J-A28015-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: R.B.S., JR., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.B.S., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 858 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 27, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County Orphans' Court at No(s): 

2020-00011

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: MARCH 15, 2022

R.B.S. (Father) appeals from the decree, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Mifflin County, Orphans’ Court Division, involuntarily 

terminating his parental rights to R.B.S., Jr. (Child) (born 12/10),1 pursuant 

to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act.2 After 

careful review, we affirm based on the opinion authored by the Honorable 

Aaron L. Gingrich.

3

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The court also terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child. Mother’s appeal 

is docketed at 812 MDA 2021. 

2 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.

3 Guardian ad litem, Erica J. Shoaf, did not file a brief, stating she supported 

the brief filed by Appellee Mifflin County Children and Youth Services (Agency). 

See Letter, 10/15/21. Child was also represented at the hearing by Brian R. 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A28015-21

- 2 -

The family has a history with the Agency pertaining to concerns of 

domestic and sexual abuse, drug use, lack of supervision and other safety 

concerns. On December 1, 2017, following Mother’s arrest with three of her 

four children in the car with her, and Father testing positive for cocaine, Child 

and his three siblings were adjudicated dependent and placed in the custody 

of the Agency. See Dependency Order of Adjudication, 12/1/17. 

In his opinion, Judge Gingrich sets forth the history of this case: 

[Child] has a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD]. 

[Child’s] mental health has deteriorated throughout the duration 

of this case. The underlying facts of [Child’s] PTSD are hard to 

discern. [Child] alleges that Father sexually abused him and his 

siblings, which has led to many of [Child’s] mental health issues 

throughout this case. These allegations were [deemed] 

unfounded by the Agency. However, through extensive 

testimony, [Child] has witnesse[d], and potentially been 

subject[ed] to, domestic violence at the hands of [] Father. 

Additionally, [Child] has special education services and an 

individualized education plan [(IEP)] through the school. [Child] 

has significant mental health concerns[,] which has caused him to 

move placements three times during the course of this case. 

____________________________________________

Baker, Esquire. See In re: Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172, 180 (Pa.

2017) (“[W]hen a child’s relationship with his or her birth family could be 

severed permanently and against the wishes of the parents, the legislature 

made the policy judgment, as is evidenced from the plain, unambiguous 

language of the statute, that a lawyer who represents the child’s legal 

interests, and who is directed by the child, is a necessity.”). As our Court has 

explained, a child’s legal interests are distinct from his best interests. In re: 

Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d at 174. Representing the child’s “‘[l]egal 

interests denotes that an attorney is to express the child’s wishes to the court 

regardless of whether the attorney agrees with the child’s recommendation,” 

while guardian ad litem discerns the child’s best interests; in each case, these

interests are ultimately determined by the orphans’ court.” In re: Adoption 

of K.M.G., 240 A.3d at 1243 n.20 (quoting In re: T.S., 192 A.3d at 1082 n.2 

(quoting Pa.R.J.C.P. 1154, cmt.)); see also In re: Adoption of L.B.M., 161 

A.3d at 174 n.2.
J-A28015-21

- 3 -

[Child] struggles with suicidal ideation, violent outbursts, and 

goes to trauma therapy weekly. 

[] Mother and Father had an incredibly tumultuous relationship. 

Mother testified that the relationship was abusive and codependent, and both Mother and Father struggled with drug use. 

Additionally, there were allegations of physical and sexual abuse 

by Father toward both Mother and the children. [ ] Father 

vehemently denies the allegations that he ever sexually abused 

his children, and no criminal charges have ever been filed against 

Father for the alleged sexual abuse of [Child] or [Child’s] three 

siblings. . . . Father’s visits were suspended [on December 17, 

2019] due to the allegations of sexual abuse, and due to Father 

being incarcerated. 

Trial Court Opinion, 5/24/21, at 1-3. 

Following the dependency adjudication, the Agency developed a Child 

Permanency Plan, which included the following parental objectives for Father: 

live a crime and drug-free lifestyle; maintain stable housing and income; 

ensure mental health needs are met through counseling and medication 

management; demonstrate parenting skills necessary to meet Child’s 

emotional, developmental, and physical needs; and cooperate with Agency 

and service providers. Although Father’s visits with Child were suspended on 

December 17, 2019, due to the abuse allegations, the Agency continued to 

provide services to Father. 

Father was able to maintain housing and employment, however he was 

incarcerated twice throughout the dependency proceeding, refused 21 of 28 

drug screens, and tested positive for cocaine on January 9, 2019. Despite a 

three-year effort by the Agency and Families in Crisis Services (FICS), Father’s

progress was “minimal” throughout dependency. Notably, Father attended 
J-A28015-21

- 4 -

only 6 of 39 parenting education sessions and 12 out of 40 counseling 

sessions. Once incarcerated, Father attended all scheduled sessions. After 

his release, however, Father attended only 17 of 28 sessions. See N.T. 

