J-S21004-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION 

OF: B.L.T.B.

APPEAL OF: C.B. A/K/A C.B., 

NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 84 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Decree Dated December 12, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): No. 2019-884 IVT

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION 

OF: D.J.T.B.

APPEAL OF: C.B. A/K/A C.B., 

NATURAL MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 85 WDA 2020

Appeal from the Decree Dated December 12, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 2019-885 IVT

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2020

C.B. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s final decrees1involuntarily 

terminating her parental rights to her minor children, B.L.T.B. (born 11/2010)

____________________________________________

1 We note that by filing two separate notices of appeal with one docket number 

on each notice, Mother has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v. 

Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), which held that “when a single order 
J-S21004-20

- 2 -

and D.J.T.B. (born 6/2009) (collectively, Children).

2

 After careful review, we 

affirm.

Cambria County Children and Youth Services (CYS) first became 

involved with Mother’s family in April 2012, when Mother was found

intoxicated in public with Children. She was arrested and incarcerated for

endangering the welfare of children. Children were placed in foster care. CYS 

developed the following permanency plan for Mother: complete a 

psychological evaluation and drug and alcohol assessment, submit to random 

drug screenings, and find and maintain housing for at least six months. 

Reunification was the listed goal at the July 2012 permanency review hearing. 

From April 2012 through February 2013, Mother was compliant with her plan 

objectives. In February 2013, Children were returned to Mother. At the next 

permanency hearing in March, Children were removed again from Mother’s 

custody after she appeared at the county courthouse for a hearing acting 

belligerent and registering a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .17. Mother was 

found to be minimally compliant or non-compliant with her plan at subsequent 

permanency hearings. 

____________________________________________

resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices 

of appeal must be filed.” Id. at 977. See also Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).

2 On February 3, 2020, our Court sua sponte consolidated the two appeals to 

be “briefed . . . as if but a single appeal.” Order, 2/3/20. See Pa.R.A.P. 513 

(consolidation of multiple appeals).
J-S21004-20

- 3 -

By March 2014, CYS changed the goal from reunification to kinship 

placement, with the hope that Children’s three older siblings could be placed 

in the same home as Children. At that point, CYS determined that “there was 

no progress on [Mother’s] part [and i]t became clear that [Mother] would not 

maintain consistent housing and participate in all of her services.” N.T. 

Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 22; id. at 23 (“It had become clear that 

[Mother] would not be able to provide a stable situation in terms of housing, 

financial stability, and she also continued to drink throughout this entire period 

and that affected her ability to parent in the long-term for [C]hildren.”).

In February 2016, CYS found aggravating circumstances with regard to 

Mother when she failed to maintain contact with the agency or Children for 

eight months.3 Although Mother enrolled in some drug and alcohol treatment 

programs after the placement goal was changed in March 2014, she provided 

no documentation to CYS to indicate that she had successfully completed the 

programs. Id. at 24. Moreover, Mother was still inconsistent with her mental 

health treatment4 and unable to remain sober enough to care for Children. 

Id. By October 2016, the court found that Mother was still non-compliant 

with her plan, had made minimal progress toward alleviating the 

____________________________________________

3 Mother apparently was in jail and a homeless shelter for some of that 

unaccounted for time-period. N.T .Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 114-15.

4 Mother admitted at the hearing that she was diagnosed, at the age of eight, 

with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant 

disorder (ODD), paranoid schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. N.T. 

Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 153.
J-S21004-20

- 4 -

circumstances that led Children to be removed from her care, and determined 

that she was no longer a placement option. At a March 2017 permanency 

review hearing, Mother was again found to be non-compliant and to have 

made no progress in alleviating the circumstances necessitating Children’s 

placement. From August 2017 through December 2018, the court found 

Children’s significant relationship with Mother and Father to be a compelling 

reason not to file petitions to terminate parental rights. However, by May 

2019, the court determined that the current placement goal was not 

appropriate or feasible, discontinued visitation for Mother, changed the goal 

to adoption, and concluded that CYS had exhausted all available resources to 

assist Mother’s family.5

On September 4, 2019, CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate 

Mother’s parental rights to Children. On December 4, 2019, the court held a 

termination hearing, at which three CYS caseworkers, a court-appointed 

educational decision maker for CYS, a program supervisor of a permanency 

program, a fieldworker for Independent Family Services (IFS), a CYS social 

worker, Father, Mother and a blended caseworker from Alternative 

____________________________________________

5 Mother was arrested before an August 2019 hearing on an outstanding 

warrant. At her next permanency hearing, Mother, who had since been 

released from prison, appeared “well dressed,” was “well spoken” and 

informed the court she was employed. N.T. Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 

117.
J-S21004-20

- 5 -

Community Resource Program (ACRP) in Johnstown testified.

