J-S35045-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION 

OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO K.N. AND 

X.H.

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: N.L.H., Biological Mother : No. 3654 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Decree November 6, 2015 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,

Orphans' Court at No(s): A2014-0058 & A2014-0059

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E. and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2016

N.L.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the Decrees1 granting the Petitions 

filed by the Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) to 

involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her minor male children, K.N., 

 

1 Mother filed one appeal from two separate Decrees, each of which 

terminated her parental rights as to one child. Although filing one appeal 

from separate orders is generally discouraged, Mother’s arguments 

regarding each child are identical and arise from the same set of facts. See 

Baker v. Baker, 624 A.2d 655, 656 (Pa. Super. 1993) (considering an 

appeal from separate orders where appellant’s arguments were identical and 

stemmed from the same factual precedent). Additionally, the trial court 

issued one Opinion to address both Decrees. See Dong Yuan Chen v. 

Saidi, 100 A.3d 587, 589 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that an appeal from 

two separate orders was not fatal where the trial court addressed the issues 

pertaining to both orders). Therefore, under these circumstances, this 

procedural error is not fatal to Mother’s appeal.
J-S35045-16

- 2 -

born in May 2005, and X.H., born in November 2007 (collectively, 

“Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).2, 3

In its Opinion, the trial court aptly summarized the factual and 

procedural history of this case, which we adopt for the purpose of this 

appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/6/12, at 2-13.

Relevantly, CYS received referrals regarding K.N.’s truancy, as well as 

concerns about Children’s hygiene, malnourishment, and emotional 

problems. After CYS filed Dependency Petitions, Mother placed Children with 

a relative. The Petitions were subsequently withdrawn. The relative 

subsequently became unable to care for Children, and Mother voluntarily 

placed Children in foster care in December 2012.

Children were adjudicated dependent on January 8, 2013. After a 

hearing on January 29, 2013, the trial court set reunification goals. Mother 

did not comply with most of the court-ordered services, and she did not 

cooperate regarding either Children’s or her own mental health services. 

Since the original foster care placement, Children have been moved 

several times, including multiple stays in a psychiatric hospital, therapeutic 

 

2 CYS also filed Petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights 

to her twin daughters, born in August 2012. The twins were adjudicated 

dependent on September 4, 2013. On February 3, 2015, CYS filed 

withdrawals of the Petitions regarding the twin daughters. Ultimately, a 

Dependency Division Order was entered on September 22, 2015, authorizing 

the return of the twins to Mother, and the trial court permitted CYS to 

withdraw the Petitions regarding the twin daughters.

3 The trial court also involuntarily terminated the parental rights of J.N., the 

father of K.N., and P.J. a/k/a J.P., the father of X.H. 
J-S35045-16

- 3 -

residential treatment placements, therapeutic foster home placements, and 

emergency room visits. Mother did not consistently visit with Children 

during many of these placements, and she did not visit Children at all in 

more than a year prior to the final permanency review hearing.

On September 24, 2014, CYS filed Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights (“ITPR”) Petitions against Mother under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), 

(2), (5), (8), and (b). After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother’s 

parental rights as to Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), 

(5), (8), and (b). Mother filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement.

On appeal, Mother raises the following question for our review:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion and committed an 

error of law by terminating Mother’s parental rights in finding 

that termination best meets the need[s] and welfare of [] 

Children[,] where the [trial] court failed to discern the effect that 

severance of the bond would have on [] Children[,] and where 

there is no permanent placement for [] Children[?]

Mother’s Brief at 7.

We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in 

accordance with the following standard:

In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our 

scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence 

presented as well as the trial court’s factual findings and legal 

conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will 

reverse the trial court’s order only if we conclude that the trial 

court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked 

competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge’s 

decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict.
J-S35045-16

- 4 -

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).

Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. The burden is upon the petitioner 

“to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for 

seeking the termination of parental rights are valid.” In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 

273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). “[C]lear 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. (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Further, the “trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence 

presented and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and 

resolve conflicts in the evidence.” In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. 

Super. 2004). If the competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, 

“we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result.” In 

re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Satisfaction of any one subsection of Section 2511(a), along with 

consideration of Section 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination 

of parental rights. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en 

banc). In this case, Mother only challenges the trial court’s determination as 

to Section 2511(b), which states the following:

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination.

* * *
J-S35045-16

- 5 -

(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 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.A. § 2511(b).

Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the 

ITPR Petitions without properly considering the effect of severing the bond 

between Mother and Children. Mother’s Brief at 11, 12-14. Mother claims 

that the trial court failed to conduct a proper “best interests” analysis under 

Section 2511(b). Id. at 13. Further, Mother asserts that the trial court 

abused its discretion in granting the ITPR Petitions despite a lack of 

permanent placement for Children. Id. at 14-15. Mother argues that even 

if her bond with Children is maladaptive, it is the only bond they have, and 

that bond should not be severed without a permanent placement. Id.

The trial court set forth the relevant law regarding Section 2511(b), 

and determined that it was in Children’s best interest to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/6/15, at 19-21. Upon our 

review, the trial court appropriately applied Section 2511(b) to this case, 

and we adopt its Opinion for the purpose of this appeal. See id.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the ITPR Petitions.
J-S35045-16

- 6 -

Decrees affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/29/2016
************ 

Joann Sallit Hull, Esquire 

on behalf of the minor children ,., __ 

Susan G. Maurer, Esquire 

on behalf of Fathers 

Catherine L. Kollet, Esquire 

on behalf ofN.L.H., Mother 

Glenn R. Smith, Esquire 

on behalf of Lehigh County Office of Children & Youth Services 

APPEARANCES: 

************ 

Assigned Judge: 

Douglas G. Reichley, J. 

Minors 

No.: A2014-0059 

K.N. No.: A2014-0058 

and 

X.H., 

In re: Involuntary Termination of Parental-Rights t9-:_.,,. · 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION 

12: o s 

'"''!'' 

Circulated 04/13/2016 11:51 AM
2 

Involuntary termination hearings wereoriginally scheduled for March 5 and 6, 2015, for all four minor children. 

Neither Mother nor her counsel appeared on March 5 due to inclement weather, and counsel for the fathers presented 

issues warranting continuance of the involuntary termination hearings regarding the fathers. Accordingly, the 

involuntary termination hearings were rescheduled to the next available date before the undersigned, July 17, 2015. 

Since the filing of the involuntary termination petitions regarding the four children, LCOCYS filed withdrawals 

of its petitions regarding two of the children on February 3, 2015. These two children are three-year-old twin girls. 

The twin girls entered foster care within a few days of their birth and remained in the same foster home continuously. 

For the past several months, a different caseworker was involved with the twin girls than the caseworker who was 

assigned to work with the boys in the above-captioned matters. By Order entered February 11, 2015, these withdrawals 

were taken under advisement by the Court and remain under advisement per Order entered March 16, 2015. 

We note that counsel for LCOCYS has not filed an update in the Orphans' Court as directed in the March 16, 

2015, Order. At the July 17, 2015 involuntary termination hearing, counsel for LCOCYS verbally reported to the 

undersigned that in the interim, upon the recommendation of counsel for LCOCYS and the caseworker assigned to 

the twin girls at the time, the Dependency Division decided the twin girls should be returned to Mother, with said 

transfer of care to occur on! July 20, 2015. Apparently a Dependency Division Order was entered on September 22, 

2015, authorizing the return of the twin girls to their mother. In light of that order, this Court will defer to the 

Dependency Division and will permit the agency to withdraw the §2511 petitions filed regarding the twin girls, which 

to date had remained under 'advisement by this Court. 

date. 

each of the minors were involuntarily terminated pursuant to Final Decrees entered this 

4. K.N.'s father is J.N., andX.H.'s father is P.J. a/k/a J.P. The parental rights of the father of 

3. The mother ofK.N. and X.H. is N.L.H. ("Mother"). 

2. X.H. is a male child born on November 12, 2007; he is 7 years old. 

1. K.N. is a male child born on May"30, 2005; heis 10 years old. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

before the undersigned.1 

the involuntary petitions pertaining to the above-captioned minors was held on July 17, 2015, 

parental rights to four of her children, including the two above-captioned minors. The hearing on 

On September. 24, 2014, LCOCYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother's 

OPINION 

DOUGLAS G. REICHLEY, J. 
3 

2 This assignment occurred in December of 20 f4". 

7. LCOCYS referrals specifically involving K.N. and X.H. began in 2011 regarding truancy 

of K.N. as well as concerns that both boys were underweight, malnourished, and had very 

poor hygiene. Additionally, both boys had significant emotional issues. At that time, 

Mother was not following LCOCYS recommendations that she should consistently attend 

her own mental health appointments and that she should take K.N. and X.H. for mental 

health evaluations. She was not permitting the.agency or recommended in-home services 

into her home. 

5. Mother has several other children: K.N. and X.H. are aware of the existence of several of 

their siblings. 