Termination Hearing, 3/10/21, at 320-31. The Agency petitioned for 

termination of Father’s parental rights on June 4, 2020. After September 5, 

2020, Father failed to attend any counseling or parenting sessions, 

complaining that they cut into his “me” time. Id. at 320-21. 

At the termination hearings on February 2, 2021, and March 10, 2021, 

the court heard testimony from Agency assistant director, Nicole Patkalitsy, 

Dr. Kristen Hennessy, Child’s treating psychologist and expert in childhood 

trauma, David G. Ray, a licensed psychologist, and Darlene Griffith, a family 

counselor at Family Intervention Crisis Services (FICS), who provided 

reunification services to both Father and Mother. Following the hearings, the 

court terminated Father’s parental rights to Child.4 

____________________________________________

4 The relevant grounds for termination, as set forth 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, are 

as follows:

(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may 

be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following 

grounds:

(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.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A28015-21

- 5 -

On appeal, Father raises one issue: “Whether [Father] will be able to 

remedy the conditions causing his current incapacity?” Appellant’s Brief, at 7. 

Although the court terminated Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 

sections 2511(a)(2), (5) and (8), Father’s appeal addresses only section 

2511(a)(2). See Appellant’s Brief, at 7-9. See also supra n.4. 

In cases involving termination of parental rights, “our standard of review 

is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by 

competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration 

to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.” In re Z.P., 994 

____________________________________________

. . .

(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.

23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5) & (8).
J-A28015-21

- 6 -

A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa. 

Super. 2009)). “Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient 

evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand.” In 

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

omitted). On review, “we employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record 

in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by 

competent evidence.” Id. 

Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one 

subsection of [s]ection 2511(a) is satisfied, along with 

consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions. Initially, the 

focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking 

termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 

parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination 

delineated in [s]ection 2511(a). Only if the court determines that 

the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his . . . parental 

rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis 

pursuant to [s]ection 2511(b): determination of the needs and 

welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the 

child. 

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

Notably, the Agency has provided services for the past three years, yet 

Father frames his issue in terms of future ability. Father states he “believes 

the court erred in failing to consider [his] ability to remedy said incapacity in 

the near future.” Appellant’s Brief, at 9-10. This argument is meritless. 

Simply stated, Father is out of time. See In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 

(Pa. Super. 2004) (“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.”).
J-A28015-21

- 7 -

We also note that Father presented no evidence of a bond between 

Father and Child, and the Agency presented considerable evidence that Child 

is bonded with his foster family, an adoptive resource. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

2511(b). See also In re J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 943-44 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(stating that, in performing best-interest analysis pursuant to section 2511(b), 

trial court should consider parent-child bond, if any exists, safety needs of the 

child, intangibles, such as love, comfort, security, and stability child may have 

with current caregiver, and importance of continuing any relationship child 

may have with caregiver); In re Z.P., supra (evidence was sufficient to 

establish father had no bond with child and remaining with foster parents or 

being adopted would serve child’s best interests). 

After our review, we find no abuse of discretion or error of law. B.L.W., 

supra. Accordingly, we rely on Judge Gingrich’s opinion to affirm the decree 

terminating his parental rights to Child, and we direct the parties to attach a 

copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings. See Trial Court 

Opinion 5/24/21, at 12-13, 17-18) (finding Agency established clear and 

convincing evidence for terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 

section 2511(a)(2); finding “no bond or attachment between [Child] and 

Father” and terminating Father’s parent rights best serves Child’s 

developmental, emotional, and physical needs pursuant to section 2511(b)). 

Decree affirmed.
J-A28015-21

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/15/2022
Circulated QJ 

21 -C• 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON FLEAS OF MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYL,'VANIA 

ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION 

IN RE: 

R. B. S. jr,, 

a minor child. 

Parental Action No. 11 of 2.020 

ORDER and OPINION 

AND NOW, this J •i.ay of May, 2021, upon consideration of the Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights, filed by Mifflin County Children and Youth Social Services Agency 

(hereinafter "Agency") to terminate the parental rights of AAWB00 and R@• Sys, Sr., it 

is hereby ORDERED and DECREED said Petition is GRANTED. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

R.B.S. Jr. was born on December t 2010, and at the time of the termination here was ten (10) 

years old. The natural mother of R.B.S. Jr. is AAM BdW (hereafter "Mother") and the natural father 

of R.B.S. Jr. is Row wwSX*wxW Sr. (hereafter "Father). R.B.S. Jr. was adjudicated dependent, along 

with 'his three (3) siblings on December 1, 2017. R.B.S. Jr: s siblings have since returned to care of 

Mother. 