6 The court 

subsequently entered decrees involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental 

rights to Children under sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b) of the Adoption 

Act.7

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.8 She presents the following issues 

for our consideration:

(1) Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or 

manifestly abused its discretion in determining [CYS] sustained its 

burden of proving the termination of []Mother[’s] parental rights 

is warranted under [s]ections 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2), and/or 

2511(a)(5) of the Adoption Act?

(2) [W]hether the [t]rial [c]ourt nevertheless erred as a matter of 

law and/or manifestly abused its discretion in determining [CYS] 

sustained its additional burden of proving the termination of 

Mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the Children?

Appellant’s Brief, at 7 (amended for conciseness).

____________________________________________

6 The court appointed independent counsel, Suzann Lehmier, Esquire, for 

Children and found that their best interests and legal interests did not conflict. 

See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) (children have statutory right to counsel in 

contested involuntary termination proceedings) and In re K.R., 200 A.3d 969 

(Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc), but see In Re: T.S., E.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 

(Pa. 2018) (“[D]uring contested termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, 

where there is no conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an 

attorney-guardian ad litem representing the child’s best interests can also 

represent the child’s legal interests.”). 

7 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.

8 Although the trial court did not order Mother to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, she did, in fact, file a 

statement.
J-S21004-20

- 6 -

Mother contends that the court erred in terminating her rights under 

sections 2511(a) and (b), where CYS did not prove its burden by clear and 

convincing evidence. We disagree.

Instantly, CYS provided services to Mother from 2012 until May 2019, 

with the goal of reunification with Children. Mother last saw Children in 

December 2018. Children had been in placement for more than seven and 

one-half years at the time of the termination hearing. CYS determined that 

in addition to Mother’s lack of compliance with her plan, she also has a history 

of domestic abuse with Father, has been involved in a cycle of criminal activity, 

has a history of lack of housing and “[is] unable to provide for [her]sel[f], let 

alone [C]hildren.” N.T. Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 26. When CYS 

believed it had exhausted all resources available to assist Mother’s family, it 

filed its petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Specifically, CYS 

caseworker Ramona Reed testified that Children “deserve consistency in their 

health, safety, and welfare [and] . . . need a safe, stable environment.” Id.

Doctor John Jubas, a court-appointed educational decision maker for 

CYS who had been involved in Children’s case for approximately four years, 

opined: “[T]o uproot these children from this particular environment right 

now would be detrimental” where they “have been embraced by the school[, 

. . .] embraced by their [foster] family[, and] the community has accepted 

these children.” Id. at 65. Doctor Jubas testified that since Children have 

ceased visiting with Mother and Father, he has noticed more stability and a 

positivity with Children. Id. at 61. The doctor also stressed that at Children’s 
J-S21004-20

- 7 -

current ages where they are on the heels of entering middle school, it is 

imperative that they stay in their current supportive environment “in order to 

branch the[ir educational and social] success.” Id. at 67-71. Finally, Dr. 

Jubas testified that Children have finally “found love” in a new “family unit” 

that “give[s] them [] comfort when times are bad, give[s] them [] comfort 

when times are sad[, b]ut also gives them [] comfort when everything is going 

great [like now].” Id. at 72.

Cindy Hajjar, a program supervisor at a visitation home where children 

in foster care visit with their birth parents, testified regarding two visits 

Children had with Mother. She stated that Children became very physical with 

Mother, to the point where D.J.T.B. had Mother in a headlock in the parking 

lot. When a staff member directed Child to cease the behavior, Mother told 

the employee that is was OK because they “need[ed] to make him tough.” 

Id. at 75. Mother also reportedly pushed the Children onto the floor when 

they would run at her during visits, despite the fact that they were directed to 

stop by staff. Id. Ms. Hajjar described Mother’s relationship with Children as 

“more of a sibling-sibling relationship” where Mother “did not parent them in 

the sense that she would correct them[.]” Id. at 77. Rather, Ms. Hajjar 

testified that Children’s oldest sibling was the individual they would look to for 

direction at visits. Finally, Ms. Hajjar testified that she would have concerns 

if Children were returned to Mother because they do not have a true parentchild bond with her and she does not believe that they would be able to parent 

them and direct them appropriately. Id. at 79.
J-S21004-20

- 8 -

Kathy Scaife, a fieldworker for IFS, scheduled 42 in-home appointments 

with Mother from September 2012 to March 2014. Mother attended 27 of the 

scheduled meetings. For the first six months of Scaife’s services, Mother had 

obtained housing. However, after that time period, Mother was evasive in 

giving Ms. Scaife information and her compliance and progress with service 

objectives steadily declined. Ms. Scaife testified that she did not believe 

Mother had shown sufficient progress to make her capable of obtaining, 

keeping or providing a safe home for Children. Id. at 86. In fact, IFS’s March 

2014 discharge summary for Mother noted that local police had indicated 

Mother continued to have issues with domestic violence, and substance abuse, 

and that criminal charges were pending against her. Both IFS and CYS 

workers did not believe Mother understood how her actions negatively affected 

her ability to care for Children, or that Mother would ever understand that her 

own behavior and actions could result in Children’s ultimately being adopted. 

