J

- S37001

- 22

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: E.K., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: C.J., MOTHER : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1776 EDA 2022 Appeal from the Decree Dated June 3, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Orphans' Court at No(s): 9 OCA 2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and OLSON, J. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J. : FILED DECEMBER 6, 2022 C.J. (“Mother”) appeals from the June 3, 2022 decree granting the petition filed by the Monroe County Children and Youth Services (“CYS ” ) t o involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her daughter , E. K., born in December 2014

. 1 We affirm

. This family first became known to CYS in December 2014 , due to a report of Mother’s positive drug test at E.K.’s birth , and the agency received

n umerous reports over the next five years relating to Mother’s and Father’s substance abuse and domestic violence. N.T., 6/2/22, at 9 , 10

. Subsequently , o n J anuary 15, 2020, CYS accepted a referral relating to substance abuse and lack of supervision , and the case was re - opened for
services

. Id

. at 10

- 11 , Exhibit 16

. Throughout 2 020 , CYS collected additional

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 O n th e same date, the trial court confirmed the voluntar y relinquishment of p a rental s right of E.K.’s father, J.R. (“Father”)

.J

- S37001

- 22

- 2

-

referrals concerning Mother’s substance abuse , homelessness, lack of utilities , incarceration , and E.K.’s lack of medical care and enrollment in school. Id . at 13, 15, 25

- 28. Significantly , at times during this period , Mother failed to
maintain contact with the CYS or disclose the whereabouts of E.K

. Id . at 11

- 12, 16

- 17 , 19

- 2 9.
I n October of 2020 , following Mother’s arrest on a bench warrant for driving under the influence , the a gency obtained emergency protective custody of E.K . and placed her in kinship care with her paternal grandmother (“Paternal Grandmother”) , an adoptive resource

. Id

. at 29. O n October 26, 2020 , t he juvenile court adjudicated E.K. dependent and c ontinued E.K.’s placement with Pate rnal Grandmother , where she ha s remained

. Id . at 29

- 3 0. The juvenile court established a n initial p ermanency goal of return to parent or guardian. In support of reunification , the court ordered visitation and directed Mother to obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow through with recommendations , provide urine drug screens , obtain a mental health evaluation , and maintain stable housing , employment , and sources of income. Order of Adjudication and Disposition, 10/26/20 , at 2

. T hroughout the ensuing dependency proceedings , the court regularly characterized Mother’s compliance with the permanency plan as minimal and noted that Mother made either minima l or no prog r ess toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated E.K.’s placement. O n October 8, 202 1 , t he court changed E.K.’s permanency goal to placement with a legal custodian ,J

- S37001

- 22

- 3

-

i.e. , Paternal Grandmother

. Then, approximately three months later, on January 4, 2022, the court changed E.K.’s permanency goal so that Paternal
G randmother could pursue adoption. 2 Mother was not present at either of these goal change hearings and she did not appeal either order. On March 1, 2022, CYS filed a petition for the termination of parent al rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). T he orphans’ court held a hearing on the petition on June 2 , 2022. 3 Mother was
not present but was represented by counsel

. CYS presented the testimony of the three case workers that worked with the family : Megan McDonnell, Adrianna Stares, and Taieka Reid. 4 Additionally, it introduced Petitioner’s Exhibits 1

- 22, all of which were admitted without objection. N.T., 6/2/22, at
55

- 57. No evidence was presented by Mother. On June 3, 2022 , the orphans ’ court involuntarily term inated Mother’ s parental rights to E.K. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b) , and issued an accompanying opinion

. Thereafter, Mother timely filed a notice of

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 Mother was incarcerated for three

- days in June 2021, and on August 5, 2021, she was arrested on a probation violation and incarcerat ed for four months. N.T., 6/2/22, at 45, 47, 49. Upon Mother’s December 2, 2021 release , CYS reinstated services to Mother

.
3 E.K. , then seven and a half years old, was represented by counsel who was appointed pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313 (a) . E.K. articulated a desire to be adopted by P aternal Grandmother , and counsel filed a brief in support of termination.