On November 19, 2017, Mother was arrested with three of her four children in the car with 

her. Mother was arrested for driving with a suspended license, endangering the welfare of children, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under the influence of a controlled substance, driving 

with operating privilege is suspended or revoked, general lighting requirements, and failure to use 

a safety belt system. Father, on November 20, 2017, had tested positive for cocaine. The children, 

I 

IN TIME COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MIFFLIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION 

IN RE: 

R.BS. Jr., 

a minor child. 

Parental Action No. 11 of 2020 

ODER and OPINION 

AND NOW, th,s 

2f�ay 

cl J\.fay, 2021, upon consideration of the Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Parental Rights, filed by Mifflin County Children and Youth Social Services Agency 

(hereinafter "Agency")to terminate the parental rights of A.a B and Ra S 

is hereby ORDERED and DECREED said Petition is GRANTED. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

, Sr., It 

RB.S. Jr. was born on December 2010, and at the time of the termination here was ten (10) 

years old. The natural mother oiR.B.S.Jr.is AA B (hereafter " Mother"} and the natural father 

o£RBS.Jr.is Re»S Sr. (hereafter "Father). R.B.S. Jr. was adjudicated dependent, along 

with his three {3) siblings on December 1, 2017. RB.S. Jr's siblings have since returned to care of 

Mother. 

On November 19, 2017, Mother was arrested with three of her {our children in the car with 

her. Mother was arrested for driving with a suspended license, endangering the welfare of cduldrer, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, driving under the influence of a controlled substance, driving 

with operating privilege is suspended or revoked, general lighting requirements, and failure to use 

a safety beit system. Father, on November 20, 2017, had tested positive for cocaine. The children, 

1 
including R.B.S. Jr., were taken into protective custody, and were all adjudicated dependent on 

December 1, 2017. 

The Agency made parental objectives for Mother and Father. Mother's objectives were her 

protective capacity, meeting her mental health needs, ensuring medical, emotional, and physical 

needs are met, safe and stable housing, stable income, a drug free life, proper parenting, and agency 

cooperation. Father's objectives were similar to Mother's objectives. Case Supervisor, Nicole 

Patkalitsky, testified that Mother and Father have failed to alleviate any of the concerns that led to 

adjudication. 

R.B.S. Jr. is the child subject to this termination. R.B.S. Jr. has a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (hereafter "PTSD"). R.B.S. Jr.'s mental health has deteriorated throughout the 

duration of this case. The underlying facts of R.B.S. Jr.'s PTSD are hard to discern. R.B.S. Jr. alleges 

that Father sexually abused him and his siblings, which has led to many of R.B.S. Jr.'s mental health 

issues throughout this case. These allegations were unfounded by the Agency. However, through 

extensive testimony, R.B.S. Jr. has witnesses, and potentially been subject to, domestic violence at 

the hands of his Father. Additionally, R.B.S. Jr. has special education services and an individualized 

education plan (hereafter "IEP") through the school. R.B.S. Jr. has significant mental health concerns, 

which has caused him to move placements three times during the course of this case. R.B.S. Jr. 

struggles with suicidal ideation, violent outbursts, and goes to trauma therapy weekly. 

Testimony provided that Mother and Father had an incredibly tumultuous relationship. 

Mother testified that the relationship was abusive and co-dependent, and both Mother and Father 

2 

including RR.BS. Jr., were taken. into protective custody, and were all adjudicated dependent on 

December 1, 2017. 

The Agency made parental objectives for Mother and Father. Mother's objectives were her 

protective capacity, meeting her mental health needs, ensuring medical, emotional, and physical 

needs are met, safe and stable housing, stable income, a drug fee life, proper parenting, and agency 

cooperation. Father's objectives were similar to Mothers objectives. Case Supervisor, Nicole 

Patkalitsky, 

testified that Mother and Father have failed to alleviate any of the concerns that led to 

adjudication 

R.BS. Jr. is the child subject to this termination. RB.S. Jr. has a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (hereafter "PTSD". RBS. Jr's mental health has deteriorated throughout the 

duration of this case. The underlying facts of R.B.S. Jr's PTSD are hard to discern. RB.S. Jr. alleges 

that Father sexually abused him and his siblings, which has led to mar.y of R.B.S. Jr.'s mental health 

issues throughout this case. These allegations were unfounded by the Agency, However, through 

extensive testimony, RB.S. Jr. has witnesses, and potentially been subject to, domestic violence at 

the hands of his Father. Additionally, R.B.S. Jr. has special education services and an individualizer 

education plan {hereafter "TEP") trough the school. R.B.S.Jr. has significant mental health concems, 

which has caused him to move placements three times during the course of this case. R.B.S. Jr 

struggles with suicidal ideation, violent outbursts, and goes to trauma therapy weekly. 