6. As of the July 17, 2015, termination hearing, Lehigh County Office of Children and Youth 

("LCOCYS" or "the agency") caseworker Sarah Merkel was assigned to the cases ofK.N. 

and X.H.2 As custodian of K.N.'s and X.H.'s files, Ms. Merkel was familiar with the 

family's case history and Mother's involvement with the agency since 1995, mostly for 

children other than K.N. and X.H. The agency's involvement included approximately a 

dozen referrals based on a host of concerns such as truancy, unstable housing, inappropriate 

living conditions, inadequate housekeeping, insufficient food, parenting issues, 

inappropriate caretakers, the children's behavioral problems, Mother's failure to comply 

with her children's mental health-needs, Mother's failure to comply with her own mental 

health needs including medication compliance, and Mother's failure to comply with inhome services. 
4 

8. On January 26, 2012, Mother agreed to a safety plan to prevent Mother's oldest child, 

Tmll from having contact with any of the other children until he completed sexual 

offender treatment because T911ad been found to be indicated as an alleged perpetrator 

of inappropriate sexual contact with his littlesister, G.H., who also lived in the home at 

that time. 

9. Mother did not comply with the safety plan but continued to allow contact between 11111111 

and her other children. 

10. As a result of Mother's noncompliance with services, on May 25, 2012, the agency filed 

dependency petitions and a petition to compel entry into Mother's home. On June 1, 2012, 

the Court entered orders granting the petitions. The agency required assistance of law 

enforcement several times in June to enforce the June 1, 2012, order that permitted the 

agency to gain entry into Mother'shome. 

11. Mother subsequently placed K.N. and X.H. with a relative in August of 2012. The agency 

then withdrew the May 25, 2012, involuntary petitions regarding K.N. and X.H. in 

September of 2012. 

12. In November of 2012, the relativeended the placement because of her own illness and her 

inability to handle the boys' serious mental health issues. 

13. The boys could not return home due to the lack of any in-home service provider to work 

with Mother at the time. Mother had been unsuccessfully discharged from in-home services 

several times due to her failure tcr complyorher refusal to allow the providers into the 

home. 

14. On December 4, 2012, Mother voluntarily placed K.N. and X.H. in foster care. 
5 

by Mother's oldest son, 19, against his little sister, G.H. On June 19, 2013, Mother 

19. On June 17, 2013, the agency received another referral identifying new acts of sexual abuse 

2013. 

See P-1, Order adopting Master's-Recommendation for Disposition filed February 20, 

1) Receive mental health evaluations and follow through with all recommendations; 

2) Obtain and maintain safe, stable and sanitary housing; 

3) Obtain and maintain verifiable income; 

4) Attend visitation with the children as directed by LCOCYS; 

5) Comply and cooperate with her childre~'s medical, developmental, and mental health 

treatment services; 

6) Comply with any in-home services provided by LCOCYS for purposes of reunification, 

parenting education and monitoring; 

7) Contact and cooperate with LCOCYS; allow the LCOCYS caseworkers into the home, 

comply with any services recommended and maintain contact with the agency; 

8) Notify LCOCYS of any changes regarding address and phone. 

reunification goals for Mother regarding K.N. and X.H.: 

18. Following a dispositional hearing on January 29, 2013, the Court set the following 

Recommendation for Adjudication - Child Dependent filed Feb. 14, 2013. 

unable to provide for their needs at that time. See P-1, Order adopting Master's 

was developmentally delayed. Both boys h~d significant mental health issues. 

17. K.N. and X.H. were adjudicated dependent on January 8, 2013. Mother stipulated she.was 

voluntary placement, K.N.'s teeth were rotted out at the age of 7 or 8. X.H., then age 5, 

16. When the two boys were ptc1-9ed in LCOCYS custody in 2012 pursuant to Mother's 

to, Mother' s household. 

15. K.N. and X.H. have been in placement in excess of 30 months. Neither has ever returned 
6 

Mother also agreed pursuant to the safety plan not to permit her paramour, E9111C111111 to have any unsupervised 

contact with her children. 

4 Due to Mother's failure to adhere to the safety plan, G.H. was removed from Mother's home and placed with a 

step-grandparent. 

5 Somehow Mother succeeded in retaining her public housing apartment despite T-'s arrest on June 22, 2013 

for drugs in Mother's home. This is especially surprising in lightof the so-called "one strike" zero tolerance policy 

against drugs adopted by HUD in the 1990's. Mother's current 2-bedroom apartment is not large enough for either of 

the boys to live in her household, but if either or both boys were approved to return to Mother's care, Mother would 

be able to apply for a larger apartment. 

