A.3d 41, 48 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citation
omitted).
This Court’s review of termination of parental rights decisions involves
a bifurcated analysis as required by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. Id.
Initially the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence
-5- J-S03036-25
that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory rounds for termination delineated in section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns 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. (citation omitted). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is so
“clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to
a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”
Id. at 48-49 (citation omitted).
As noted above, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights
to Children pursuant to section 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8). However, we “need
only agree with [the orphans’ court’s] decision as to any one subsection in
order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re M.M., 106 A.3d 114,
117 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). We thus focus our analysis on
section 2511(a)(8).
To terminate parental rights under section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner
must establish that: (1) the child has been removed from the care of the
parent for at least twelve months, (2) that the conditions which led to the
removal or placement of the child still exist, and (3) that the termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. Interest
of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 832 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted); see also 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8). This subsection does not require an analysis of a
-6- J-S03036-25
parent’s “willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the
placement of the children.” M.E., 283 A.3d at 832. Instead, the inquiry
focuses on “whether the conditions that led to removal have been remedied
and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at the time of
the hearing.” Id.
The orphans’ court found that Father failed to remedy the conditions
that led to Children’s placement, which occurred approximately two-and-a-
half years prior to the filing of the termination petitions and more than five
years before the hearings on the petitions. Orphans’ Court Opinion,
10/3/2024, at 24. Specifically, the orphans’ court pointed to testimony
concerning Father’s “serious mental health,” his refusal to follow the
recommendations of his psychiatrist (including failing to take his prescribed
medication), his refusal to sign ROIs to allow CYF to gain access to his
treatment information, and his denial that he had a mental health disorder.
Id. at 14-18. The orphans’ court further observed that Father’s failure to
comply with mental health treatment resulted in his inability to maintain
housing and to address the many and varied treatment needs of Children, K.P.
in particular. Id. at 17-19, 21. Finding Father’s denials to lack credibility,
and crediting instead the testimony of the various mental health treatment
providers, the court found that Father’s continued failure to comply with
treatment will result in sustained and irreversible brain damage. Id. at 18.
-7- J-S03036-25
Father argues that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by
terminating his parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(8) because the
conditions that led to the removal of Children—namely, his mental health
concerns, substance abuse, and intimate partner violence—no longer exist.
Father’s Brief at 15. He contends that he had no contact with Mother up until
the termination hearing, eliminating the concern of intimate partner violence
between the two, and that there was no evidence at trial that Father’s mental
health “could not be controlled with proper medication.” Id.
Our review of the record supports the orphans’ court’s findings. There
is no question that Children have been removed from Father’s care for more
than twelve months N.T., 6/6/2024, at 72-73. Further, the conditions that
led to Children’s removal and continued placement continue to exist. The
primary conditions that led to Children’s removal were concerns about Father’s
mental health, intimate partner violence, and substance abuse. Id. at 73.
Dr. Sean Weldon, Father’s treating psychiatrist through UPMC Mercy Hospital’s
community treatment program, testified that he has been Father’s treating
psychiatrist since 2017. Id. at 33. Dr. Weldon indicated Father has been
diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder. Id. at 34. As part
of Father’s participation in this program, he saw Dr. Weldon once a month for
in-person appointments starting in 2017. Id. at 37. Father was prescribed
-8- J-S03036-25
and received injections of the antipsychotic drug haloperidol5 to treat some of
the symptoms of his schizophrenia at these appointments. Id. at 36-37.
Specifically, Dr. Weldon stated that haloperidol is intended to help patients
manage symptoms like auditory or visual hallucinations, disorganized
thinking, and difficulty communicating in a logical fashion. Id. at 37.
Dr. Weldon testified that when Father was taking his prescribed
medication consistently, “he did quite well,” and it was easier for Father to
have a working relationship with the community treatment team while he was
taking his medication. Id. at 38. Father was “intermittently adherent” to his
medication plan, in part because he believed he did not have a legitimate
mental health diagnosis and thus did not need medication. Id. at 35, 42. Dr.
Weldon stated that when Father was not taking his medication, Father’s
disorganization and delusional thinking worsened. Id. at 40.
In February 2023, Father decided to stop receiving this medication
against medical advice. Id. at 35. Father also expressed that he no longer
wished to see Dr. Weldon, because he did not believe that he needed
medication or had a valid psychiatric diagnosis. Id. at 41. Dr. Weldon
testified that he has been able to meet with Father a few times since he
discontinued his medication, and that Father had become “sort of irrational
and difficult to maintain on point and express logical, reasonable thinking or
5 Haloperidol is often referred to by its brand name, Haldol.
-9- J-S03036-25
ideas.” Id. Further, he stated that Father expressed “persecutory delusions”
about the community treatment team and its motives. Id. Dr. Weldon also
expressed concern that Father is no longer participating actively in the
community treatment program or receiving his prescribed medication. Id. at
42. He stated that in his professional opinion, Father’s risk of permanent loss
of degrees of cognitive function increases the longer that Father’s
schizophrenia goes untreated. Id. at 43.