Testimony provided that Mother and Father had an incredibly tumultuous relationship 

Mother testified that the relationship was abusive and co-dependent, and both Mother and Father 

2 
struggled with drug use, Additionally, there were allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Father 

toward both Mother and the children. Mother testified that it was very confusing to discern the 

truth of these statements, While Mother testified that she now believes there was sexual abuse, and 

that the children have since opened up to her about their experience (expect for R,B,S. Jr. as visitation 

was suspended which will be discussed below), Mother testified that the children often would tell 

her sexual abuse happened, and then quickly recant. However, when Mother found a suspicious 

substance in R.B.S. Jr.'s underwear, she did notify the Agency and take the child to the hospital. 

Mother testified that it confused her when the Agency deemed the allegations as unfounded, and 

then two of the children told her sexual abuse did not happen. However, Mother testified that one 

of her children is ready to come forward and pursue criminal action against Father, and that Mother 

now understands there was abuse and supports all of her children, including R.B.S. Jr. in receiving 

help. Father vehemently derides the allegations that he ever sexually abused his children, and no 

criminal charges have ever been filed against Father for the alleged sexual abuse of R.B.S, Jr. or his 

three siblings. The Agency, however, testified that not believing and supporting R.B.S. Jr.'s 

allegations from the beginning, and consistently throughout, points to Mother's lack of protective 

capacity, one of Mother's goals. Dr. Hennessy further testified that Mother not consistently believing 

R.B.S. Jr, has caused R.B.S. Jr. to be re-traumatized. 

The Agency additionally had concerns that it tools Mother such a long time to leave Father. 

Case workers testified that Mother would lie about having contact with Father, hid his belongings 

in her home, allowed the children access to Father, failed to obtain a Protection From Abuse, and 

3 

struggled with drug use. Additionally, 

there were allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Father 

toward both Mother and the children. Mother testified that it was very con:using to discern the 

truth of these statements. While Mother testified that she now believes there was sexual abuse, and 

that the children have since opened up to her about their experience (expect for RB.S.Jr. as visitation 

was suspended which will be discussed below), Mother testified that the children often would veil 

her sexual abuse happened, and then quickly recant. However, when Mother found a suspicious 

substance in R.BS. Jr's underwear, she did notify the Agency and take :he child to the hospital 

Mother testified that it confused her when the Agency deemed the allegations as unfounded, and 

then two of the children told her sexual abuse did not happen. However, Mother testified that one 

of her children is ready to come forward and pursue criminal action against Father, and that Mother 

now understands there was abuse and supports all of her children, including R.B.S. Jr. in receiving 

help. Father vehemently denies the allegations that he ever sexualiy abused his children, and no 

criminal charges have ever been filed against Father {or the alleged sexual abuse of R.B.S. Jr or his 

three siblings. The Agency, however, testified that rot believing and supporting RB.S. Jr's 

allegations from the beginning, and consistently throughout, points to Mother's lack of protective 

capacity, 

one of Mother's goals. Dr. Hennessy further testified that Mother not consistently believing 

R.B.S. Jr has caused RB.S. Jr. to be te-traumatized. 

The Agency additionally had concems that it took Mother such a long time to leave Father 

Case workers testified that Mother would lie about having contact with Father, hid his belongings 

in her home, allowed the children access to Father, failed to obtain a Protection From Abuse, and 

3 
this all demonstrated her lack of protective capacity. Mother testified that these allegations from the 

Agency are not true. Mother stated that she worked with the Abuse Network and was guided to 

wait until Father was nearly out o£ jail before obtaining a PFA. Additionally, Mother kept Father's 

belongings in a shed away from the children, except for a television because Mother did not believe 

that a television would trigger the children. Mother testified she kept these belongings until she 

could find a third party to give the belongings back to Father. Additionally, Mother testified that 

the children never had access to get into contact with Father. Mother testified that while the children 

play on her phone the number to the jail Father was incarcerated in was blocked, and she only 

unblocked the jail number near the end of Father's incarceration to attempt to give his belongings to 

a third party, and promptly blocked the number again. Mother does believe that R.B,S. Jr. has been 

traumatized by the domestic violence in the home and the combined drug use of her and Father 

before Mother got sober. 

The Agency took a large issue over Mother's alleged inconsistency and her alleged inability 

to tell the Agency the truth. The Agency also had extensive testimony about Mother's alleged 

inability to "buy in" to R.B.S. Jr.'s trauma. The Agency had Kristen Hennessy, Ph.D,, licensed 

psychologist, testify to her time with R.B.S. Jr., as well as conversations with Mother. Dr. Hennessey 

testified that R.B.S. Jr. does not feel safe due to Mother's behaviors. Dr. Hennessey testified that she 

believes Mother is not consistent in believing that R.B.S. Jr. was traumatized by both Mother and 

Father. Dr. Hennessey testified that R.B.S. Jr. has very specific triggers and very volatile responses 

to triggers. R,B.S, Jr. has on previous occasions attempted to harm himself and his foster parents. 