4 T he notes of testimony mis named Ms. Reid as Caieka Reid.J

- S37001

- 22

- 4

-

appeal, along with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). 5 Mother presents the following issue for our review: “Whether the court erred in finding that [CYS] proved the elements of 23 Pa. C

. S . § 2511 (a)(1) and (b) through clear and convincing evidence? ” Mother’s brief at 4 ( cleaned
up ).
W e review order s granting the involuntar y terminati on of parental rights for an abuse of discretion, which our Supreme Court has explained “is limited to a determination of whether the decr ee of the termination court is supported by competent evidence.” In re Adoption of C.M. , 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). When applying this standard, appellate courts must accept the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record. Interest of S.K.L.R. , 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021). “Where the trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it has discerned an error of law o r abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of L.A.K. , 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021). An appellate court may reverse for an abuse of discretion “only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill

- will.” Id

.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 5 As July 3 , 20 22 , was a S un day , and July 4 th was a court holiday , the notice of appeal was timely filed on July 5, 2022

. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 ( “Whenever the last day of any [appeal] period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, or on any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United States, suc h day shall be omitted from the computation.” ).J

- S37001

- 22

- 5

-

Termination of parental rights is governed by § 2511 of the Adoption
Act . If the trial court determines the petitioner established grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, then the court must assess the petition under subsect ion 2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). Instantly, the orphans’ court terminated Mo ther’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b), which provide as follows: (a) General rule.

-- The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (1) The 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.

. . . . (b) Other considerations

. -- 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 b e 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(a)(1), (b).J

- S37001

- 22

- 6

-

We have explained this Court’s review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the involuntary termination of a parent’s rights pursuant to § 2511(a)(1) a s follows: To satisfy the requirements of [§] 2511(a)(1), the moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relin quish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties. In addition, [ §] 2511 does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child and refusal or failure to perform pare ntal duties. Accordingly, parental rights may be terminated pursuant to [§] 2511(a)(1) if the parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental duties. Once the evidence establishes a fail ure to perform parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the parent’s explanation for his or her conduct; (2) the post

abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3) c onsideration of the effect of termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to [§] 2511(b). In re Z.S.W. , 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). As it relates to the six

- month period prior to the filing of the petition, this Court has instructed, “[I]t is the six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition that is most critical to our analysis. However, the trial court must consider th e whole history of a given case and not mechanically apply the six

- month statutory provisions, but instead consider the individual circumstances of each case.” In re D.J.S. , 737 A.2d 283, 286 (Pa.Super.J

- S37001

- 22

- 7

-

1999) (citations omitted). This requires the Court to “examine the individual circumstances of each case and consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination of his or her parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the in voluntary termination.” In re B., N.M. , 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). Regarding the definition of “parental duties,” this Court has stated: Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and eff ort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the parent

- child relationship to the best of his or her ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship [] and must exer cise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent

- child relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others pr ovide the child with . . . her physical and emotional needs. Id

. (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Critically, incarceration does not relieve a parent of the obligation to perform parental duties . An incarcerated parent must “ utilize availab le resources to continue a relationship ” with his or her child. In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 828 ( Pa. 2012 ) ( discussing In re Adoption of McCray , 331 A.2d 652 ( Pa. 1975) ).
I n concluding that CYS satisfied the statutory grounds to terminat e Mo ther’s parental rights pursuant to § 2511(a)(1), the orphans’ court determined that Mother fail ed to perform her parental duties during the relevant six

- month period. In reaching this conclusion, t he court firstJ

- S37001

- 22

- 8

-

highlight ed Mother’s failure to attend consistent visitation s or maintain contact with E.K

. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/ 3 /22, at 7. It further recognized that

“ Mother has lacked housing, failed to provide urine screens, and failed to remain drug free. [Her] whereabouts are unknown an d she failed to appear for the goal change hearing on January 4, 2022 and the [termination] hearing held June 2, 2022. ” Id

. As such, the court concluded, “ Mother has evidenced a desire to forfeit her parental rights by her failure to perform any parental duties. Grounds for termination exist under 251 1 (a)( 1 ) as a result. ” Id

. Mother ’s argument emphasizes the difficulties she faced in complying with her court

- ordered goals . She contends :

It is clear from the testimony that [M] other struggled to maintain housing and a consistent way to contact the a gency. As noted above, case law tells us that the court must consider the situation in which a parent find s themselves when determining whether a parent’s conduct is reasonable. Mother in this case did have contact with the a gency when she could and reached out using other means when her phone wasn’t working. Mother also attended most visitations available to her and even visited to the best of her ability while incarcerated. Given that [M] other was homeless and had a sporadically working phone, [M] other’s contact and efforts to parent were reasonable based on her specific circumstances. Mother’s brief at 9

- 10 (footnotes omitted)

. Contrary to Mo ther’s assertions , the certified record supports the
termination of parental rights pursuant to § 2511(a)(1). As set forth in the
p ermanency p lan, Mo ther’s reunification objectives included: (1) attending

v isitation ; (2) maintaining s table housing and employment ; (3) resol ving her pending criminal charges ; (4) participating in a drug and alcohol evaluation ;J

