J-S68042-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.R., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.M., NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1211 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered July 10, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-040-2019

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED JANUARY 17, 2020

Appellant, A.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the 

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of the 

Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“CYF”) for 

involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor child, M.R. 

(“Child”). We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. 

Mother and N.R. (“Father”) are the natural parents of Child, born in May 2013. 

Child first came to the attention of [CYF] in June 2014, when 

he was about a year old. Child experienced two relatively 

brief periods of placement in foster care when neither Parent 

was available to provide care for him. During both these 

periods, Mother was incarcerated and Father was in a workrelease program related to his criminal court matters. This 

[c]ourt adjudicated Child dependent in September 2014 and 

was able to return Child to Parents’ care in late October 

2014 while Parents continued to pursue their drug 

treatment programs. Parents successfully satisfied the 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S68042-19

- 2 -

[c]ourt’s and CYF’s expectations, and the first dependency 

matter concluded in May 2015.

Unfortunately, Parents failed to maintain their recovery. 

Child again came to CYF’s attention in March 2018 when 

Child was not quite five years old, after CYF received a 

report that Mother appeared impaired at school drop-off and 

pick-up. Upon investigation, Mother screened positive for 

cocaine and opiates. Father was incarcerated at the time. 

CYF obtained an emergency custody authorization (“ECA”) 

and placed Child in foster care, where he has remained. On 

May 1, 2018, the [c]ourt again adjudicated...Child 

dependent, noting both Parents’ “need to engage in 

appropriate levels of [drug and alcohol] treatment and to 

re-establish and maintain sobriety” as well as both Parents’ 

need to “maintain their relationship” with Child.

(Trial Court Opinion, filed September 26, 2019, at 2-3) (internal citations 

omitted). On February 25, 2019, CYF filed a petition to terminate parents’

parental rights to Child. Following a hearing on July 9, 2019, the court entered 

an order on July 10, 2019, terminating Father’s and Mother’s parental rights.1 

On August 9, 2019, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and a 

contemporaneous statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 

1925.2 

Mother raises the following issue for our review: 

DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND/OR 

ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT 

TERMINATION OF...MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD 

SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF...CHILD PURSUANT TO 

____________________________________________

1 Separate guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and legal counsel represented Child 

during the dependency/termination proceedings. 

2 Father filed a separate appeal from the order, which is docketed at No. 1210 

WDA 2019 (J-S68041-19). 
J-S68042-19

- 3 -

23 PA.C.S. § 2511(B)? 

(Mother’s Brief at 6). 

Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the 

following principles: 

In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our 

standard of review is limited to determining whether the 

order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, 

and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to 

the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.” 

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 

A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)). 

Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or 

insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s 

decision, the decree must stand. ... We must employ 

a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order 

to determine whether the trial court’s decision is 

supported by competent evidence. 

In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en 

banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) 

(internal citations omitted). 

Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder 

of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of 

witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be 

resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is 

on the party seeking termination to establish by clear 

and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for 

doing so. 

In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 

2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The 

standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony 

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

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

hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re 

J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may 
J-S68042-19

- 4 -

uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for 

the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 

(Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are 

supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the 

court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite 

result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 

2004). 

In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 

1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 

(2008)). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Eleanor L. 

Bush, we conclude Mother’s issue merits no relief. The trial court 

comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. 

(See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 26, 2019, at 9-11) (finding: as of 

termination hearing, Child had been in placement for 16 months; expert 

evaluator, Dr. Rosenblum, testified Child had sufficient contact with Mother 

through first 4 years of Child’s life to demonstrate some level of attachment 

to her; Mother’s involvement with Child since Child’s placement, however, was

inconsistent and unreliable; Mother also did not make progress to overcome 

her substance abuse issues and admitted drug use as recently as spring 2019; 

Child has become attached to foster mother, who is responsive to Child’s 

emotional and developmental needs; Child is happy and thriving in foster 

home and relies on foster mother to meet his daily needs; thus, Dr. Rosenblum 

opined while Child might experience some degree of loss resulting from 
J-S68042-19

- 5 -

termination of Mother’s parental rights, Child had already begun to cope with 

that emotional loss; in light of Mother’s chronic substance abuse and lack of 

progress, court concluded Child’s need for safety, permanency, and stability 

outweighs possible benefit to Child in maintaining relationship with Mother; 

evidence showed termination of Mother’s parental rights to Child best served 

Child’s needs and welfare). The record supports the court’s decision; 

therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm based on the 

trial court opinion. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/17/2020
Circulated 01/08/2020 03:12 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

. M.R .. , Minor Child. 