.... ,·.v·· 

did obtain subsidized public housing, which she has maintained successfully for two years. 5 

and X.H., Mother did not consistently comply with most of the court-ordered services. She 

23. During the more than 30 months of the Juvenile Dependency proceedings regarding K.N. 

and X.H. 

overwhelmed by simple parenting and continued to be unable to meet the needs of K.N. 

obtaining housing, and complying with visitation and recommended services. She was 

August of 2013, Mother was unable to cope with the responsibilities of finding work, 

22. As reflected by the Dependency.Division Orders in Exhibit P-1, between January and 

of Mother at the July 30, 2013 Juvenile Dependency Permanency Review Hearing. 

21. The June 19, 2013 safety plan was included in the court-ordered compliance goals required 

Department went to Mother's home and fo~gd .. 19 there. He was arrested at that time 

for possession of drug paraphernalia and marijuana.4 

home. On June 22, 2013, LCOCYS along with members of the Allentown Police 

comply with the plan. Later in June, G.H. disclosed that ~was staying in Mother's 

20. Although Mother signed and agreed to the terms of the second safety plan, she did not 

agreed to another safety plan providing that Mother would not permit 1911!1 to have any 

contact with her children.3 
7 

on himself and has attempted to abscond from multiple settings. At times, he shuts down 

"-·~,v. 

traumatic Stress Disorder. Among other things, he has a history of urinating and defecating 

30. K.N. is diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder, Impulse Control Disorder, and Post- 

,. __ mental health services. She has been only marginally involVea in their care. 

29. Mother did not comply with or cooperate with the boys' developmental, medical and 

--·~···· .• ,+.::,);· 

critical times. 

hospitalization school based program and impeded K.N. 's ability to be hospitalized at 

28. Mother's failure to return calls made it more difficult to enroll X.H. in a partial 

27, 2015, for X.H. and signed March 20, 2015 for K.N . 

. ···-:,-:, 

Consent to Medical Testing, Treatment and Procedures signed April 23, 2014, and March 

Mother failed to respond or return phone calls. See P-1, Orders Providing Authorization to 

different points to provide the consent for necessary treatment for X.H. or K.N. because 

necessary mental health treatment. LCOCYS had to obtain emergency court orders at three 

.. :_ ..... 

27. Mother's failure to maintain contact with the boys' caseworker impeded imminently 

scheduled appointments. She was frequently unreachable by phone. 

26. Mother did not stay in touch with K.N. 's and X.H.'s caseworker. She failed to show for 

parent evaluation recommended by LCOCYS. 

,-.·-~·- ,..,-;- 

mental health appointments. Additionally, Mother has not completed a non-offending 

with recommendations. At the time of the termination hearing, she was not attending any 

25. Mother did not consistently attend her own mental health appointments or follow through 

her children. 

providers that LCOCYS provided to assist her to improve her parenting and to reunify with 

24. Mother never successfully completed in-home services with any of the several service 
8 

6 Evidence in the record indicates these auditory hallucinations were documented at age 6, although there was not any 

evidence presented on how long the child had been hearing voices. It was made clear that the phenomenon was 

different from having an imaginary friend. X.H.'s auditory hallucinations are more prevalent when he is in a 

heightened state of agitation. 

7 K.N. was placed in-patient at the Horsham Clinic on December 15, 2012, following a brief stay in two separate 

foster homes. From the Horsham Clinic, he was transferred on February 26, 2013, to a trauma focused foster home. 

He was hospitalized at KidsPeace beginning on May 9, 2013;·\;iiere he frequently had to be restrained due to his 

aggressiveness toward staff and other children. Thereafter, K.N. resided in two foster homes. He was moved to 

Warwick House, a therapeutic residential treatment facility from June 11, 2013, to May 15, 2104. From there he went 

to a therapeutic foster home. (His brother X.H. was added to that household on November 24, 2014.) In March of 

2015, he was hospitalized for one week at the Lehigh Valley Hospital emergency room before being transferred to 

Rockford Center in Newark, Delaware. It is not clear at what point he returned to the therapeutic foster home. On May 

11, 2015, he was moved to the Valley Youth House PATHS program. After just a few days there, he attempted to 

more appropriate placement given his extreme mental health issues.7 

minor had to be held in restraints or was placed in isolation for several days waiting for a 

placements, therapeutic foster home placements, and emergency room visits. At times, the 

times, including multiple stays in psychiatric hospital, therapeutic residential treatment 

33. Since their original placement in foster care, each of the boys has been moved numerous 

to the point of having to be restrained or placed in isolation. 

behaviors, destruction of property, and at times being a danger to themselves and to others 

32. Both boys have a history of severe physical outbursts, sexualized behaviors, aggressive 

medications for his mental health needs. 

hurt other people or himself, or be aggressive.6 He requires several prescription 

and October due to aggressive behavior. X.H. hears voices that tell him to do bad things, 

Disorder. In kindergarten, he was suspended from school for 8 days between September 

(chronic), Impulse Control Disorder, Interpersonal Problems, and Oppositional Defiant 

31. X.H. is diagnosed with Reactive Attaclunent Disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder 

situation. 

completely and appears to become nearly catatonic when faced with a new, uncomfortable 
.. :.•.":t;;.<-- .. 