Additionally, as the orphans’ court found, Father’s decision to reduce his
participation in the community treatment program has other consequences,
particularly regarding his ability to obtain stable housing. Todd Cobourne
(“Cobourne”), a registered nurse who is part of the community treatment
program, testified at trial about the non-medical assistance that the program
offers, including rental assistance. Id. at 55. The treatment team was able
to step in as Father’s payee and assist him in paying back approximately
$2,000 in delinquent rent that he owed to his landlord. Id. at 56.
Furthermore, as a participant in the treatment program, Father qualifies for
spectrum housing, a county program that covers a significant portion of
participants’ rent. Id. Cobourne testified to Father’s plans to discontinue
participation in the treatment program, which would result in the loss of access
to the housing assistance it provides. Id. at 57.
Father’s failure to comply with his mental health treatment has also
raised serious concerns about his ability to parent Children and to address
- 10 - J-S03036-25
their needs. N.T., 7/23/2024, at 28-29. Child and forensic psychologist Dr.
Patricia Pepe, who completed an evaluation with Father, noted that Father’s
lack of continuity and consistency in his use of medication for mental health
treatment poses a significant barrier to his ability to parent Children. Id. at
28. CYF caseworker Denise Washington (“Washington”) testified to similar
concerns, specifically that Father “may not have the patience or the skill set”
to address K.P.’s aggressive behavior due to his lack of mental health
treatment. N.T., 6/6/2024, at 102, 108. She noted that there were marked
differences in Father’s interactions with Children when he “was not actively
taking his medication,” particularly related to his ability to understand K.P.’s
behavior and effectively address it. Id. at 108. Washington concluded that
Father’s “lack of mental health treatment has been a continuous barrier in
terms of his goals and interactions with the children.” Id.
CYF also presented evidence demonstrating Father’s lack of cooperation
with its repeated requests for updated ROIs, through which it could obtain
updated documentation related to Father’s mental health treatment. Id. at
101. According to Washington, Father refused to sign the ROIs because he
did not believe that he had a mental health disorder. Id. Father continued
to deny that he had any mental health issues or need for mental health
treatment during his testimony. N.T., 7/23/2024, at 54.
Dr. Pepe testified that during her evaluation with Father, he denied that
he had mental health issues or diagnoses numerous times. Id. at 21. He also
- 11 - J-S03036-25
denied ever being prescribed medication at UPMC Mercy, though he confirmed
his involvement in the community treatment program. Id. Dr. Pepe
expressed concern about Father’s emotional reactivity during the evaluation,
as well as his indications of persecutory thinking and “concerning speech
patterns that would be reflective of psychotic functioning.” Id. at 21-22.
Further, she expressed concern that Father denied any responsibility for
domestic violence committed against Mother, as she believes that K.P.’s
behavioral issues may be related to the impact of witnessing domestic violence
in the home. Id. at 28.
Father testified that he did not have mental health problems. Id. at 70.
In response to a follow-up question about his participation, Father indicated
that his involvement in UPMC Mercy’s community treatment program was to
participate in recreational activities. Id. at 71; see also Orphans’ Court
Opinion, 10/3/2024, at 18 (noting the court placed very little weight on
Father’s testimony).
The record clearly establishes that the concerns regarding Father’s
mental health that led to the removal and continued placement of Children
continue to exist. Father discontinued his medication against medical advice
and is unwilling to engage in mental health treatment because he does not
believe he has a mental health disorder. This is creating additional barriers to
reunification including, inter alia, his ability to maintain stable housing.
Though Father reasonably asserts that the condition of intimate partner
- 12 - J-S03036-25
violence present at the time of Children’s removal no longer exists because he
is no longer in contact with Mother, he has not provided any evidence to
establish that the condition related to his mental health no longer exists.
Thus, the record supports the orphans’ court’s finding that one of the central
concerns that resulted in Children’s removal from Father’s care continues to
exist, and the court did not abuse its discretion in finding clear and convincing
evidence to satisfy termination under the first two prongs of section
2511(a)(8).
