J-S10043-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.J.B.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: T.C., MOTHER : No. 2929 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree September 18, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Domestic Relations at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000236-2014

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A.H., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: T.C.C., MOTHER : No. 2937 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree September 18, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000237-2014; FID: 51-FN-002447-2012

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.C.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: T.C., MOTHER : No. 2994 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 18, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Family Court at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000238-2014; FID: 51-FN-002447-2012

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, J., AND PLATT, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 12, 2015

Appellant, T.C. (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which involuntarily terminated 
J-S10043-15

- 2 -

her parental rights to her minor children, E.C.C., E.J.B.C., and J.A.H. 

(“Children”). We affirm. 

In its opinion, the trial court fully set forth the relevant facts of this 

case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, on May 

19, 2014, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed 

three petitions for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to 

E.C.C., E.J.B.C., and J.A.H., respectively.1 The court held a hearing on 

September 18, 2014. That same day, the court entered three decrees

involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children. Mother filed a 

timely notice of appeal on October 14, 2014, along with a concise statement 

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). 

Mother raises the following issues for our review:

DID THE TRIAL [COURT] RULE IN ERROR THAT [DHS] 

[MET] ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT MOTHER’S PARENTAL 

RIGHTS TO HER CHILDREN SHOULD BE TERMINATED[?]

DID THE TRIAL [COURT] RULE IN ERROR THAT THE 

TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD 

BEST SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE 

CHILDREN[?]

(Mother’s Brief at 4). 

The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental 

rights cases are as follows:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating 

 

1 DHS also sought to terminate the parental rights of each child’s father. All 

fathers’ parental rights were terminated, but they are not parties to this 

appeal. 
J-S10043-15

- 3 -

parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the 

decision of the trial court is supported by competent 

evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, 

or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s 

decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has 

granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental 

rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision 

the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. 

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.

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. 

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. 

We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis 

exists for the result reached. If the trial court’s findings 

are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the 

court’s decision, even though the record could support an 

opposite result. 

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) (internal citations omitted). 

DHS sought the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights on 

the following grounds:

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination

(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 
J-S10043-15

- 4 -

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.

(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 well-being and the 

conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, 

neglect or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied by the parent.

* * *

(5) The child has been removed from 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 parental 

rights would best serve the needs and welfare 

of the child.

* * *

(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 placement of the child continue to 

exist and termination of parental rights would 

best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

* * *
J-S10043-15

- 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. “Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated 

where any one subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along with 

consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 

1108, 1117 (Pa.Super. 2010). 

Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination 

will best serve the child’s needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 

(Pa.Super. 2006). “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability 

are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child.” Id.

at 520. “In this context, the court must take into account whether a bond 

exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an 

existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.” In re Z.P., supra at 1121.

“The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines 

certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide 

for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements 

within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be 
J-S10043-15

- 6 -

considered unfit and may properly have...her rights terminated.” In re 

B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001). 

There is no simple or easy definition of parental 

duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation 

to the needs of a child. A child needs love, 

protection, guidance, and support. These needs, 

physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely 

passive interest in the development of the child. 

Thus, this court has held that the parental obligation 

is a positive duty which requires affirmative 

performance.

This affirmative duty encompasses more than a 

financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in 

the child and a genuine effort to maintain 

communication and association with the child.

Because a child needs more than a benefactor, 

parental duty requires that a parent exert himself to 

take and maintain a place of importance in the 

child’s life.

Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively 

with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every 

problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship 

to the best of...her ability, even in difficult circumstances. 

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 suitable or 

convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities 

while others provide the child with [the child’s] physical 

and emotional needs.

Where a parent is incarcerated, the fact of incarceration 

does not, in itself, provide grounds for the termination of 

parental rights. However, a parent’s responsibilities are 

not tolled during incarceration. The focus is on whether 

the parent utilized resources available while in prison to 

maintain a relationship with...her child. An incarcerated 

parent is expected to utilize all available resources to 
J-S10043-15

- 7 -

foster a continuing close relationship with...her children.