4 

this all demonstrated her lack of protective capacity. Mother testified that these allegations from the 

Agency are not true. Mother stated that she worked with the Abuse Network and was guide to 

wait until Father was nearly out of jail before obtaining a PFA. Additionally, Mother kept Father's 

belongings in a shed away irom the children, except for a television because Mother did not believe 

that a television would trigger the children. Mother testified she kept these belongings until she 

could find a third party to give the belongings back t Father. Additionally, Mother testified that 

the children never had access to get into contact with Father. Mother testified that while the children 

play on her phone the number to the jail Father was incarcerated in was blocked, and she only 

unblocked the jail number near the end of Father's incarceration to attempt to give his belongings to 

a third party, 

and promptly blocked the number again. Mother does believe that R.B.S. Jr has been 

traumatized by the domestic violence in the home and the combined drug use of her and Father 

before Mother got sober. 

The Agency took a large issue over Mother's alleged inconsistency and her alleged inability 

to tell the Agency the truth. The Agency also had extensive testimony about Mother's alleged 

inability to "buy in" to R.B.S. Jr's trauma. The Agency had Kristen Hennessy, Ph.D., licensed 

psychologist, testify to her time with R.BS.Jr, as well as conversations with Mother. Dr. Hennessey 

testified that R.B.S.Jr. does not fee] safe due to Mother's behaviors. Dr. Hennessey testified that she 

believes Mother is not consistent in believing that R.B.S. Jr. was traumatized by both Mother and 

Father. Dr. Hennessey testified that RB.S. Jr. has very specific triggers and very volatile responses 

to triggers. RB.S Jr. has on previous occasions attempted to harm himself and his foster parents. 

4 
Some of the discussed triggers were images of Minnie Mouse (said to remind hire of his biological 

sister), noise makers (which remind him of Father), and Zoom visitation (due to unfounded 

allegations that technology played a role in R.B.S. jr,'s sexual assault). Visits with Father have been 

suspended since November 8, 2019, Mother's visits were suspended on December 17, 2019, and 

visitation with R.B.S. Jr.'s siblings was suspended on July 14, 2020. 

There was extensive testimony over the suspended visitation. Father's visits were suspended 

due to the allegations of sexual abuse, and due to Father being incarcerated. Dr. Hennessy 

recommended suspending Mother's visitation after receiving information from R.B.S. Jr.'s 

placement at the time that when he was told about visits, he would have sexual and violent reactions. 

The incident Dr. Hennessy specifically outlined was when R.B.S. Jr. was told about a visit he began 

smacking his butt, attempting to stab his butt with chapstick, and then putting the chapstick in his 

mouth. This incident was followed by pushing his foster parents, stating he wanted to die, 

attempting to choke himself, and hurting his feet on a wall. During this incident, R.B.S. Jr. did say 

he wanted his Mother. Dr. Hennessy testified that R.B.S. Jr. is extremely conflicted about his feelings 

toward his Mother and that he does want to see her, he wants a relationship with her, but he does 

not feel safe in her care, Dr. Hennessy ultimately asked for suspended visitation with Mother 

because R.B.S. Jr. was having these violent outbursts, and she wanted him to settle into the foster 

home, learn how to manage his emotions before attempting to visit with Mother. Dr. Hennessy then 

recommended suspending visitation with R.B.S. Jr.'s siblings after the siblings were returned to 

Mother's home. In her letter recommending suspending, visitation with the siblings, Dr. Hennessy 

5 

Some of the discussed triggers were images of Minnie Mouse (said to remind him of his biological 

sister), noise makers (which remind him of Father), and Zoom visitation (due to unfounded 

allegations that technology played a role in R.B.S. Jr.'s sexual assault). Visits with Father have been 

suspended since November 8, 2019, Mother's visits were suspended on December 17, 2019, and 

visitation wth R.B.S. Jr's siblings was suspended on July 14, 2020 

There was extensive testimony over the suspended visitation. Father's visits were suspended 

due to the allegations of sexual abuse, and due to Father being incarcerated. Dr. Hennessy 

recommended suspending Mother's visitation after receiving information from R.BS. Jr's 

placement arthe time that when he was told about visits, he would have sexual and violent reactions. 