We next consider whether the record supports the orphans’ court’s
conclusion that CYF proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination
best serves Children’s needs and welfare pursuant to the third prong of section
2511(a)(8) and section 2511(b).6 Father contends that CYF failed to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights would
best serve the needs and welfare of Children. Father’s Brief at 15.
Specifically, he argues that the record demonstrates that Children have a
meaningful relationship with him “which should be preserved for the benefit
of the Children.” Id.
6 Though they are separately enumerated, this Court has interpreted the needs and welfare analyses required under subsections (a)(8) and (b) to utilize the same legal standards and to be based upon the same evidence. See, e.g., Matter of Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 448 (Pa. Super. 2017) (combining discussion of children’s needs and welfare under subsection (a)(8) and subsection (b) is permissible because “the third element of [s]ection 2511(a)(8) requires that the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt conduct an analysis similar to that required under [s]ection 2511(b)”).
- 13 - J-S03036-25
Section 2511(b) provides:
The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent 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 of the 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(b).
Our analysis focuses on whether termination of parental rights would
best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of
the child. T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[T]he determination of the child’s needs
and welfare requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent
and child. The utmost attention should be paid to discerning the effect on the
child of permanently severing the parental bond.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted). It is not enough that there exists a bond between parent and child
to avoid termination. See Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1109 (Pa. 2023).
Rather, the trial court must determine whether the bond is “necessary and
beneficial” to the child, such that “maintaining the bond serves the child’s
developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.” Id. at 1105-06.
Focusing upon the “child’s development, and mental and emotional health,”
the trial court should assess whether severing the bond “is the kind of loss
that would predictably cause extreme emotional consequences or significant,
irreparable harm” to the child. Id. at 1110-11.
- 14 - J-S03036-25
Additionally, “the parental bond is but one part of the overall subsection
(b) analysis[.]” Id. at 1113. The needs and welfare analysis must also include
the consideration of factors such as: “the child’s need for permanency and
length of time in foster care …; whether the child is in a preadoptive home
and bonded with foster parents; and whether the foster home meets the
child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs, including intangible
needs of love, comfort, security, safety, and stability.” Id. (citations omitted).
“These factors and others properly guide the court’s analysis of the child’s
welfare and all [their] developmental, physical, and emotional needs.” Id.
Importantly, “[orphans’] courts have the discretion to place appropriate
weight on each factor present in the record before making a decision regarding
termination that best serves the child’s specific needs.” Id.
The orphans’ court found that CYF established by clear and convincing
evidence that though an emotional bond between Father and Children exists,
it is not necessary and beneficial to the children. Orphans’ Court Opinion,
10/3/2024, at 31. It further held that the bond between Father and Children
is “outweighed by Father’s inability to remedy the causation of placement, and
by the children’s need for permanence and stability.” Id. The court held that
Foster Parents had provided for Children’s needs and welfare, and that
Children had transferred their trust and emotional dependency to Foster
Parents, thus creating a strong bond with them. Id. at 31-32.
- 15 - J-S03036-25
The record supports the orphans’ court’s determination. Washington
testified that Children’s needs and welfare are best served by terminating both
parents’ parental rights. N.T., 6/6/2024, at 116-17. Specifically, Washington
pointed to CYF’s concerns that Father could not appropriately address
Children’s developmental and emotional needs, especially K.P.’s behavioral
challenges. Id. at 102. As noted above, she observed that it was particularly
difficult for Father to address K.P.’s behavioral issues when he was not actively
taking his medication, and that his lack of mental health treatment has been
a continuous barrier to his ability to care for Children. Id. at 108. Washington
additionally testified that Father has not participated in any of Children’s
medical or educational appointments despite receiving notice of the
appointments when they were scheduled. Id. at 105.
Washington acknowledged the difficulty that Foster Parents had during
Children’s first placement with them, but noted that Foster Parents had made
clear progress in their ability to handle K.P.’s behavior. Id. at 109-10, 114.
During her home visits, Washington noted that Children seemed relaxed and
acted like a family unit with Foster Parents. Id. at 110-11. She concluded
that Foster Parents were appropriately meeting Children’s educational,
psychological, and developmental needs. Id. at 116. Washington additionally
observed that Foster Parents have taken Children to the necessary
appointments and advocated for their medical and mental health needs. Id.
at 114.
- 16 - J-S03036-25
Bruce Goldhagen (“Goldhagen”), a visit coach for JusticeWorks Youth
Care assigned to work with Father, provided additional testimony regarding
Father’s capacity to address Children’s developmental and emotional needs.
