J-S34018-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.D.E., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 584 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court at CP-02-AP-0000228-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.D.E., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 586 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Orphans’ Court at CP-02-AP-0000229-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.D.E., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 587 WDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Orphans’ Court at CP-02-AP-0000230-2021
J-S34018-22

- 2 -

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: OCTOBER 21, 2022

J.D.E. (Mother) appeals from the orders involuntarily terminating her 

parental rights to her three daughters, K.W., K.L.W. (a/k/a K.W.), and M.W.1 

Upon review, we affirm.

K.W., K.L.W. and M.W. (Children) are the three youngest of Mother’s 

eight children. K.W. and K.L.W. are twins, born in October 2018; M.W. was 

born in May 2020. The family has been involved with the Allegheny County 

Office of Children, Youth & Families (CYF) since 2001. The orphans’ court 

explained:

Mother and Father have a lengthy history with CYF in 

Allegheny County. Their oldest child was born on August 17, 

2001, and CYF referrals date back to 2001, when he was a baby 

and removed from their care. Beginning in 2008, the referrals to 

CYF became more “consistent,” according to the caseworker. In 

March 2018, CYF received a referral that the parents’ oldest child 

was locked up inside the home and was not “let out to go to school, 

use the bathroom, shower or eat.” Their oldest child was removed 

from their home and a corresponding Childline [report], for 

unreasonably restraining or confining a child, was subsequently 

indicated. CYF filed a petition for dependency on the oldest child 

and three other children [not K.W., K.L.W. or M.W.] that were 

residing in the home at the time. The oldest child was adjudicated 

dependent and CYF withdrew the petitions on the three other 

children in July 2018. Because the oldest child was dependent, 

CYF remained active with the family and provided various 

services, which included bus tickets to assist with transportation 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of L.C.W. (Father), 

who has appealed at 570 WDA 2022, 571 WDA 2022, and 572 WDA 2022. 

This Court consolidated Father’s appeals on May 31, 2022, and listed Father’s 

appeal for disposition by this panel on October 3, 2022.
J-S34018-22

- 3 -

needs. The caseworker testified that fifty tickets were requested 

and provided in October 2018, which corresponded to when [] 

K.W. and K.L.W. were born.

In late November 2019, CYF received a referral from 

Children’s Hospital regarding the twins. Dr. Adelaide Eichman, a 

stipulated expert in child abuse and pediatrics, testified about her 

involvement with K.W. and K.L.W. at the time of their admission 

to Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh on November 26, 2019. Dr. 

Eichman testified that upon examination,

the twins were 13 months old. The girls were quite 

small. They weighed about 11 pounds, which is 

roughly the size of a two-month-old. So the girls were 

very tiny in terms of height and weight. They had 

badly controlled eczema on their skin. And the girls 

were developmentally delayed. They were at the level 

of a nine-month-old, approximately, at that point.

The twins were also found to have Vitamin D deficient 

rickets, which per Dr. Eichman, is a bone condition caused by a 

lack of Vitamin D in their diet prior to the hospital admission. Dr. 

Eichman testified that she recommended hospitalization for two 

reasons. Dr. Eichman said that the twins were so malnourished 

that they exhibited signs of refeeding syndrome, due to electrolyte 

abnormalities, which required the refeeding to be done slowly and 

carefully. Dr. Eichman also recommended hospitalization to 

ensure that the twins did not have an underlying medical condition 

that was the cause of their low weight. Parents were not receptive 

to the twins being hospitalized, per Dr. Eichman.

Dr. Eichman testified her medical conclusion was that the 

twins did not have a medical condition that prevented them from 

gaining weight and that their low weight was a result of an 

inadequate diet. Mother told Dr. Eichman when the twins were 

initially hospitalized, that the twins were breastfeeding every two 

hours, that they were on a vegan diet but ate chicken fingers, and 

Mother was giving them some kind of supplement. Dr. Eichman 

testified that Mother stated “she kept herself alkalined” but Dr. 