APPEAL OF: 

N.R., Father, and 

A.M., Mother. · 

By: 

The Honorable Eleanor L. Bush 

Allegheny County Court of Common 

. Pleas 

440 Ross Street, Suite 5045 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK 

APPEAL 

CP-02-AP-040-2019 

1210 WDA 2019 

1211 WDA 2019 

OPINION 

Copies to: 

Counsel for 'CYF�

Melaniesha Abernathy, Esq. 

CYF Adoption Legal Unit 

Fort Pitt Commons, Suite 101 

445 Fort Pitt Boulevard 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Counsel for M.R., 

Cynthia B. Moore, Esq. 

Kids Voice 

. 700 Frick Building . 

437 Grant Street · 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Counsel for Mother, 

Kiersten M. Frankowski, Esq! 

·ACBF Juvenile Court Project . Koppers Building, 1 i th Floor 

436 Seventh Avenue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Counsel for Father, 

Thomas Babinsack, Esq. 

542 East 10

1h Ave. 

Tarentum, PA 15084 
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

M.R .. , Minor Child. 

APPEAL OF: 

N.R., Father, and 

A.M., Mother. 

Bush, J. 

CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK 

APPEAL 

CP-02-AP-040-2019 

1210 WDA 2019 

1211 WDA 2019 

OPINION 

OPINION 

September 26, 2019 

On July 9, 2019, following a hearing in the above captioned matter on the same 

date, this Court issued an order terminating the parental rights of A.M. ("Mother") 

and N.R. ("Father") to their child, M.R. (the "Child").

1 The Court found that 

grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights existed pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 

2511(a)(2) and (a)(5). The Court found that grounds to terminate Father's parental-· 

rights existed pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(l), (a)(2), and (a)(S). The Court 

then concluded that terminating Parents' parental rights served the Child's needs 

1 The Court's Order was docketed on July 10, 2019. 
and welfare pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 251 l(b ). Mother and Father each filed timely 

appeals. Father asserts that the Court erred when it concluded that the evidence 

established grounds for termination of his rights. Mother asserts that the Court 

erred when it concluded that the evidence established that terminating her rights 

served the Child's needs and welfare. 

I. Background 

During Child's six years of life, Parents have struggled to recover from 

chronic substance abuse. Child has twice been adjudicated dependent, due 

primarily to Parents' substance abuse issues and related problems. 

Child first came to the attention of the Allegheny County Office of Children, 

Youth & Families ("CYF") in June 2014, when he was about a year old. Child 

experienced two relatively brief periods of placement in foster care when neither 

Parent was available to provide care for him. During both these periods, Mother 

was incarcerated and Father was in a work-release program related to his criminal 

court matters.

2 This Court adjudicated the Child dependent in September 2014 and 

was able to return Child to Parents' care in late October 2014 while Parents 

continued to pursue their drug treatment programs.

3 Parents successfully satisfied 

2 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,r,r 8, 10. 

3 See CYF Exhibit 1: Order of Adjudication and Disposition (September 10, 2014). 

2 
the Court's and CYF's expectations, and the first dependency matter concluded in 

May 2015. 

Unfortunately, Parents failed to maintain their recovery. Child again came to 

CYF's attention in March 2018 when Child was not quite five years old, after CYF 

received a report that Mother appeared impaired at school drop-off and pick-up." 

Upon investigation, Mother screened positive for cocaine and opiates.

5 Father was 

incarcerated at the time. CYF obtained an emergency custody authorization 

("ECA") and placed Child in foster care, where he has remained.

6 On May 1, 2018 

the Court again adjudicated the Child dependent, noting both Parents' "need to 

engage in appropriate levels of D&A treatment and to re-establish and maintain 

sobriety" as well as both Parents' need to "maintain their relationship" with Child.

7 

During the termination hearing on July 9, 2019, the Court heard testimony 

from CYF Caseworker Stacey Policicchio, expert evaluator Dr. Neil Rosenblum, 

Auberle Therapist Hannah Berkowtiz, Auber le Case Manager Christi Roskov, and 

Father. The Court admitted the following exhibits into the record: 

Joint A: Stipulations; 

CYF 1: Certified Juvenile Court Orders for M.R.; 

4 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,r,r 14-15. 

5 Jd. 

6 Id. 

7 Id at ,r 16; see also CYF Exhibit 1: Order of Adjudication and Disposition (May 1, 2018), 

Findings ,r 26. 

3 
CYF 2: CYF Family Service Plans; 

CYF 3: Dr. Rosenblum's Report; 

CYF 4: Certified Criminal Records for Mother; 

CYF 5: Certified Criminal Records for Father. 

Since Child's removal, Father has failed to remedy the needs identified by 

the Court at the time of adjudication. He continues to need drug and alcohol 

treatment and has only recently re-engaged in treatment.8 At the time of the 

termination hearing, Father was detained at the ACTA program, the same work 

release program he attended in 2014 when Child entered foster care for the first 

time.