- S37001

- 22

- 9

-

and (5) submitting drug and alcohol screen s . N.T., 6/2/22, Exhibit 13 at 11

- 16

. CYS casew or kers Adrianna Stares and T aieka Reid b oth reported that the

a gency communicated these reunification goals to Mother

. N.T., 6/ 2 /22, at 31, 43

- 44, 49, 50

- 51, 53. Despite referral s for services, Mother failed to participate in any services beyond periodic supervised visitation s . 6 Id

. at 58

. Moreover , Mot her had not visited with E.K. since February 2022

. See i d

. , Exhibit s 12 and 18

. Additionally, Mother failed to maintain contact with E.K

. , and her
communication with the a gency was sporadic

. N.T., 6/ 2 /22, at 45

- 47 , 49

- 5 3

. Adrianna Stares, the caseworker assigned to the family during 2020 , testified , “[Mother] never contacted me independently. She did respond a few times trying to schedule, but then whenever I went to go attempt to go meet her, it was a no call/no show.” Id . at 37

- 38. Likewis e, t he current CYS caseworker , Taieka Reid , testified to a delayed response or no response from Mother to many telephone calls or text messages from May 2021 , through March 2022 , and beyond. Id . at 45

- 47, 49

- 53. Ms. Reid noted Mother indicat ed that her
p hone was not holding a charge, was not working, and was lost . She further recounted receiving a message that Mother’s phone was “not in service.” Id

. at 45

- 47, 52. Ms. Reid also related that Mother did not provide an address at

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 6 While Mother had one virtual visit in August 2021, and three in November 2021, visitations did not occur in September and October 2021, as the correctional facility where Mother was incarcerated at the time placed visitations on hold due to COVID

- 19. N.T., 6/2/22, at 47

- 48.J

- S37001

- 22

- 10

-

a permanency hearing in April 2021. Id . at 43

. Thereafter, i n a February 22, 2022 email , Mother again failed to provide a residential address, but rather provided a post office box

. Id

. at 52. At the time of the termination hearing , the a gency still h ad no information as to where Mother was living, her employment status , and any compliance with drug and alcohol services. 7 Id . at 53

- 54. Further, Mother had no t undergone a urine screen since September 2020 , when her urine screen was positive for marijuana and suboxone. Id . at 27 , 36

- 37, 54 , Exhibit
11. In the two years since that positive screen, Mother has refused to comply with th e drug screens

. Id

. at 53

- 54

. Lastl y , Ms. Reid stated that she advised Mother of the proposed goal change to adoption in December 2021 . D espite Mother noting her disagreement with the proposed goal change , she failed to appear at the ensuing goal change hearing to conte st the decision

. Id . at 50. As clear and convincing evidence supports the court’s determination that Mother failed to perform her parental duties in excess of the six months prior to the filing of the March 2022 termination petition , the orphans’ court did not err or abuse its discre tion in finding the statutory grounds to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to § 2511(a)(1)

. See In re Z.S.W. , supra at 730. Furthermore, the orphans’ court accurately observed that Mother

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 7 Mother engaged in an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program in July 2021, but was discharged within the month

. Id . at 47.J

- S37001

- 22

- 11

-

neglected to present any evidence to explain the lack of contact with E.K

. during the relevant period. Id

. W hile Mother claims that he r limited contact and meager efforts were reasonable based on her specific circumstances and suggests that her efforts will improve u pon securing a stable home and working telephone , we reiterate that “ p arental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with the child’s physical and emotional needs.” In re B., N.M. , supra at 855 (citation omitted). A s we discern no error of law or abuse of discretion, we do not disturb the orphans’ court’s finding of grounds for termination pursuant to § 2511(a)(1).
N ext , we review the orphans’ cou rt’s needs and welfare analysis pursuant to § 2511(b). O ur Supreme Court outlined this inquiry as follows: [I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S

. § 2511(b). The emotional needs and welfare of the child have been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability.” In re K.M. , 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa.Supe r. 2012). In In re E.M. , [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], this Court held that the 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 discer ning the effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond. In re K.M. , 53 A.3d at 791. However, as discussed below, evaluation of a child’s bonds is not always an easy task. In re T.S.M. , supra at 267. When evaluating a parental bond, “[T] he court is not required to use expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations asJ