Eichman was not familiar with what kind of diet that was.

Dr. Eichman stated that the twins did not have celiac 

disease. Additionally, the eczema that they had, while a common 

skin condition, was not well-controlled and as a result[,] the twins 
J-S34018-22

- 4 -

were scratching quite a bit until it cracked and bled. Dr. Eichman 

also testified that the children each functioned with the 

developmental abilities of a nine-month-old, despite being 

thirteen months of age. The parents reported to Dr. Eichman that 

the twins “had many words;” however, Dr. Eichman had only 

heard them babble. Dr. Eichman testified that the twins were 

observably different, in that they were smaller and not as

developmentally advanced for their age, and a reasonable 

caregiver would be able to recognize that they were not on track 

with growth or development. After their admission on November 

26, 2019, the twins were discharged from the hospital on 

December 5, 2019, to the care of their parents. The parents met 

with the nutritionist and the general pediatrics team during the 

twins’ hospitalization, and they were provided with verbal and 

written instructions regarding their care and feeding, per Dr. 

Eichman. Additionally, multiple weight checks were scheduled for 

the twins post-discharge, which included bringing them into the 

office and a home nurse coming to the family home. Dr. Eichman 

testified that during their hospitalization, the twins were gaining, 

on average, twenty grams per day, which was viewed favorably in 

the light of the feeding schedule put in place to avoid refeeding 

syndrome.

Despite the instruction and education provided to the 

parents, the scheduled appointments for weight checks in the 

home and the doctor’s office, and the evidence that the twins were 

capable of gaining weight as demonstrated during their 

hospitalization, the twins were readmitted to Children’s Hospital 

in January 2020. Dr. Eichman testified that the readmission was 

due to the fact that they were not showing the weight gain that 

would have been expected while in Parents’ care and because the 

parents had missed several of the twins’ doctors’ appointments. 

Moreover, the eczema that had been treated with topical steroids 

had not improved while in Parents’ care.

CYF obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization to 

remove the twins in January 2020 and the caseworker testified 

that at the time of the removal the twins appeared very small. 

Mother had told CYF that she had the twins “on a vegan diet and 

that she was also breastfeeding but also feeding them smoothies 

with fruit, hemp seeds, walnut milk.” The caseworker testified 

that despite being hospitalized twice in a two-month time frame 

due to nutritional deficiencies[,] and discussions with the parents 

about the severity of the twins’ presentation in November 2019[,] 
J-S34018-22

- 5 -

Mother and Father did not seem to understand how serious the 

situation was.

After the twins’ removal in January 2020, CYF put in 

Homebuilders, a thirty-day intensive in-home services program, 

to support the family. Homebuilders’ goal, per CYF, was to work 

with the parents with scheduling and keeping appointments and 

addressing the children’s needs. The parents did not appear to 

gain any additional insight from these services and Homebuilders 

suggested that Parents receive a neuropsychological evaluation, 

as well as in-home mental health services. The caseworker 

testified that the twins were placed into [a] foster home at that 

time and eventually moved into a relative[’s] foster home in April 

2020.

Mother had her eighth child, M.W., on May 16, 2020, and 

CYF obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization that same day. 

At the hospital discharge, the newborn[, M.W.,] was placed into 

the same relative[’s] foster home as the twins. The twins were 

adjudicated dependent on May 20, 2020. CYF filed a petition for 

dependency on [M.W.,] the newborn, based on the significant 

concerns the agency had with respect to the parents’ ability to 

appropriately feed and follow through with medical appointments. 

M.W., the newborn, was adjudicated dependent on June 25, 2020. 

Between the November 2019 hospitalization and the January 2020 

hospitalization, twelve Childline [reports] were filed and indicated 

against Mother and Father for causing serious medical neglect, 

failure to provide proper nutrition and hydration, and failure to 

provide proper medical care.

This [c]ourt need not recite the extensive findings within the 

permanency review orders with respect to Mother and Father, as 

they are evident within []CYF Exhibit 5 - Certified Court orders. 