The incident Dr. Hennessy specifically outlined was when R.B.S. Jr. was told about a visit he began 

smacking his butt, attempting to stab his butt with chapstick, and then putting the chapsnick in his 

mouth. This incident was followed by pushing his foster parents, stating he wanted to die, 

attempting to choke himself, and hurting his feet on a wall. During this incident, R.B.S. Jr. did say 

he wanted his Mother. Dr. Hennessy testified that RB.S. Jr.is extremely conflicted about his feelings 

toward his Mother and that he does want to see her, he wants a relationship with her, but he does 

not feel sate in her care. Dr. Henessy ultimately asked for suspended visitation with Mother 

because RB.S. Jr. was having these violent outbursts, and she wanted him to settle into the foster 

home, 'earn how to manage his emotions before attempting to visit with Mother. Dr. Hennessy then 

recommended suspending visitation with R.B.S. Jr's siblings after the siblings were returned to 

Mother's home. In her letter recommending suspending visitation with the siblings, Dr. Hennessy 

5 
noted that R.B.S. Jr. was doing better but after the siblings had been returned to Mother's home, 

there became issues with the visits. Dr. Hennessy wrote that R.B.S. Jr. had reactions to how much 

the siblings spoke about Mother, and that he had been thinking about Mother more. He then asked 

to read the letter his Mother wrote him, which made him upset. The next day, R.B.S. Jr. was in such 

a state of crisis, he was in an inpatient facility. R.B.S. Jr. has not had contact with any family member 

since this time. 

Dr. Hennessy testified that this arrangement should have been reassessed frequently, every 

thirty (30) to sixty (60) days, but that there was never a formal review of the suspended visitation. 

The Agency and Dr. Hennessey have set out tasks for Mother to complete even though visits were 

suspended which Mother did complete. One task was to get R.B.S. Jr. a gift, which Mother did, 

Testimony provided from Dr. Hennessey was that it was ultimately decided not to give the gift to 

R.B.S. Jr. because the gift "smelled" like Mother and Dr. Hennessey feared a triggered response from 

R.B.S. Jr. would occur. Additionally, there was testimony that Mother wrote two letters to R.B.S. Jr, 

after visits were suspended. Mother asked that the first letter not be shared, because Mother 

recognized there was language and phrasing in the letter that may trigger R.B.S. jr. Afterward, 

Mother wrote a second letter which R.B.S. Jr. asked to be read to him. Dr. Hennessey testified that 

after she read the letter, R.B,S. Jr. had a negative reaction and became scared of Dr. Hennessey, as 

well as having a crisis that led him to inpatient care. Dr. Hennessy also testified that since suspended 

visits, R.B.S. Jr. has expressed desire to be with Mother, see Mother, or return to her care, but that he 

also does not feel safe with Mother, and expresses more desire to be adopted by his foster family. 

6 

noted that R.B.S. Jr. was doing better but after the siblings had been returned to Mother's home, 

there became issues with the visits. Dr. Hennessy wrote that RBS. Jr. had reactions to how much 

the siblings spoke about Mother, and that he had been thinking about Mother more. He then asked 

to read the letter his Motter wrote him, which made him upset. The next day, R.BS. Jr. was in such 

a state of crisis, he was in an inpatient a~lity. RB.S. Jr. has not had contact with any family member 

since this time. 

Dr. Hennessy testified that this arrangement should have been reassessed frequently, every 

thirty (30) to sixty (60) days, 

but that there was never a formal review of the suspended visitation 

The Agency and Dr. Hennessey have set out tasks for Mother to complete even though visits were 

suspended which Mother did complete. One task was to get R.B.S. Jr. a gift, which Mother did. 

Testimony provided from Dr. Hennessey was that it was ultimatey l decided not to give the gift to 

RB.S. Jr. because the gift"smelled" Like Mother and Dr. Hennessey feared a triggered response from 

R.BS. Jr. would occur. Additionally, 

there was testimony that Mother wrote two letters to R.B.S. Jr. 

after visits were suspended. Mother asked that the first letter not be shared, because Mother 

recognized tehre was language and phrasing in the letter that may trigger R.B.S. Jr. Afterward, 

Mother wrote a secord letter which RB.S. Jr. asked to be read to him. Dr. Hennessey testified that 

after she read the letter, R.B.S. Jr. had a negative reaction and became scared of De. Hennessey, as 

well as having acrisis that led him to inpatient care. Dr. Hennessy also testified that since suspended 

visits, R.BS.Jr. has expressed desire to be with Mother, see Mother, or return to her care, but that he 

also does not feel safe with Mother, and expresses more desire to be adopted by his foster fami.y. 

6 
Dr. Hennessey throughout this case has been concerned throughout the life of this case because 

Mother has been inconsistent with believing that trauma occurred and questions the validity of 

R.B.S. Jr.'s allegations. Dr. Hennessy also testified that she has never had a session with Mother, and 

does not know how Mother implemented the techniques that were needed to make R.B.S. Jr. feel 

safe. Finally, Dr. Hennessey testified that she has never had contact with Father, and that Father 

cannot even yet be mentioned in therapy without a negative reaction from R.B.S. Jr. Dr, Hennessey 

testified that she asked Father to write a letter taking responsibility for R.B.S. Jr.'s trauma and Father 

never did, which stalled progress she was able to make with R.B.S. Jr. reuniting with Father. 