- S37001

- 22

- 12

-

well. Additionally, § 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation.”
In re Z.P. , 994 A.2d 1108, 11 21 (Pa.Super. 2010) (internal citations

o mitted). Moreover, “the mere existence of a bond or attachment of a child to a parent will not necessarily result in the denial of a termination petition.”
T.S.M. , supra at 267. The Court directed that, in weighing the bond considerations pursuant to § 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking clock of childhood ever in mind.” Id. at 269. The T.S.M. Court observed, “[c]hildren are young for a scant number of years, and we have an obligation to see to their healthy development quickly. When courts fail . . . the result, all too often, is catastrophically maladjusted children.” Id. Furthermore , W hile a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of the § 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 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. . . . In re Adoption of C.D.R. , 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa.Super. 2015) ( quoting
In re N.A.M. , 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa.Super. 2011)) ( cleaned up ). Instantly, in determining that the termination of Mother’s parental rights would serve E. K.’s needs and welfare pursuant to § 2511 (b), the orphans’ court noted the lack of a meaningful parent

- child bond, E.K.’s desire to for ego visits with Mother , and her support of the anticipated adoption by the PaternalJ

- S37001

- 22

- 13

-

G randmother

. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 6/ 3 /22, at 8

. The orphans ’ court further emphasized E.K.’s bond with Paternal Grandmother , concluding, “ The minor child is bonded with [P] aternal [G] randmother [, who]

. . . . has been caring full

- time for the minor child since October 2020 and wants to adopt her .” Id

. Mother argues that E.K. had been in her care for six years prior to CYS’s
most recent intervention

. She contends that she attempted to maintain contact and visitation during the dependency proceedings

. Mother’s brief at
12. While acknowledging E.K.’s views on visita tion, Mother contends that familial bond exists given the amount of time she cared for E.K. prior to 2020

. Id

. S he asserts that the a gency f ailed to present any evidence regarding the status of th e claimed bond and the effect that severing th at bond could have

on her daughter. Id

. Again , the certified record supports the court’s decision to terminat e Mo ther’s parental rights. First, to the extent that Mother discounts the testimony of the agency caseworkers or raises the lack of a bonding

eva luation, such an argument is without merit. Indeed, as we have previously
reiterate d, CYS is not required to present an expert bonding evaluation, and that the court may consider the bonding assessments of social workers and caseworkers. In re Z.P. , supra at 1121. More importantly, the certified record bears out that no meaningful parent

- child bond exists between Mother and E.K. Mother last contact with
E.K. was on February 7, 2022 , during an isolated in

- person supervisedJ

- S37001

- 22

- 14

-

visitation that occurred four months prior to the evidentiary hearing

. See N.T., 6/2/22, Exhibit 12. T he certified record confirms that E.K. terminate d that session early because she was tired and bored

. Id

. There is n o evidence of any subsequent contact between Mother and E.K. Significantly, E.K. initially expressed her dissatisfaction with visitation s almost one year earlier , in March 2021, as well as in May 2021. N.T., 6/2/22, at 41, 45. She then notified CYS in February 2022 , that she no l onger wanted to visit with Mother. Id

. at 51

- 52

. E.K. temporarily changed her mind at the end of February 2022. However , by the end of March 2022, E.K. again expressed her desire to forego the visitations

. Id . at 52

- 53

. In addition, Ms. Stares confirmed a recurring problem during visitation s caused by Mother ’s complain ts about the dependency case and her “rants about how the agency d one her wrong” generally

. Id . at 39 , Exhibit 12

. Further more , E.K. has resided with P aternal Grandmother since October
2020 , which was approximately one and one

- half year s before the hearing , and E.K. is thriving in Paternal G randmother ’s care . N.T., 6/2/22, at 29

- 30,
54. Her primary bond is with Paternal Grandmother, who is an adoptive

resource . Id . at 58

. Paternal Grandmother is helping E.K. navigat e behavioral issues associated with Attention

- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder , for which E.K. takes medication and receives therapeutic emotional support and an in

- school support para professional

. Id . at 35 , 40

- 41 , 54 , Exhibit 14

. U nder Paternal Grandmother’s care, E.K. is progressingJ

- S37001

- 22

- 15

-

and she is current with all her medica tions and medical appointments

. N.T., 6/2/22, at 40 , 54

- 55. In contrast, when the child was with Mother, she was typically behind in both her education and medication. Id . at 12

- 13 , 23

- 24

. As demonstrated by the foregoing evidence , the certified record supports the orphans’ court’s finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights

serve E.K.’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. Thus ,
we discern no abuse of discretion in the termination of Mo ther’s parental rights pursuant t o 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b).
Decree affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/6/2022