Without question, at the time the termination petitions were filed 

by CYF on November 4, 2021, and at the time of the termination 

proceedings on April 8, 2022, Mother and Father had made 

minimal progress towards remedying the issues and were in 

minimal compliance with the family service plan goals, despite CYF 

offering and providing services and evaluations aimed at efforts 

to reunify. See CYF Exhibit 5 - Certified Court Orders.

At the time of the termination hearing, the twins (K.W. and 

K.L.W.) were three and a half years old and had been in care 

twenty-seven consecutive months. M.W. was almost two years 
J-S34018-22

- 6 -

old and had been in care her entire life, twenty-three consecutive 

months. Not subject to the instant matter, Mother and Father’s 

oldest child resided outside of the home, and the three older 

sisters resided in the care of Parents, all four of whom are 

dependent.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/27/22, at 2-8 (record citations and footnotes 

omitted).

The orphans’ court conducted the termination hearing on April 8, 2022. 

The Children were represented by legal counsel, “appointed by court order, 

after [the Orphans’] Court conducted a conflict analysis.” Id. at 2. CYF 

presented testimony from Dr. Eichman; CYF caseworker, Ashley Hobbs; 

licensed psychologist, Dr. Terry O’Hara; and licensed psychologist Dr. Beth 

Bliss. Mother, Father, and Children’s maternal grandmother testified in 

opposition to termination. By orders dated April 8, 2022, and entered April 

19, 2022, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2),(5),(8) and (b). Mother timely appealed. Both 

Mother and the orphans’ court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.2

____________________________________________

2 Mother filed separate notices of appeal for each child. At 587 WDA 2022, 

Mother failed to file her concise statement simultaneously with her notice of 

appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2). On June 7, 2022, this Court ordered 

Mother to file her concise statement by June 17, 2022. She timely complied 

by filing the concise statement in the orphans’ court on June 9, 2022, and in 

this Court on June 13, 2022. Thus, Mother has preserved her appellate issues. 

See In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 747 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2009) (failure to 

simultaneously file a Rule 1925(b) statement did not result in waiver where 

appellant later filed the statement and there was no allegation of prejudice 

from the late filing). This Court consolidated Mother’s appeals on June 15, 

2022. 
J-S34018-22

- 7 -

Mother presents the following questions for review:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of 

law in granting the petition[s] to involuntarily terminate

Mother’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 Mother’s parental 

rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?

Mother’s Brief at 10.

In reviewing Mother’s issues,

our standard of review requires [us 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. As has been often stated, an 

abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing 

court might have reached a different conclusion. Instead, a 

decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon 

demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, 

prejudice, bias, or ill-will.

As [the Supreme Court] discussed in In re: R.J.T., [9 A.3d 1179,

1190 (Pa. 2010)], there are clear reasons for applying an abuse 

of discretion standard of review in these cases. [U]nlike trial 

courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific 

determinations on a cold record, where the trial judges are 

observing the parties during the relevant hearing and often 

presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and 

parents. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. Therefore, even where the facts 

could support an opposite result, as is often the case in 

dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist 

the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own 

credibility determinations and judgment; instead, we must defer 

to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are supported by 

the record and the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of 

an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
J-S34018-22

- 8 -

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012) (some citations 

omitted).

CYF has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its 

asserted grounds for termination are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 

(Pa. Super. 2009). “[T]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined 

as testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the 

trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of 

the precise facts in issue.” Id. Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, “the court must 

engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights.” In re

L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). Initially, the focus is on the 

conduct of the parent pursuant to § 2511(a). Id.

Section 2511(a)

With respect to grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), we need 

only agree “as to any one subsection in order to affirm 

the termination of parental rights.” In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 478 (Pa. Super. 