Goldhagen testified that though the visits between Father and Children went
well in the beginning, they became more difficult after visits moved from
Father’s residence to Auberle. Id. at 169-70. He stated that Father became
angry that visits could no longer occur at his residence and began to have
difficulty dealing with both Children’s behavior. Id. at 170. Specifically,
Goldhagen stated that Father’s frustration regarding visitation in general
began to impact his ability to meet Children’s needs during visits, and that it
became impossible for Goldhagen to redirect Father out of this frustration and
anger. Id. at 170-71; see also id. at 170 (noting JusticeWorks discharged
Father from the coached visitation program in April 2024 because of these
challenges).
Dr. Pepe conducted individual evaluations with Father, K.P., and M.P.,
as well as an interactional evaluation with Children and Father. N.T.,
7/23/2024, at 9. Dr. Pepe diagnosed both K.P. and M.P. with post-traumatic
stress disorder, upbringing away from parents, child affected by parental
relationship distress, and a rule-out for child neglect. Id. at 15-16. She
recommended trauma therapy for both, along with an “in-home therapeutic
program to assist with [K.P.’s] explosive behaviors.” Id. Dr. Pepe also
testified regarding her observations during the interactional evaluation she
- 17 - J-S03036-25
completed with Father and Children, noting that Children were clearly happy
to see Father and that Father was affectionate and playful with them. Id. at
27.
Dr. Pepe also completed an interactional evaluation with Foster Parents
and Children, during which she observed that K.P. was very responsive to
Foster Parents’ efforts to address her behavior. Id. at 29-30. She further
noted that both Children looked to Foster Parents for help and sought physical
affection from Foster Parents. Id. at 29. Dr. Pepe additionally observed that
Children had formed a positive attachment to Foster Parents, and that Foster
Parents have expressed a commitment to caring for Children. Id. at 30. She
concluded by recommending Children’s adoption by Foster Parents, noting the
importance of developing and maintaining stability for Children’s ongoing
treatment and growth. Id. at 31.
Additionally, Auberle caseworker Cara Cornelius testified regarding
Children’s adjustment in Foster Parents’ home, stating, “[Children] seem very
happy and comfortable with the foster family,” and that Foster Parents
appeared to be meeting Children’s educational, medical, and general needs.
Id. at 185-86. CYF caseworker Renee Taddy, who took over Children’s case
from Washington in March 2024,7 also observed that Foster Parents “follow
the recommendations of [Children’s primary care providers] or providers that
7 Before becoming the direct services caseworker for Children’s case, Taddy
was their permanency caseworker.
- 18 - J-S03036-25
have been able to complete evaluations.” Id. at 208. She added that Foster
Parents “are very active” in Children’s behavioral health care. Id.
Father testified to his ability to care for Children and provide for their
needs on his own. Id. at 52, 65. When the court asked Father whether he
knew what Children’s diagnoses were, he stated: “When they are with me,
they are fine, like, because like just period. That’s my dad type stuff.” Id. at
73.
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the orphans’ court did
not abuse its discretion in its determination that terminating Father’s parental
rights best served the needs and welfare of Children under section (a)(8) and
(b). Although the record reflects that Father and Children share an emotional
bond and Father loves Children, this bond is not necessary and beneficial to
Children, in large part because Father is not able to provide the level of care
that Children need as a result of his own mental health challenges. See In
re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also M.E., 283 A.3d at
839 (noting that orphans’ court does not have to consider the bond between
parent and child “over all other needs and welfare considerations”). Indeed,
Father does not understand Children’s needs, and his discontinuation of his
own mental health treatment and his expressions of persecutory thinking
regarding healthcare providers demonstrate numerous barriers to his ability
to appropriately provide for Children’s needs and welfare, as well as the
potential to impede Children’s further growth and development. See In re
- 19 - J-S03036-25
P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 852 (Pa. 2015) (finding termination of parental rights
supported under 2511(a)(8) and (b) where child was familiar with parent, but
parent did not have a history of engaging in a caregiving relationship with
child or taking responsibility for child over an extended period). Further,
Children have bonded with Foster Parents and that Foster Parents are able to
provide for Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs. See
K.T., 286 A.3d at 1114. The court therefore appropriately concluded that
termination of Father’s parental rights best serves Children’s needs and
welfare.
As we have found that the orphans’ court’s determination pursuant to
section 2511(a)(8) and (b) has ample support in the record, we must affirm
the orders terminating Father’s parental rights to Children. See Matter of
L.C.J.W., 411 A.3d at 48 (noting that “absent an abuse of discretion, an error
of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the
decree must stand”).
Orders affirmed.
Judge Kunselman joins this memorandum.
Judge Sullivan files a dissenting memorandum.
- 20 - J-S03036-25
DATE: 4/25/2025
- 21 -