9 

abscond. He became extremely aggressive, and was hospitalized in restraints at the Lehigh Valley Hospital emergency 

room until he could be transferred to Devereux Hospital, where he currently remains awaiting placement in a 

therapeutic residential facility. 

Since X.H. has been in the custody of LCOCYS, he has been placed in three foster homes and undergone two 

hospital stays at KidsPeace Hospital. X.H. was admitted to Warwick House on May 21, 2014, after his brother had 

already been discharged from the residential treatment facility..Dn November 24, 2014, he was discharged from 

Warwick House to the therapeutic foster home in which K.N:was placed. On May 11, 2015, like his brother, he was 

moved to the Valley Youth House PATHS residential program. Three days later, he attempted to abscond. Beginning 

on May 14, 2015, he was kept in the Lehigh Valley Hospital Emergency Room for six days. He is currently in the 

Western Psychiatric Hospital in Pittsburgh, where he awaits placement in a residential treatment facility. 

between the child and Mother due to the boys' respective mental health instability. 

41. At times, the therapeutic recommendations have advised that there not be any contact 

40. Both boys are recommended to have 24-hour supervision, seven days a week, at this time. 

penis into different parts of people's bodies: 

39. X.H. continues to exhibit a lot of sexualized behavior, such as talking about putting his 

be placed in a foster home with children younger than nine years old. 

38. As a result of a psycho-sexual evaluation in April of 2015, K.N. was recommended not to 

grandchild of the foster parents in the therapeutic foster home. 

37. Additional concerns existed that K.N. may have inappropriately touched the 4-year-old 

out between himself and X.H. in the therapeutic foster home. 

36. The boys' transfer to the PATHS program occurred because K.N. disclosed sexual acting 

by Mother, alleged sexual abuse, and possible physical abuse. 

35. The boys have had a traumatic background due to prolonged inconsistent care and neglect 

psychiatric hospital setting. 

boys could not be interviewed due to their extremely unstable mental health in the 

disclosures made by the boys. Each referralwas ultimately deemed unfounded because the 

34. Three Child Protective Services investigations were initiated against Mother based on 
10 

8 During each minor's stay at Warwick House, the facility kept track of Mother's availability. During K.N.' s treatment 

at Warwick House between June of 2013 and May of 2014, Mother was unavailable for 72% of calls made to her. 

During X.H.'s treatment at Warwick house between May and November of 2014, Mother was unreachable for 83% 

of his attempts to call her. 

9 Mother did have phone contact with a WesternPsychiatric Hospital social worker regarding X.H. 

10 This CASA was appointed in X.H.'s case on June 30, 2014, long before her appointment in K.N. 's case on January 

5, 2015. 

his mental health needs. Mother did not attend I.E.P. meetings held regarding X.H.'s 

_.,, .. _,.,,,. .. ..... , .... _,: 

48. In 2014 and 2015, Mother has not attended any meetings regarding X.H.' s school needs or 

Warwick House. 

and eventually stopped altogether. Mother never participated in X.H. 's family therapy at 

47. Mother was inconsistent in her attendance at family therapy at Warwick House for K.H. 

·' ·~.· .·""""""'"' 

2014.10 

January 5, 2015. Mother has not maintained contact with X.H. since at least June 30, 

46. According to the CASA assignedto the boys,_ Mother has not maintained any contact with 

K.N. since the beginning of the CASA's involvement in K.N.'s case in approximately 

mental health status in their respective psychiatric hospitals. 

45. Presently, there are not any visits recommended due to each of the boys' severely unstable 

44. It has been over a year since Mother visited either X.H. or K.N. 

consistently. Mother has not visit~~ her boys ,'!J)he Emergency Room or at the hospital." 