In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 

718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

“[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of...her 

child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill...her parental duties, to the 

child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of...her potential in a 

permanent, healthy, safe environment.” Id. at 856. 

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

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

Tereshko, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The trial court 

opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions 

presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 5, 2014, at 9-14) 

(finding: Mother has history of drug-related criminal offenses which have 

resulted in incarceration; Mother was incarcerated repeatedly during 

pendency of this matter; Mother failed to comply with Family Service Plan 

objectives; Mother failed to comply with parenting classes, resulting in her 

discharge from program; court has repeatedly ordered Mother to attend 

drug and alcohol assessments, but she attended only drug screens; 

numerous drug screens came back positive; Mother did not have appropriate 

housing when she was released from jail in March 2013, and again in May 

2014; DHS provided Mother with referral for housing, but she did not 

complete programs; Mother failed to follow visitation schedule consistently; 
J-S10043-15

- 8 -

her last visit with Children was on July 16, 2013; no strong bond existed 

between Mother and Children; DHS worker testified regarding lack of 

relationship between Mother and Children in contrast to parental bond that 

exists between Children and their foster parent; termination of Mother’s 

parental rights would not cause Children irreparable harm; record 

demonstrates Mother’s ongoing unwillingness to care for Children or perform 

any parental duties, and her failure to remedy conditions that led to 

termination of her parental rights; evidence is clear and convincing that 

termination of Mother’s parental rights would be in best interests of 

Children). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion. 

Decrees affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/12/2015
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

THE FmST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PIDLADELPIDA COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

E.J.B.e. 

FAMILY COURT DIVISION 

CP-5I-AP-0000236-2014 

APPEAL OF: 

T.C. 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

J.A.H. CP-5I-AP-0000237-2014 

APPEAL OF: 

T.C. 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

E.C.C. CP-5I-AP-0000238-20l4, <':-:':1 

-,-

APPEAL OF: 

T.e. 

~'~~'J -.. ~ 

.. . -) .' ,~ .' '. L,.",,) 

'. i o· , 

( , " . .. ,'~ 

, .' . . -:.) 

,. '0 

.' "", I, :_ 

OPINION ('.J 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 18, 2014, this Court held a hearing on the Petition to Terminate the 

Parental Rights of the biological mother ofEJ.B.C., JAR. and E.C.e. The Petition was 

filed by the Department of Human Services ("DHS") and served on all parties. T.C. 

("Mother") was present at the hearing and represented by counseL After a full hearing on 

the merits, this Court found clear and convincing evidence to involuntarily terminate the 

parental rights of Mother, T.e. to EJ.B.C., JAH. and E.e.e.' 

, F.S. ("JAR's Father") and R.B.'s ("EJ.B.C.'s Father") parental rights were terminated, but they have 

not appealed this Court's Order. E.C.C.'s unknown putative Father's rights were also terminated. 

j 

'. 

J 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

In response to the order terminating her parental rights, Mother, by and through 

her counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with Matters Complained of on Appeal attached 

thereto on October 14, 2014. This appeal now follows. 

STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL 

Mother's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal is set forth in its entirety 

as follows: 

I. The Judge ruled in error that the Philadelphia City Solicitor's Office met 

its burden of proof; 

2. The Judge ruled in error that it would be in the best interest and/or 

termination would best serve the needs of the child. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

On August 3, 2012, the Department of Ruman Services ("DRS") received an 

Emergency General Protective Services ("GPS") Report stating that E.C.C. sustained 

possible second degree burns on his upper body after removing hot food from a 

microwave oven. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). The Report also stated that Mother refused 

to seek medical care for E.C.C.'s burns. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit 

"A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On August 4, 2012, DRS visited the family'S home and met with A.V. ("Maternal 

Aunt"). (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). DRS developed a safety plan which provided that 

Maternal Aunt to take Mother and E.C.C. to the Emergency Room to have E.C.C. 