Finally, Ms. Scaife testified that she supported both the goal change and 

termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children. Id. at 87.

CYS caseworker Ashley Shaffer, who provides in-home parenting 

decision-making services, testified that she worked with Mother from 

September 2012 to September 2013. Ms. Shaffer testified that Mother was 

inconsistent in attending her appointments and, although she did well the first 

six months of her services, Mother’s drinking, parenting skills and mental 

health became a problem again, necessitating Children being returned to 

placement in April 2013. Mother did not take her prescribed medication for 
J-S21004-20

- 9 -

her mental health issues while she worked with Ms. Shaffer, causing Mother 

to be hyperactive to the point of making her incapable of parenting Children. 

Mother did not understand why she needed to curb her drinking during visits 

with Children and did not comprehend how her noncompliance with mental 

health and drug and alcohol services affected her ability to keep Children safe. 

Id. at 93. In fact, Mother appeared to be under the influence of alcohol at 

several of her appointments with Ms. Shaffer and her staff. In September 

2013, Mother was discharged from CYS in-home parenting services due to her 

repeated failure to attend appointments. Ms. Schaffer testified that it would 

not be safe to return Children to Mother unsupervised, where she still needed 

treatment, counseling, parenting skills training and medication. Finally, Ms. 

Schaffer testified that termination would be in Children’s best interests, would 

not be detrimental to them where they have been in foster care for seven 

years and need permanency in their lives, and that it would be very difficult 

to transition them back into Mother’s home having been in placement for such 

an extended period of time. Id. at 95, 99.

Beginning in April 2018, Tammi Yeckley worked with CYS to establish 

permanency for Children by consulting with a team of professionals. At first 

the team sought to keep Children and their older siblings together in kinship 

placement. However, when this proved to be an impossible task, Ms. Yeckley 

moved toward permanency for Children, which ultimately made Children 

eligible for adoption through the foster care process. Ms. Yeckley testified 
J-S21004-20

- 10 -

that it would be in Children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights. Id. at 107. 9

At the termination hearing, Mother testified that she missed visits with 

Children because she was either incarcerated at the time, in rehabilitation, or 

in a psychiatric hospital. Id. at 153. She testified that she is currently on 

medications for her mental health conditions, see supra at n.5, has a support 

system in her church and church family, has not seen Children since December 

2018, but talks to Children on the phone frequently, has been sober for 

months, has obtained housing, and is filing for divorce from Father to whom 

she has been married since 2011 and with whom she has been in an ongoing, 

abusive relationship. Id. at 154-58. Mother also acknowledged that she has 

emotionally damaged Children with her drinking problem; however, she 

expressed her desire to remain in Children’s lives, even if the court terminated 

her parental rights. Id. at 159. Finally, Mother indicated that she is not 

engaged in any type of alcohol or drug treatment, but “really stay[s] involved 

with the church” which is her support system and uses her deacon as her 

“sponsor.” Id. at 169.

Mother concedes she did not make any real effort to comply with CYS’ 

plan to reunify with Children until August of September of 2019 – more than 

____________________________________________

9 All witnesses who testified on behalf of CYS recommended that Children 

continue contact with their three older siblings with whom they are bonded.
J-S21004-20

- 11 -

seven years after Children were removed from her care. Id. at 165.10 As this 

Court has emphasized, “a child’s life cannot be held in abeyance while a parent 

attempts to attain the maturity necessary to assume parenting 

responsibilities. The court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s 

need for permanence and stability to a parent’s claims of progress and hope 

for the future.” In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 

2006). 

The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Children are in need of 

permanency and are thriving in a foster home that is a pre-adoptive resource 

where they receive the love, emotional, physical and developmental support 

and stability they so deserve. Record evidence, particularly that of Dr. Jubas,

pports the fact that termination would be in Children’s best interests. Based 

on this clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the trial court’s decrees 

terminating Mother’s parental rights under sections 2511(a)(1)11 (grounds for 

termination include parental conduct “continuing for a period of at least six 

____________________________________________

10 Mother’s blended case manager testified that she did not begin working with 

Mother until September 30, 2019 — 26 days after CYS filed the instant 

termination petitions. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (“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.”).

11 We note that “we may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis 

exists for the result reached.” See In re B.C., 36 A.3d 601, 606 (Pa. Super. 

2012).
J-S21004-20

- 12 -

months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either [] evidenc[ing] 

a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or [] refus[ing] or 

fail[ing] to perform parental duties.”) and § 2511(b) (“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.”).12 

Decrees affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/24/2020

____________________________________________

12 Tragically, over the 71⁄2 years Children have been in placement, they have 

been in and out of 15 different foster homes.