2010). Here, we address the second subsection, which provides for 

termination when a parent’s

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.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2).
J-S34018-22

- 9 -

Section 2511(a)(2) “emphasizes the child’s present and future need for 

‘essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or 

mental well-being.’” In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation 

omitted). Grounds for termination under subsection (a)(2) are not limited to 

affirmative misconduct. Id. “Where the parent does not exercise reasonable 

firmness in declining to yield to obstacles, her [parental] rights may be 

forfeited.” Id. at 83. The grounds for termination under § 2511(a)(2) may 

include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties. In re 

S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2021). We have long recognized that 

a parent is required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt 

assumption of full parental responsibilities. In re Adoption of M.A.B., 166 

A.3d 434, 443 (Pa. Super. 2017).

Mother asserts the trial court erred in finding grounds for termination 

under Section 2511(a)(2). She argues:

The record failed to provide sufficient evidence to make

finding under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2). CYF failed to prove that

Mother had a continuing incapacity ... that caused the [C]hildren 

to be without essential parental care or that Mother cannot or will 

not remedy any such incapacity. The record demonstrates that 

Mother could provide proper care and control of the Children. CYF 

acknowledged that Mother provided nutritionally appropriate food 

during visitation. The [Child Health Evaluation and Coordination 

Services (CHESCS)] Nurse testified that Mother verbalized an 

understanding of the immunizations and well child checks and had 

a good understanding of the twins’ allergies.

It was also undisputed that the three older minor children in

Mother’s care never had nutritional issues or failure to thrive

concerns. Mother’s ability to provide essential parental care to 
J-S34018-22

- 10 -

her other children is relevant. (Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 

1108, 1124 (Pa. 2021)).

Mother’s Brief at 17-18 (record citations omitted).

CYF counters that Mother has “been unable to do what is critical for 

reunification.” Participant’s Brief at 29. CYF further asserts that Mother has 

“not made progress in understanding, accepting, and acknowledging any 

aspect of why [her C]hildren are in care.” Id. While Children’s counsel 

acknowledges that Mother “has made progress on her court ordered goals,” 

counsel further asserts that “the primary reason the [C]hildren came in to care 

continues to exist.” Appellee Brief at 14.

As indicated by CYF and Children’s counsel, the record supports the 

orphans’ court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

2511(a)(2). The court addressed Mother and Father’s shortcomings:

With respect to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(2), this [c]ourt found 

that CYF clearly and convincingly proved the requisite grounds. 

Goals were set forth for Mother and Father in order to remedy the 

incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal that caused [C]hildren to be 

without proper parental care necessary for their physical and

mental well-being. These goals included parenting, visitation, 

cooperation with service providers and the agency, and of 

significant import[], some demonstrated accountability and 

understanding of what happened that lead to the twins’ severe

malnutrition and developmental delays. 

Mother and Father’s efforts on addressing the goals 

throughout this case could be best described as stagnant. At each 

and every permanency review hearing, the found that Mother and 

Father made “minimal progress” towards alleviating the 

circumstances which necessitated the original placement. Parents 

both appeared to be perpetually stuck and would regularly revisit 

the reasons why [C]hildren were removed and adjudicated 

dependent despite this [c]ourt, at each hearing, encouraging the 
J-S34018-22

- 11 -

parents to address the goals and ordering services to assist their 

efforts towards reunification.

At the same time, CYF also made attempts to get Mother 

and Father to better understand what they needed to accomplish 

for these three young children to be returned to their care. Both 

parents, and Mother in particular, were extremely hostile 

toward the CYF caseworker and these hostilities increased as the 

case continued.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/27/22, at 12-13 (emphasis added). The court 

further found “it deeply troubling that the parents, at the time of the contested 

termination proceeding, continued to demonstrate almost a disconnect with 

their current situation.” Id. at 14.