2 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

examined. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

Between August 6,2012 and August 15,2012, DHS made numerous attempts to 

contact Mother. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). Mother failed to respond. (Statement of 

Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). 

On August 15, 2012, M.C. ("Maternal Grandmother") contacted DHS stating that 

E.C.C. had been examined at the emergency room and Mother was incarcerated at 

Riverside Correctional Facility. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). Maternal Grandmother also 

informed DHS that only E.C.C. and J.A.H. were in her care. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., 

attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

EJ.B.C. was in the care of a family friend. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as 

Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On August 15, 2012, DHS visited Maternal Grandmother's home and deemed the 

home appropriate. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

At the Adjudicatory Hearing on September 13,2012 held before the Honorable 

Thomas M. Nocella, E.C.C. and J.A.H. were adjudicated dependent and committed to 

DHS. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). Judge Nocella further ordered that E.C.C. and J.A.H. to 

remain in the care of Maternal Grandmother and in the event Mother is released from 

prison, she will be referred to the Clinical Evaluation Unit ("CEU") for an assessment 

3 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

and a forthwith drug screen. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On October 5, 2012, Maternal Grandmother contacted DHS stating that EJ.B.C. 

was in her care and she would like to receive kinship care assistance for him. (Statement 

of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of 

Parental Rights). 

On October 10,2012, DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody ("OPC") for 

EJ.B.C. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

At the Shelter Care Hearing on October II, 2012 held before the Honorable 

Thomas M. Nocella, the Court lifted the OPC and EJ.B.C.'s temporary commitment to 

DHS was ordered to stand. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). Judge Nocella also ordered 

DHS to explore kinship care assistance for Maternal Grandmother. (Statement of Facts: 

E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). 

At the Adjudicatory Hearing on October 18, 2012 held before the Honorable 

Thomas M. Nocella, the Court discharged EJ.B.C.'s temporary commitment to DHS, and 

the child was adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., 

attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

Judge Nocella further ordered that upon Mother's release from prison, she be referred to 

the CEU for a forthwith drug screen, assessment and monitoring. (Statement of Facts: 

E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). 

4 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

At the Permanency Review Hearing on October 19, 2012 held before the 

Honorable Thomas M. Nocella, the Court ordered E.J.B.C. remain as committed to DHS, 

and Maternal Grandmother was appropriate for kinship care. (Statement of Facts: 

E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). 

The initial Family Service Plan ("FSP") meeting was held on October 31, 2012, at 

which time the goal for the children was reunification. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., 

attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Tennination of Parental Rights). The 

FSP Objectives for Mother were: 1) understand how and why the children were injured; 

2) provide adequate and safe living conditions once released from prison; 3) follow 

through with a forthwith drug screen and monitoring once released from prison; 4) keep 

open communication with the provider agency; 5) participate in Achieving Reunification 

Center ("ARC") services; 6) inform DHS of their whereabouts upon release from prison; 

7) be assessed by the CEU once released from prison; and 8) all fathers to make their 

identities and/or whereabouts known to DHS. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as 

Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

At the Permanency Review Hearing on December 6, 2012 held before the 

Honorable Thomas M. Nocella, the Court ordered the children remain as committed to 

DHS. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). Judge Nocella further ordered that the family comply 

with Family Group Decision Making and Mother be referred to the CEU for a forthwith 

drug screen and dual diagnosis assessment upon release from prison. (Statement of 

Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). 