Additionally, the Agency had Mother undergo a psychological evaluation completed by 

David G. Ray, M. Ed. David Ray testified that Mother did have some inconsistencies between 

Agency reports, other counseling reports, and his evaluation. David Ray places a high value on the 

Agency's version of Mother throughout both his evaluation and his testimony. In his report dated 

April 28, 2020, his concerns were Mother's history of addiction, dysfunctional relationship, 

parenting abilities and protective capacity. David Ray ultimately diagnosed Mother with 

Personality Disorder.' David Ray noted that Mother has made very positive progress and had 

support groups in place. However, he had concerns over Mother's inconsistencies and poor decision 

making in the past. His concerns were over Mother's issues with the timeline of her drug usage, and 

reports from different agencies that contradicted what Mother reported to hire. He noted that the 

' The report notes that David Ray's diagnosis is different from Project Point of Light (another counseling service} that 

diagnosed her with codependency and drug addiction, not a personality disorder. David Ray disagrees with that 

diagnosis. 

7 

Dr. Hennessey throughout this case has been concerned throughout the life of this case because 

Mother has been inconsistent with believing that trauma occurred and questions the validity of 

R.B.S. Jr's allegations. Dr. Hennessy also testified that she has never had a session with Mother, and 

does rot know how Mother implemented the techniques that were needed to make R.B.S. Jr. feel 

safe. Finally, Dr. Hennessey testified that she has never had contact with Father, and that Father 

cannot even yet be mentioned in therapy without A regative reaction from RB.S. Jr. Dr. Hennessey 

testified that she asked Father to write a letter taking responsibility or RB.S. Jr.'s trauma and Father 

never did, which stalled progress she was able to make with RB.S. Jr. reuniting with Father. 

Additionally, 

the Agency had Mother undergo a psychological evaluation completed by 

David G. Ray, M. Ed. David Ray testified that Mother did have some inconsistencies berween 

Agency reports, other counseling reports, and his evaluation. David Ray places a high value on the 

Agency's version of Mother throughout both his evaluation and his testimony. I his report dated 

April 28, 2020, his concerns were Mother's history of addiction, dysfunctional relationship 

parenting abilities and protective capacity. David Ray ultimately diagnosed Mother with 

Personality Disorder.' David Ray noted that Mother has made very positive progress and had 

support groups in place. However, he had concerns over Mother's inconsistencies ar.d poor decision 

making in the past. His concerns were over Mother's issues with the timeline of her drug usage, and 

reports from different agencies that contradicted what Mother reported to him. He noted that the 

'The report notes that David Ray's diagnosis is different from Project Point of Light (another counseling service; that 

diagnosed her with codependency and drug addiction, not a personality disorder. David Ray disagrees with that 

di8goos1s 

7 
visits he observed with Mother and the children were actually very positive, albeit chaotic. His 

report indicates that R.B.S. Jr. does not have a healthy secure attachment to Mother, and that since 

visits were suspended his suicidal ideation had stopped. That testimony was in conflict with 

testimony presented by other witnesses. Overall, without evaluating R.B.S. Jr., and based on reports 

by Dr. Hennessey, he testified that R,B.S. Jr, was becoming more regulated.. He's overall concern 

with Mother is her ability to remain consistent now that she has made progress, something he doubts 

can be achieved given his diagnosis of Mother having a personality disorder. David Ray ultimately 

recommended termination, and testified that because there was not a secure attachment with 

Mother, there would be minimal issues severing the bond between Mother and R.B.S. Jr. Father was 

asked by the Agency to have a psychological evaluation completed, but never did. 

Multiple caseworkers testified in this case as well. Overall, there were concerns about 

Mother's drug use, consistency, honesty, and protective capacity. Caseworkers testified that they 

struggle with Mother because they do not feel that Mother follows their recommendations in this 

case. A majority of the testimony the caseworkers focused on events in 2018 and 2019, prior to 

Mother getting sober. The caseworkers testified that Mother could not model the proper behavior 

when visits were still occurring. There was testimony that not all the concerns were shared with 

Mother. For instance, Mother was unaware that R.B.S. Jr. had contracted coronavirus, that 

technology was a trigger for him because of the sexual abuse allegations, or that modeling that was 

initially shown to Mother was not effective for R.B.S. Jr. and that the modelled behavior had actually 

been changed. Additionally, there was testimony that the Agency was not happy, or very concerned, 

9 

visits he observed with Mother and the children were actually very positive, albeit chaotic. His 

report indicates that R.B.S. Jr. does not have a healthy secure attachmer to Mother, and that sir.ce 

visits were suspended his suicidal ideation had stopped. That testimony was in conlict with 

testimony presented by other witnesses. Overall, without evaluating R.B.S. Jr., and based on reports 

by Dr. Hennessey, he testified that R.B.S, Jr. was becoming more regulated. He's overall concem. 

with Mother is her ability to remain consistent now that she has made progress, something he doubts 

can be achieved given his diagnosis o Mother having a personality disorder. David Ray ultimately 

recommended termination, and testified that because there was not a secure attachmer.t with 

Mother, 

there would be minimal issues severing the bond between Mother and R.B.S. Jr. Father wAs 

asked by the Agency to have a psychological evaluation completed, but never did. 