9 Father has also failed to maintain his relationship with Child, explaining his 

almost complete lack of visits as due to being either incarcerated or "probably 

using drugs."?" Father's failure to maintain his relationship with Child resulted in 

the Court's order of January 23, 2019 in Child's dependency matter finding that 

this failure established aggravated circumstances.

11 Father did not appeal this 

order. 

Mother, too, has failed to remedy the needs identified by the Court. She 

failed to complete a drug and alcohol treatment program and has failed to attend 

8 Tr. 27, 37, 39, 67 (July 9, 2019). 

9 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,r 20; see also Tr. 83 (July 9, 2019). 

10 Tr. 82 (July 9, 2019). 

11 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,r 20(c)(iv). 

4 
most randomly requested drug screens.

12 Mother has visited Child infrequently and 

inconsistently, attending only 33 of a scheduled 141 visits.

13 Mother also failed to 

attend a parenting program recommended after concerns arose regarding her 

interactions with Child at some of the visits she attended.

14 Mother has not 

progressed beyond supervised visits.

15 

While Parents have struggled, Child has thrived in his foster home. Foster 

Mother is responsive to Child's emotional and developmental needs, is involved in 

his school, ensures that he engages in appropriate activities, and is willing to adopt 

him.

16 Child is comfortable in his relationship with Foster Mother and relies on her 

to meethis needs.

17 While Child may well experience some degree of loss from 

termination of Mother's rights, he has already begun to adjust to that emotional 

loss and feels safe and happy in his foster home.

18 

It was against this background that this Court determined to terminate 

Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 251l(a)(1), (2) and (5) and to 

terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (5). 

12 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,n 7( a). 

13 Tr. 95 (July 9, 2019). 

14 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations �17( c). 

15 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,it7(d). 

16 Tr. 29, 43-44 (July 9, 2019). 

17 Tr. 44 (July 9, 2019). 

18 Tr. 52, 79 (July 9, 2019). 

5 
II.· Issues on Appeal 

Father asserts the following challenges to the Court's order of July 9, 2019: 

1. The Court erred in granting CYF's petition to involuntarily 

terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 

2511(a)(2); 

2. The Court erred in granting CYF's petition to involuntarily 

terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 

251l(a)(5); 

3. The Court erred in granting CYF's petition to involuntarily 

terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 

2511(a)(8).

19 

Mother asserts the following challenge to the Court's order of July 9, 2019: 

1. The Court erred in concluding that termination of Mother's 

parental rights would serve the needs and welfare of the Child 

pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(b).

20 

19 See Father's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal ,r 1-3. 

20 See Mother's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on.Appeal ,r 1. 

6 
III. Discussion 

A. The Evidence Established Grounds to Terminate Father's 

Parental Rights. 

The Superior Court need not directly address Father's issues in order to 

dismiss them. This Court found that CYF established three separate grounds for 

termination of Father's parental rights, based on 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511 ( a )(1 ), (2) and 

(5).

21 Father challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on only two of those three 

grounds. Of course, this Court need only find that one ground under§ 2511(a) has 

been established in order to terminate parental rights. Thus, the Superior Court 

need not review the evidence regarding§ 2511(a)(2) and (5) if the evidence 

regarding § 2511(a)(1) supports the Court's order.

22 

Father has not disputed the Court's conclusion that the record established 

grounds for termination pursuant to§ 25ll(a)(l), and has consequently waived any 

challenge regarding it. Nevertheless, this Court will provide a brief review of the 

ample evidence that supported the Court's conclusion. 

21 Father's third issue on appeal appears to be based on a misreading of the Court's order. Father 

challenges termination of his parental rights based on 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(8). However, the 

Court did not include this ground as a basis for its order. 

22 In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 516. n.3 (Pa. Super 2006) ("We emphasize that 

satisfaction of the requirements in only one subsection of Section 2511(a), along with 

consideration of the provisions in Section 2511(b), is sufficient for termination" [emphasis in 

original]). 

7 
In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(l), 

CYF must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: 

[t]he parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months 

immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a 

settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused 

or failed to perform parental duties.

23 

During the statutory six-month period- from August 25, 2018 to February 

25, 2019, Father was almost completely absent from Child's life. At most, he 

visited Child two times in this entire period, once in December 2018 and perhaps 

one other time.

24 Other than those two visits, Father took no other action to fulfill 

his parental duties. He did not send Child any cards, letters, or financial support. 25 

He did not attend any medical or dental appointments.

26 He did not make inquiries 

regarding Child. By his own admission, Father generally was either incarcerated or 

"probably using drugs" as opposed to functioning as a parent.27 

Nothing in the record suggests that Father's conduct at times either before or 

after the applicable six-month period somehow cured or compensated for his 

disengagement during that time.