5 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

On March 7, 2013, Mother rendered a positive urine screen for marijuana at CEU. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). Mother did not stay for her assessment and failed to 

attend the rescheduled appointment on March 14, 2013. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., 

attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On March 25, 2013, the CEU reported that Mother was non-compliant. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

At the Permanency Review Hearing on March 26, 2013 held before Juvenile 

Master Carol Carson, the Court ordered the children remain as committed to DHS. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). The Court further ordered that Mother sign medical 

releases, sign for E.C.C.'s Individual Education Plan, and be referred to the CEU for a 

forthwith drug screen, assessment and monitoring. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached 

as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On March 26,2013, Mother rendered a positive urine screen for marijuana at the 

CEU. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

On March 26, 2013, DHS held an FSP Revision Meeting, and the goal for the 

children remained unchanged. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). Mother was present at the 

Revision Meeting. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). The FSP Objectives established were: 1) 

complete parenting classes; 2) comply with the court ordered CEU assessment and 

6 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

recommendations; 3) refrain from rendering positive drug screens; 4) maintain supervised 

weekly contact with the children at the provider agency; 5) make themselves available to 

sign authorization forms for medical and educational documentation; 6) locate and 

occupy suitable housing; 7) participate in ARC services; and 8) all fathers to make their 

identities and/or whereabouts known. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit 

"A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On April 17, 2013, Mother rendered a positive urine screen for marijuana at the 

CEU. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). The CEU recommended that Mother engage in an 

intensive outpatient treatment program and was referred to Parkside Frankford. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

On May 23, 2013, Mother failed to attend her scheduled intake appointment at 

New Directions. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On June 26, 2013, the CEU reported Mother non-complaint. (Statement of Facts: 

E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). 

At the Permanency Review Hearing on August 22, 2013 held before this Court, 

this Court referred Mother to the CEU for a forthwith drug screen, assessment and 

monitoring. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). This Court also ordered: I) Mother 

complete parent training; 2) weekly supervised visits with the children continue at the 

provider agency and that visits may be modified by agreement of the parties; and 3) 

7 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

Maternal Grandmother to be E. C. C.'s educational surrogate. (Statement of Facts: E. C. C., 

attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

On September 13, 2013, DHS held an FSP Revision Meeting, and the goal for the 

children was changed to adoption. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" 

to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). None of the parents attended 

the Revision Meeting. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition 

for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). The FSP Objectives remained the same. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

At the Permanency Review Hearing on November 21, 2013 held before Juvenile 

Master Carol Carson, the Court ordered the children remain as committed to DHS. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). The Court also found that Mother was discharged from 

ARC due to non-participation. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). The Court also found that 

Mother did not make herself available to DHS or the provider agency for the weekly 

supervised visits with the children. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" 

to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). The Court referred Mother to 

the CEU for a forthwith drug screen, assessment and monitoring. (Statement of Facts: 

E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). The Court also modified Mother's visitation with the children to monthly visits. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

8 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

- --i 

On January 20, 2014, Mother entered a residential drug and alcohol treatment 

program through Fresh Start. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to 

Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). 

At the Permanency Review Hearing on February 3, 2014 held before this Court, 

this Court ordered that the children remain as committed to DHS, and the children's 

placement plans were changed to adoption. (Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as 

Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights). This Court 

referred Mother to the CEU for a forthwith drug screen, assessment and monitoring. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). This Court also referred Mother to the ARC program. 

(Statement of Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights). 

On September 18, 2014, this Court involuntarily terminated Mother's parental 

rights to E.J.B.C., J.A.H. and E.C.C. Thereafter, Mother filed an Appeal on October 14, 

2014. 

LEGAL ANALYSIS 

In articulating the appellate standard of review of a termination of parental rights, 

the Superior Court has stated, 

We are bound by the findings of the trial court, which have adequate 

support in the record so long as the findings do not evidence a capricious 

disregard for competent and credible evidence. In re Diaz, 447 Pa. Super. 

327, 669 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 1995). 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 finder of fact. 

In re B.G.S., 418 Pa. Super. 588,614 A.2d 1161 (Pa. Super. 1992). 