The record supports the orphans’ court’s analysis. The parties stipulated 

that Dr. Adelaide Eichman, from the Division of Child Advocacy at Pittsburgh 

Children’s Hospital, was an expert “in child abuse and pediatrics.” N.T., 

4/8/22, at 6. In November 2019, Dr. Eichman diagnosed the twins as 

malnourished, and concluded they “did not have an adequate diet prior to 

their hospitalization.” Id. at 8-9. Dr. Eichman recalled that neither parent 

“was receptive to the children being hospitalized.” Id. at 9. Dr. Eichman 

opined that “a reasonable caregiver would recognize that the kids were not on 

track with their growth or development.” Id. at 12. The Children improved 

at the hospital and were discharged to Mother and Father in December 2019. 

Dr. Eichman testified, “it was my diagnosis that the children had suffered from 

medical neglect.” Id. at 17. Her “assessment [was] that the children’s 

nutritional needs were not being met in their home environment”; she 
J-S34018-22

- 12 -

confirmed the situation was “a near fatality for the children,” and the parents 

took no responsibility. Id. at 17, 21.

CYF caseworker Ashley Hobbs testified to becoming involved with the 

family in January 2020. Id. at 26. However, CYF had “referrals and cases 

that dated back to 2001 when [the parents’ oldest child] was a baby.” Id. at 

29. Ms. Hobbs stated that Mother “not understanding what [Children] need 

for nutrition is a huge concern.” Id. at 35. The twins were placed in foster 

care and adjudicated dependent in May 2020; their younger sister, M.W., was 

born a few days later. Id. at 37. CYF obtained an emergency order for 

custody of M.W., who was discharged from the hospital and placed in foster 

care with her twin sisters; the court adjudicated M.W. dependent in June 2020. 

Id. Both parents had “liberal supervised visits ... with conditions that the 

parents could take one or both twins out into the community without 

supervision, not to exceed two hours.” Id. at 40. The parents also had 

unsupervised visitation with M.W. Id. at 41. However, in October 2020, the 

parents alleged that the twins had been sexually abused. Id. at 42. The twins 

were evaluated at Children’s Hospital and no abuse “was identified.” Id. at 

42. The visits were changed to being supervised at the parent’s home. Id.

at 43. The parents alleged sexual abuse of the Children again, during a visit, 

in September 2021. Id. at 45. Ms. Hobbs continued:

There w[ere] a lot of issues surrounding developmental therapy 

for the girls, and the girls were unable to get the therapy unless 

they were at visits with their parents. But even then[,] they were 

late to appointments or they no-showed or they did not respond 
J-S34018-22

- 13 -

to scheduled appointments. And therefore, it was decided after a 

permanency review [hearing], it was ordered on December 10, 

2020, that [foster parents were] appointed secondary educational 

decision-makers so that the twins could [receive] the 

developmental therapy that they needed.

Id. at 46-47.

With respect to Mother’s mental health, Ms. Hobbs testified Mother was

referred to services, but she never acknowledged “to any service provider or 

the agency that [the parents] have problems and need treatment.” Id. at 50. 

In January 2022, Ms. Hobbs emailed Mother about her missed mental health 

evaluations. Id. at 55. Mother responded that “she had to cancel her 

evaluation because of scheduling conflicts, as someone needed to be home 

with [her other] children during the school day.” Id. When Ms. Hobbs emailed 

Mother about whether “there was a reason the evaluation for [Father] was 

cancelled as well,” Mother answered:

I didn’t ask you to schedule the evaluations, Ashley. Quit putting 

your wrong words in an e-mail and trying to make it seem like it’s 

coming out our mouths. I simply told you I reached out to Dr. 

Bliss to reschedule these evaluations and instead of Dr. Bliss 

calling us back to get that done, you all ran to each other like little 

kids would do and harped on that moment. Listen, unexpected 

things do occur in a person’s life but that’s not expected of you to 

give real news because you are a child. You have fabricated this 

whole ordeal since my babies were falsely removed and I finally 

heard it out of the horse’s mouth, what I already knew, that my

babies were medically kidnapped by the CYF system. I pray for 

you and the people you flock with. You are an evil person and 

God got the final say, not you or your system. Leave me with 

respect, peace, and knowing that you are full of crapola.