43. Throughout their many placements, Mother did not visit with either K.N. or X.H. 

hospitalized), Mother failed to follow through with setting up phone contact. 

would have been permitted to begin) and May of 2015 (when the boys were both 

available8 or, as occurred between Decemberof 2014 (when supervised phone contact 

42. During the timeframes that phone contact was allowed, Mother was only sporadically 
11 

I I Anthony Pennant was K.N. 's primary therapist at Warwick House starting in December of 2013. He also worked 

with X.H. when X.H. was at Warwick house. 

improved until his brother arrived in the home. 

stopped visiting altogether. K.N.'s extreme behaviors stabilized and his mental health 

52. Similarly, after K.N. went to the therapeutic foster home in May of 2014, Mother again 

stopped visiting K.N. at Warwick-House. 

K.N. began refusing Mother's calls altogether, and was doing much better after Mother 

therapy and was unreachable by phone. At some point during his stay at Warwick House, 

frame only after Mother completely stopped attending the scheduled monthly family 

51. K.N. began to make progress in his treatme~1t at Warwick House during the 2013-14 time 

Therapist, dated Jan. 24, 2014. 

Jeffrey M Friedman, Clinical Director of Warwick House, and Anthony Pennant, Primary 

highly dysregulated, or impaired-in his physiological condition prio\ to scheduled visits 

with Mother but appeared relieved when sessions were cancelled. See F-9, Letter from 

for K.N.'s basic needs hindered reunification efforts that were underway. K.N. would be 

50. During his time at Warwick House, Mother's ambivalence and inconsistency to provide 

at best. 

therapists of K.N., clearly established that the-bond between K.N. and Mother is strained 

49. The testimony of Anthony Pennant11 and Angela Ramautar, both of whom are former 

meeting in 2015. See G-1. 

schooling in 2014 and 2015 or CASSP (Child and Adolescent Service System Program) 
12 

61. Past attempts to place the boys together in foster care together resulted in each of them 

decompensating severely. 

See Ex. F-9. 

53. Regarding Mother's bond with X.H., Mother has not spoken with or seen X.H. in over a 

year. 

54. Until June of 2013, X.H. had some visits in Mother's home, but those visits stopped when 

Mother violated the safety plan and allowed her son ~to have contact with her other 

children. X.H. has not visited the.home since. During the time he was having visits in the 

home, he was struggling with the visits as well as having mental health issues. 

55. From May of 2014 to November of 2014, Mother did not consistently visit X.H. at 

Warwick. 

56. Mr. Pennant opined that another placement in a.residential facility such as Warwick House 

could do wonders for X.H., but only if he would go to a pre-adoptive home afterward. 

57. Mr. Pennant opined that the ongoing possibility of a biological parent being in and out of 

the lives of either minor will impede the minor's ability to move forward in life, and that 

termination of parental rights is necessary to help the boys overcome their diagnoses. 

58. Presently, K.N. is a patient at Devereux Hospital near Philadelphia, and X.H. is a patient 

at Western Psychiatric Hospital in Pittsburgh. Both boys are awaiting placement in a 

residential treatment facility. 

59. Both boys have a very great need for consistency, for care, and for supervision. Without 

it, they cannot move forward. 

60. The current therapeutic recommendation is that K.N. and X.H. be placed separately due to 

their competing needs, although Mr. Pennant indicated that sibling contact is acceptable. 
13 

available to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the 

conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably 

led to the removal of the children continue to exist, Mother cannot or will not remedy those 

from Mother's care by the court for a period in excess of six months, the conditions which 

3. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that K.N. and X.H. were removed 

and refusal in a reasonable period of time. 

and Mother cannot or will not remedy the conditions and causes of the incapacity, neglect 

parental care, control or subsistence necessary for their physical and mental well-being, 

continued incapacity, neglect and refusal has caused K.N. and X.H. to be without essential 

2. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Mother's repeated and 

to K.N. and X.H. and refused to or failed to perform parental duties. 

petitions to terminate her rights evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish her parental claim 

.,.,·~-~-. 

continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the 

1. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Mother by her conduct 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

them needs. 

permanency in a loving home that will provide them with the consistent care that each of 

64. The CASA is also in favor of termination of parental rights so each of the boys can achieve 

options for helping them obtain permanency through specific permanency recruitment. 

interests of both children. Once the children are freed for adoption, the agency has more 

63. The caseworker opined that termination of parental rights is nevertheless in the best 

62. No adoptive resource has presently been identified for either of the boys. 
14 

( 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. 

(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: 

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination 

The statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

-- 

parental rights on the grounds of23 Pa. C.S.A. §251 l(a)(l), (2), (5), (8), and §251 l(b). 

must establish at least one ground for termination. LCOCYS petitioned to terminate Mother's 

The grounds for involuntary termination are set forth in 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511. Petitioner 

DISCUSSION 

parental rights to K.N. and X.H. is appropriate in this case. 

6. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of Mother's 

provides for their development, physical and emotional needs. 

parental rights to K.N. and X.H. best meets the needs and welfare of the children and best 

-- 

5. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of Mother's 

of the children. 

continue to exist, and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare 

elapsed from the date of removal, the conditions which led to the removal of the children 

from Mother's physical and legal custody by the court, more than twelve months have 

4. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that K.N. and X.H. were removed 

best serve the needs and welfare of the children. 

children within a reasonable period of time, and termination of the parental rights would 
15 

of parental rights is appropriate in this case based on Pennsylvania law. Our inquiry in a 

This Court must decide whether LCOCYS satisfied its burden of showing that termination 

23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511. 

(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 thechild, 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 parents. With respect to any 

petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(l), (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. 

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court 

or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more 

have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions 

which led to the removal or pla;'ement of the child continue to exist 

and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and 

welfare of the child. 

(5) The child has beerifemoved.froiii the care of the parent by the court 

or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at 

least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or 

placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will 

not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the 

services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not 

likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or 

placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and 

termination of the'jiarental rigliis would best serve the needs and 

welfare of the child. 

(2) The 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 wellbeing and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect 

or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. 
16 

must be steady and consistent over a period oftime, contribute to the psychological 

health of the child, and must demonstrate a seri_ous intent on the part of the parent 

to recultivate a parent-child relationship and must also demonstrate a willingness 

and capacity to undertake the parental role. The parent wishing to reestablish his 

[ or her] parental responsibilities bears the burden of proof on this question. 

examine the parent's post-abandonment contact with the child, which, to be legally significant, 

In re B., NM, 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). The Court must also 

A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, 

and must exercise 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 convenient timeto performone's parental responsibilities while 

others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs. 

Super. 1990). 

including adequate housing, clothing, food, love and supervision. In re J W, 578 A.2d 952 (Pa. 

All children are entitled to certain irreducible minimum requirements from their parents, 

hesitation of the truth. In re Child M, 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996). 

convincing as to enable the Court to come to a clear conviction of the precise facts at issue without 

91 (Pa. 1998). Petitioner has the burden of producing evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty and 

clearly warrants involuntary termination. Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M, JI, 708 A.2d 88, 

offered by the parent to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, 

The Court must examine the circumstances of the case and also consider all explanations 

In re Adoption of R.JS., supra. 

termination has been established, the Court's second inquiry is on the child's needs and welfare. 

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 756 (1982). After the Court has determined a statutory ground for 

of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for termination exists. 

508 (Pa. Super. 2006). First, the Court assesses the parent's conduct. Id. Petitioner has the burden 

termination of parental rights case is a two-step inquiry. In re Adoption of R.JS., 901 A.2d 502, 
17 

Mother did not visit either of the children consistently or participate to any notable degree in their 

agency to provide for their educational needs, their medical needs, or their mental health needs. 

on a consistent basis to consent to their mental health treatment. She did not cooperate with the 

food, or supervision. She did not take theni'to the doctor; to therapy, or even make herself available 

for their basic needs. Mother did not provide for their everyday needs such as housing, clothing, 

During that time, Mother has failed to perform parental duties for them and has failed to provide 

the children. For more than 30 months, the children have formally been in the foster care system. 

multitude of services provided over the past 30 months'ihat were designed to help her reunify with 

Mother has not resolved the issues that led to the adjudication of the boys despite a 

adjudicated, Mother stipulated to her inability to provide basic sustenance for them. 

the agency's care. Their mental health needs were not being addressed. When they were 

not provide for their basic needs. They were malnourished and underweight when they came into 

attempt to privately place the boys with her relative. While she was caring for the boys, she did 

January 8, 2013. In fact, the children had already left Mother's care five months prior due to her 

and X.H. were adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care more than 30 months ago on 

The relevant petitions to terminateMother's rights were filed on September 24, 2014. K.N. 

and welfare of the minors. 

and X.H. and that the involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights will best serve the needs 

convincingly established statutory grounds for the termination of Mother's parental rights to K.N. 

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the ~inors, we find that Petitioner clearly and 

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1119 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). 

For the reasons discussed below, and giving primary consideration to the developmental, 
18 

Mother has maintained her housing. Other than that, Mother has not provided any evidence 

that would tend to indicate she is capable of complying with the court-ordered services so as to 

reunify with K.N. and X.H. It is clear that she cannot provide the constant supervision that is 

currently therapeutically recommended for both boys:· Accordingly, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 

§251 l(a)(l) and (2), we find that Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence the 

statutory grounds for termination due to Mother's failure to perform parental duties for a period of 

at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition. She caused the children to be 

without essential parental care, control, oisubsistencenecessary for their physical and mental wellbeing. Despite the provision of many services intended to effect reunification, Mother has not 

demonstrated she will remedy her incapacity within a reasonable period of time. 