In re: Adoption of A.C.R, 2002 Pa. Super 218, P4; 803 A.2d 224, 228 (2002) 

9 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we 

are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is 

supported by competent evidence. See In re K. C. W, 456 Pa.Super. I, 689 

A.2d 294, 298 (1997). Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or 

insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree 

must stand. Id. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily 

terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge's 

decision the same deference that we would give to a jury verdict. See In re 

Child M, 452 Pa.Super. 230, 681 A.2d 793,800 (1996). 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. See In re 

Matsock, 416 Pa.Super. 520,611 A.2d 737, 742 (1992). In re c.s., 2000 

PA Super 318, 761 A.2d 1197, 1199 (Pa.Super. 2000). It is clear that in a 

termination proceeding, the focus is on the conduct of the parents. In the 

Interest of A.L.D., 2002 PA Super 104, 797 A.2d 326 (Pa.Super. 2002); In 

the Interest of MD. , 449 Pa. Super. 507, 674 A.2d 702 (Pa.Super. 2002). 

In the Matter of B.L. W, 2004 Pa. Super 30, P9; 843 A.2d 380,383 (2004). 

This Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother's parental 

rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 2511(a) (I), (2), (5), & (8).2 

The record demonstrates Mother's ongoing unwillingness to provide care or 

control for the children or perform any parental duties and her failure to remedy the 

conditions that brought the children into care. The documents and testimony discussed 

2 (a) General Rule. --The rights ofa parent regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any 

of the following grounds: 

(I) 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. 

(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 well-being 

and the conditions and causes ofthe incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by 

the parent. 

(5) The child has been removed from 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 01' placement of 

the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period 

of time, the services 01' 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 parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. 

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court 01' 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 placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights 

would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. 

10 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

below provided this Court clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's 

parental rights would be in the best interest ofEJ.B.C., J.A.R. and E.C.C. 

Mother's FSP Objectives were established on October 31, 2012. (Statement of 

Facts: E.C.C., attached as Exhibit "A" to Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights). Mother was ordered to comply with parenting classes, provide safe and 

adequate living conditions once released from prison, receive drug and alcohol treatment, 

maintain communication with DHS and the Provider Agency, receive ARC services and 

provide where whereabouts when released from prison. (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 10, lines 22-

25); (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 11, lines 1-8). The record shows that Mother has complied with 

her FSP Objectives. 

Mother has failed to comply with her parenting FSP Objective. Mother was 

referred to ARC twice. (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 12, lines 1-8). However, Mother failed to 

comply with the parenting classes resulting in her discharge from the program. (N.T. 

9/1812014, p. 12, lines 9-16). 

Mother has failed to comply with her drug and alcohol treatment FSP Objective. 

After every Court date, Mother has been referred to CEU for a drug and alcohol 

assessment, but has only attended the drug screens not the assessments. (N.T.9/18/2014, 

p. 12, lines 17-20); (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 13, lines 22-25); (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 14, lines 1-

3). Mother'S drug screens came back positive. (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 14, lines 4-8). She 

was referred to CEU because of past drug related offenses which led to her incarceration. 

(N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 13, lines 2-4). Mother has been incarcerated three times throughout 

the duration of this matter. (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 13, lines 10-12). 

Mother has also failed to comply with her housing FSP Objective. When Mother 

was first released from jail in March 2013, she did not have housing. (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 

11 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

14, lines 16-21). After being released from jail in May 2014, Mother again did not have 

appropriate housing for the children. (N.T. 9118/2014, p. IS, lines 2-7). DHS provided 

Mother an ARC referral for housing, but she did not complete the programs. (N.T. 

9/18/2014, p. 16, lines 22-25); (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 17, lines 1-3). 

Finally, Mother has failed to comply with her visitation FSP Objective. Mother 

has not consistently followed the visitation schedule throughout the life of this matter. 

(N.T. 9118/2014, p. 15, lines 16-17). Her last visit was on July 16,2013. (N.T. 

9/18/2014, p. 15, lines 10-12). Due to Mother's inconsistencies, weekly supervised visits 

were changed to biweekly supervised visits. (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 15, lines 20-25); (N.T. 

9/18/2014, p. 16, line 1). 

Based upon the testimony elicited at the Termination Hearing as well as the 

documents in evidence, this Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate 

Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 2511 (a) (1), (2), (5), & (8) as 

Mother has failed to remedy the conditions that brought the children into care and will 

not be able to provide adequate care for the children in the foreseeable future. 