Sovereign, [Mother]

Id. at 55-56.
J-S34018-22

- 14 -

Ms. Hobbs described Mother as cooperating with CYF “to a bare degree.” 

Id. at 61. She explained that Mother would

do the basic court[-]ordered things to a degree. However, to get 

these things accomplished, it takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of 

constant checking to make sure that appointments are being kept 

or [the parents are] meeting with the appropriate people. And so 

that has, I would say, caused progress to take more time than it 

should.

Id.

Dr. O’Hara, a licensed psychologist with expertise in child and forensic 

psychology, performed individual and interactional evaluations of the family 

in July 2020. Id. at 98. He conducted an individual evaluation of Mother. Dr. 

O’Hara testified, “from my perspective at the time there were significant issues 

– from my perspective, hypothetically speaking, with that level of concern, 

without any services, it would be difficult from my perspective to make 

progress.” Id. at 105-06. He also stated:

[I]n [Mother]’s case, her struggling with a variety of treatment 

providers, that can sometimes be an indication of a personality

disorder. Someone who has a lot of difficulties working with 

others and so forth can be an indicator -- one indicator for a

personality disorder. That was a hypothesis that I didn’t have a 

whole lot of evidence of at the time, but it was something I 

suggested should be explored in more detail.

Id. at 104-05.

However, Dr. O’Hara added:

I’m really limited in what I can say about the parties now. I 

haven’t seen them in approximately two years. But at the time of 

the evaluations, it was my perspective that mental health 
J-S34018-22

- 15 -

treatment and the services that I outlined in my reports were

strongly advisable for both [Mother and Father].

Id. at 107.

Approximately two years later, in 2022, Mother was evaluated by 

licensed psychologist, Dr. Bliss. The parties stipulated to Dr. Bliss being an 

expert in child and forensic psychology. Id. at 117. Dr. Bliss performed 

individual and interactional evaluations of Mother, as well as Father, the 

Children, and the foster parents. Mother canceled her appointments with Dr. 

Bliss several times, and Dr. Bliss gave her “one more chance ... it was her last 

chance. And she did show up for the March 8, [2022,] appointment.” Id. at 

119. In response to CYF’s questions, Dr. Bliss testified:

[Mother] denied ever receiving any formal treatment. She’s never 

been hospitalized or prescribed meds. She reported completing 

parenting classes. And the psych evals from Dr. O’Hara and the 

neuropsych ... she said she was not aware of being given any 

diagnoses from these evaluations.

Q. And how would you report her insight and judgment?

A. I would say it’s low.

Q. And why do you say that?

A. She also has the same defensiveness and guardedness [as 

Father,] to a more significant degree, but I had a lot of 

concerns in general with her functioning. She presented as 

extremely disorganized. Having difficulty recalling certain 

things. Distrusting of people in the system, almost to a 

paranoid level, reporting some almost delusional thinking. So 

there were concerns with her general cognitive functioning.

Id. at 125.
J-S34018-22

- 16 -

Dr. Bliss further addressing Mother’s ability to parent, stating that 

Mother would

[n]eed to show significant improvement of [her] understanding of 

the [C]hildren’s medical needs and what happened and how [the 

parents] can ensure that it won’t happen again in the future. Mom 

needs to better understand and get control of these cognitive

symptoms ... [which] greatly impact her ability to parent.

Id. at 131.

The orphans’ court found the “testimony of Dr. O’Hara and Dr. Bliss 

further solidified” Mother’s failure to progress toward “accountability and 

understanding of what happened with the twins.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

6/27/22, at 22, 24. The court concluded Mother “had a goal to cooperate with 

service providers and CYF and ... failed to make any modicum of progress ... 

throughout the life of the case.” Id. at 21. Accordingly, the court concluded 

that Mother’s repeated and continued incapacity to parent caused the Children 

to be without essential care, and the incapacity could or would not be 

remedied. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2). We discern no error in the

termination of Mother’s parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2).