Petitioner has also clearly and convincingly demonstrated that the grounds for termination 

as set forth in 23 Pa. C.S.A. §251 l(a)(S) and (8) have been satisfied. These children were placed 

into foster care in December of 2012. The conditions which led to the children's placement 

continue to exist. These conditions were Mother's failure to provide for the children's needs. As 

mental health care. To the extent that the boys' needs have been met at all, they have been met by 

hospitals, residential treatment facilities, and therapeutic foster parents. 

During the many months the boys have been in care, Mother did not comply with the 

permanency plan or with two separate safety plans in which she agreed to prohibit contact between 

her eldest son, '19, and her other children. Mother's repeated and continued refusal to comply 

with court-ordered services, and her neglect of K.N. and X.H., has caused these children to be 

without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for their physical or mental wellbeing. 
19 

In re NA.M, 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

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 TD., 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 TB.B., 835 

A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

§251 l(b). 

the best interest of both children to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 

of the needs and welfare of the children. Under the circumstances presented here, we find it is in 

rights under 23 Pa. C.S.A. §251 l(a), we tum now to our primary consideration: the consideration 

Finding that LCOCYS has established statutory grounds for termination Mother's parental 

to be adopted into permanent, stable, healthy homes that will safeguard and protect them. 

that termination will best serve the needs and welfare of the children so they have an opportunity 

through with what is required of her within a reasonable period of time, this Court is convinced 

B., NM, 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004). Based on Mother demonstrated inability to follow 

parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, health, safe environment." In re 

converted, upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties, to the child's right to have proper 

"(A] parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of [her] child is 

despite the host of services provided to Mother by LCOCYS over a lengthy period of time. 

discussed above, Mother is unable to resolve these issues within a reasonable period of time, 
20 

stability, care, and supervision the children need, as she has demonstrated for over 30 months now. 

.··''"""'.' 

ability to be adopted into a caring, permanent family. Mother is obviously unable to provide the 

To the extent either child has a current bond to his Mother, that bond hinders the child's 

treatment, these children can be successful in the future. 

abuse, neglect, trauma, and loss. Provided they receive appropriate supervision, care, and 

each of the boys can move forward with his life and begin to deal with and overcome his past 

consistent, loving care. It is clear that K.H. and X.N. need permanence in a safe, stable home so 

of the children needs the opportunity to develop a caring bond with adults who will provide 

.~;..,'.J.i.;,,- ',.s.>l:i,;.., 

children needs stability now. Mother has been unable to provide this for nearly three years. Each 

safety plans designed to keep her son 191Jaway from her other children. More than the average 

child, K.N. and X.H. require safety, stability, and predictability. Each of these troubled young 

provide this level of supervision, especially in light of the fact that she twice chose not to honor 

of the boys needs supervision for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mother clearly is not able to 

Both of these children are severely impaired by their mental health issues. Currently each 

T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 (Ps. Super. 2003). 

at all, would not destroy "an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship." In re Adoption of 

a significant period of time. We find that termination of the parental bond, to the extent one exists 

struggled with visits to Mother's house in the past and has not had any contact with his mother for 

cancelled. His mental health did not improve until Mother stopped visiting altogether. X.H. 

When Mother was still visiting K.N., he seemed relieved when Mother's visits were 

X.H. 's or K.N. 's medical, educational, or mental health needs. 

visited either child for over a year or even spoken with them. Mother has not been attending to 

K.N. and X.H. have spent nearly three years in the care of the agency. Mother has not 
21 

DATE: ·~ ( 2c?t 1C_ BY THE COURT: 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the petitions of LCOCYS to involuntarily terminate 

Mother's parental rights to K.N. and X.H. are granted. 

children. 

The opportunity for permanence in a stable, loving, and nurturing home will best serve the 

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of each of these children. Increasing the 

potential for the children to be adopted into a safe, stable, and permanent home outweighs the 

possibility that either K.N. or X.H. may suffer detrimeirtal effects from the termination of Mother's 

rights. See In re TS.M, a Minor, 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013). Moreover, removing the uncertainty of 

Mother's inconsistent care from their lives is necessary for their well-being. Therefore, we find it 

is in the best interest of K.N. and X.H. for Mother's parental rights to be terminated to each of the