This Court further found that because there was not a strong bond between 

Mother and her children, terminating Mother's parental rights would not cause the 

children irreparable harm and would be in the best interest of the children pursuant to 23 

Pa. C.S.A. §2511(b). 

This Court heard testimony from the DHS Worker concerning the lack of 

relationship between Mother and her children in contrast to the bond that exists between 

E.J.B.C., lA.H. and E.C.C. and their respective foster parent. 

The DHS Worker testified the children have developed a parental bond with the 

caregiver since being in her care for the past two years. (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 18, line I); 

12 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

(N.T. 9118/2014, p. 18, lines 12-14); (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 19, lines 5-7). The DHS Worker 

further testified, 

[G]randmother is very attentive to [E.C.C.'s] needs, showing all of his 

daily basic needs are being met. I watched her help him with his 

homework, just a very good relationship. 

(N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 18, lines 3-6). 

The DHS Worker also provided similar testimony regarding lA.H. and 

EJ.B.C. testifying, 

[J.A.H.] was very into Michael Jackson and I would see [Maternal 

Grandmother], you know, play videos and things for him so he could 

dance and, you know, just a really good relationship. She really talked 

about his birthday a lot. So his birthday was a big thing in the family to 

have like get-together, barbeques, things of that nature. 

(N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 18, lines 18-24). 

[EJ.B.C.] does have sickle cell anemia. [Maternal Grandmother] is on top 

of all of his appointments. Anytime, she has to take off of work because 

he gets sick, you know, she's right there. So they have a pretty good 

relationship, I would say as well. 

(N.T. 9118/2014, p. 19, lines 7-11). 

In addition, the DHS Worker testified that the children do not ask about their 

Mother. (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 19, lines 15-17). 

The DHS Worker testified further that E.J.B.C., J.A.H. and E.C.C. would not 

suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated, and that a goal 

change to adoption would be in the children's best interest. (N.T. 9/18/2014, p 19, lines 

18-25); (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 20, lines 1-4); (N.T. 9118/2014, p. 20, lines 15-18); (N.T. 

9118/2014, p. 33, lines 5-7); (N.T. 9/18/2014, p. 34, lines 3-12). The testimony of the 

DHS Worker was deemed credible and accorded great weight. 

As the testimony before this Court on September 18, 2014 indicates, the evidence 

is clear and convincing that Mother did not remedy the conditions that caused her 

13 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

children to come into care and thus has been and continues to be unable to provide proper 

care for her children, warranting involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights 

pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 2511(a) (1), (2), (5), & (8). This Court further concluded that 

termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the best interest of EJ.B.C., J.A.H. 

andE.C.C. 

CONCLUSION 

This Court, after careful review of the findings of fact, the testimony presented on 

September 18, 2014 and the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, finds clear and 

convincing evidence to terminate Mother, T.C. 's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 

251 I (a)(1), (2), (5), & (8). This court further finds that, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. 251 I (b), 

termination of T.C.'s parental rights would not have a detrimental effect on the children 

and would be in the children's best interest. For the foregoing reasons, this Court 

respectfully requests that the September 18, 2014 Order terminating Mother, T.C.'s 

parental rights to E.J.B.C., J.A.H. and E.C.C.be AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT: 

ALLAN L. TERESHKO, J. 

14 
Circulated 01/30/2015 03:37 PM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above-captioned Opinion was 

filed on * in the Court of Common Pleas ofPhilade1phia County Family 

Court Division and served by first class mail upon the following: 

Caitlin Dunston, Esq. 

Counsel for DHS 

City of Philadelphia Law Department 

1515 Arch Street, 16th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Jeffrey C. Bruch, Esq. 

Counsel for Mother 

1500 JFK Blvd, Suite 200 

Philadelphia, P A 19102 

Pamela Ende, Esq. 

Attorney for the Children 

Support Center for Child Advocates 

1900 Cherry Street 

Philadelphia, P A 19103 

ALLAN L. TERESHKO, J. 

15