Section 2511(b)

Mother also argues the orphans’ court erred in finding grounds for 

termination under Section 2511(b), which requires the court “give primary 

consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare 

of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Mother claims that termination of her 

parental rights was contrary to the Children’s needs and welfare because 
J-S34018-22

- 17 -

Mother has a bond with Children, “who need the benefits they derive from 

their relationship with Mother.” Mother’s Brief at 23.

“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.” In

re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). When the trial court considers 

a child’s needs and welfare, the “extent of any [parental] bond analysis ... 

necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re 

K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. 2008).

[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally 

emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider 

the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability 

the child might have with the foster parent. Additionally, this 

Court stated that the trial court should consider the importance of 

continuity of relationships and whether any existing parent-child 

bond can be severed without detrimental effects on the child.

In re A.S., 11 A.3d at 483 (citations omitted).

It is undisputed that Children have a bond with Mother. However, the 

twins have resided in the pre-adoptive home of foster parents since April

2020, and M.W. joined them shortly after her birth in May 2020. Ms. Hobbs 

testified:

I have observed a clear and definite bond and attachment 

between the foster parents and the [C]hildren. ... The girls seem 

very comfortable with the foster parents. They’re very happy 

when they’re around them. They smile, they go to them if they 

need something. They’ll ask questions and say, auntie or uncle, 

can you get me this, can you do that. They often are sitting on 
J-S34018-22

- 18 -

their laps or playing with them during my visits. And the [foster 

parents] are very attentive to their needs when they need 

something.

N.T., 4/8/22, at 62-63. Ms. Hobbs stated that the Children are 

“developmentally on target” and foster parents meet their emotional needs. 

Id. at 63.

In addition, Ms. Hobbs opined that termination was in the Children’s 

best interest. She explained: 

Because at this time, over the course of over two years, neither 

of the parents have taken any form of responsibility for any 

missed, no-showed, rescheduled doctors’ appointments that 

essentially led their children to come into care. Over the two years 

that I have worked with them, there really has been minimal 

progress with respect to that.

And with respect to even acknowledging with other services, 

if a service does not occur, it’s the [provider’s] fault. It’s not the 

parents’ fault. They do not know how to take responsibility for 

even minor things that a person can take responsibility for. And 

that would ... cause these [C]hildren to potentially be in harm’s 

way moving forward as they get older. There’s a concern that

their educational needs are not going to be met. There’s a concern 

that their medical needs will not be met. And any of their other 

basic needs may not be met due to the [parents’] lack of 

responsibility and acknowledgment across the board, not just 

specifically the reasons that the kids came into care.

Id. at 64-65.

The orphans’ court credited Ms. Hobbs’ testimony, as well as the 

testimony of Dr. O’Hara and Dr. Bliss. The orphans’ court explained:

The [c]ourt does believe Mother and Father when they express 

their love for these three children. However, the twins have been 

in care twenty-seven consecutive months and the younger child 

has been in care since birth. The [c]ourt accepts the very credible 

testimony of Dr. O’Hara and Dr. Bliss, and agrees that that 
J-S34018-22

- 19 -

termination meets the needs and welfare of these children and 

termination is in the Children’s best interest. These parents had 

two individual evaluations by separate evaluators roughly 

eighteen months apart and these evaluations 

demonstrated that neither Mother nor Father were any 

further along in gaining the necessary judgment and 

insight to parent these children. Furthermore, Mother and

Father failed to present any credible testimony or evidence to 

overcome the evidence that overwhelmingly supported this 

conclusion. This [c]ourt found that any potential negative 

impact [from termination] would be mitigated by the fact 

that [Children] have been in relative placement this entire 

time and have exposure and contact with additional, 

extended family members, who also love and support 

them. For these reasons, the [c]ourt did not commit an error of 

law or abuse of discretion in finding that termination best met the 

needs and welfare of these children.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/27/22, at 29-30 (emphasis added).

Consistent with the foregoing, we discern no error by the orphans’ court 

in terminating Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/21/2022