28 Rather, the record established that Father's 

23 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(l). 

24Tr. 98 (July 9, 2019). Father visited only three times since Child's removal. The two known 

visits occurred in April 2018 and December 2018. The date of the third visit is unknown, so it 

could have occurred during the six-month period immediately preceding filing of CYF's petition. 

25 Tr. 27 (July 9, 2019). 

26 Tr. 81 (July 9, 2019). 

27 Tr. 82 (July 9, 2019). 

28 See In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 10 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court must consider totality of 

circumstances, not mechanically apply six-month statutory provision). 

8 
repeated periods of incarceration, substance abuse, and lack of involvement in 

Child's life started well before Child entered foster care placement and have 

continued since then.

29 Thus, the record clearly supports the Court's conclusion 

that the evidence established grounds to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant 

to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(l). 

B. The Evidence Established that Terminating Mother's Rights 

Meets Child's Needs and Welfare. 

On appeal, Mother does not contest that grounds existed to terminate her 

parental rights. She only contests the Court's conclusion that termination of her 

parental rights meets the needs and welfare of her Child. Because Mother does not 

contest that grounds exist for termination, the reviewing court need only consider 

whether this Court's decision that termination best serves the Child's 

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare was supported by 

competent evidence." 

As discussed in/n re N.A.M.,

31 the inquiry into whether terminating a parent's 

rights serves the child's needs and welfare necessarily includes inquiry into the 

29 See Joint Exhibit A: Stipulations ,r 22 (listing Father's repeated periods of incarceration 

throughout the Child's life); see also Tr. 68 (Father admits that all of his incarcerations are due to 

his substance abuse problems and "finding ways to get high"). 

30 See In reJ.F.M., 71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing two-step analysis by which the 

court must first find that grounds to terminate under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a) exist before 

addressing child's needs and welfare under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(b)). 

31 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

9 
nature and status of any bond between the parent and child and the effect on the child 

of severing that bond, if it exists: 

However, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on 

the circumstances of the particular case.In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 

(Pa. Super. 2008). 

While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect 

of the subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless only 

one of many factors to be considered by the court when determining 

what is in the best interest of the child. In re K.K.R. -S., 958 A.2d 529, 

533-536 (Pa. Super. 2008). The mere existence of an emotional bond 

does not preclude the termination of parental rights. See In re T.D., 949 

A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court's decision to terminate parents' 

parental rights was affirmed where court balanced strong emotional 

bond against parents' inability to serve needs of child). Rather, the 

orphans' court must examine the status of the bond to determine 

whether its termination "would destroy an existing, necessary and 

beneficial relationship. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 

· (Pa.Super.2003)."

32 

In this matter, the evidence amply supported the Court's conclusion that 

termination of Mother's parental rights served the Child's needs and welfare. 

At the time of the hearing, the Child had been in placement for sixteen 

months and was 6 years old. As described by Dr. Rosenblum, who performed 

evaluations in this matter, Child has experienced sufficient contact with Mother 

through the first four years of his life for him to continue to demonstrate some 

level of attachment to her.33 However, Mother's involvement since Child's 

3

2 In re N.A.M, 33 A.3d at 103. 

33 Tr. 45 (July 9, 2019). 

10 
placement has been inconsistent and unreliable. Mother attended less than 25% of 

her scheduled visits with Child.

34 Further, Mother has not made progress toward 

overcoming her substance abuse issues. Indeed, at the time of her evaluation 

appointment with Dr. Rosenblum, Mother admitted to both heroin and cocaine use 

as recently as spring of 2019.

35 

While Mother has continued to struggle with her addiction, Child has 

become attached to Foster Mother. Foster Mother is very responsive to Child's 

emotional and developmental needs. Child has made a positive adjustment to her 

home, is happy there, and is doing well.36 Child has come to rely on Foster Mother 

to meet his daily needs.

37 Thus, while Child may experience some degree of loss 

resulting from termination of Mother's parental rights, Dr. Rosenblum opined that 

Child has already begun to adjust to that emotional loss.

38 

Given Mother's chronic substance abuse and lack of progress, the Court 

justifiably concluded that Child's need for safety, permanency and stability 

outweighs the possible benefit to Child of maintaining his relationship with 

Mother. 

34 Tr. 95 (July 9, 2019). 

35 Tr. 46 (July 9, 2019); see also CYF Exhibit 3: Dr. Rosenblum's Report, 8. 

3

6 Tr. 43-44 (July 9, 2019). 

3

7 Tr. 45 (July 9, 2019). 

38 Tr. 52 (July 9, 2019). 

11 
IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons the Superior Court should dismiss both Parents' 

appeals and affirm this Court's order of July 9, 2019. 

By the Court: 

12