Multiple caseworkers testified in this case as well. Overall, there were concerns about 

Mother's drug use, consistency, honesty, and protective capacity. Caseworkers testified that they 

struggle with Mother because they do not feel that Mother follows their recommendations in this 

case. A majority of the testimony the caseworkers focused on events in 2018 and 2019, prior to 

Mother getting sober. The caseworkers testified that Mother could not model the proper behavior 

when visits were still occurring. There was testimony that not all the concerns were shared with 

Mother. For instance, Mother was unaware that R.B.S. Jr. had contracted coronavirus, that 

technology was a trigger for him because of the sexual abuse allegations, or that modeling that was 

initially shown to Mother was not effective {or RB.S. Jr. and that the modelled behavior had actually 

been changed. Additionally, there was testimony that the Agency was not happy, or very concerned, 

8 
when the Court told the Agency to increase visitation with Mother. It was after this time, that R.B.S. 

Jr. began having suicidal ideation, which Mother found confusing because R.B.S. Jr. had seemed to 

be improving. Testimony regarding Father was that he was generally uncooperative. While he 

participated in some of the classes while incarcerated, he did not continue that after he was released. 

Caseworkers said they generally did not have much contact with Father. 

Mother testified, as well as some of her supports within the community. Ann Kanagy 

testified that she runs some of the support groups Mother is involved with. Mother sought out 

additional resources, above what the Agency set out for her. Ann Kanagy ran quite of few of these, 

which include a support group for single mothers. Ann Kanagy testified that she has seen a 

tremendous change in Mother throughout her time at the church these groups are run out of. Mother 

additionally testified that finding God and being involved with the church has been a very big reason 

that her life has been turned around. Mother testified that the most frustrating part of this case is 

that she felt she was never communicated with by both Dr. Hennessy and the Agency. While Mother 

testified she received the parenting plans and spoke with case workers, she said a lot of the 

information about R.B.S. Jr. was not told to her until there was a permanency review hearing before 

the Court. Specifically, Mother testified that she was not made aware of R.B.S. Jr.'s suicidal ideation 

until a Court hearing where testimony was presented. Mother was greatly concerned about R.B.S. 

Jr.`s treatment in this case as well. Mother testified that "things were going pretty well" for her and 

R.B.S. Jr. as she started to progress through her case. At the outset of this case, R.B.S. Jr. was being 

seen by a different therapist, and Mother said she saw an improvement. Mother testified that 

9 

when the Court told the Agency to increase visitation with Mother. It was after this time, that R.B.S 

Jr. began having suicidal ideation, which Mother found confusing because R.B.S. Jr. had seemed to 

be improving. Testimony regarding Father was that he was generally uncooperative. While he 

participated in some of the classes while incarcerated, he did not continue that after he was released 

Caseworkers said they generally did not have much contact with Father 

Mother testified, as well as some of her supports within the community. Ann Kanagy 

testified that she runs some of the support groups Mother is involved with. Mother sought out 

additional resources, above what the Agency set out for her. Ann Kanagy ran quite of ew of these, 

which include a support group for single mothers. Ann Kanagy testified that she has seen a 

tremendous change in Mother throughout her time at the church these groups are run out of. Mother 

additionally testified that finding God and being involved with the church has been a very big reason 

that her life has been turned around. Mother testified that the most frustrating part of this case is 

that she felt she was never communicated with by both Dr. Hennessy and the Agency. While Mother 

testified she received the parenting plans and spoke with case workers, she said a lot of the 

information about RR.B.S. Jr. was not told to her until there was a permanency review hearing before 

the Court. Specifically, Mother testified that she was not made aware of R.B.S. Jr.'s suicidal ideation 

unti a Court hearing where testimony was presented. Mother was greatly concerned about RB.S 

Jr's treatment in this case as well. Mother testified that "things were going pretty well" [or her and 

R.B.S. Jr. as she started to progress through ber case. At the outset of this case, RB.S. Jr. was being 

seen by a different therapist, and Mother said she saw an improvement. Mother testified that 

9 
without reason, R.B.S. Jr. was moved to Dr. Hennessey's practice, and that is when Mother began to 

notice a dedine in this case, and things like R.B.S. Jr: s violent outbursts and suicidal ideation began. 

Mother testified that this is something she discusses with her own therapist, and worries about retraumatization with R.B.S. Jr. as his mental state continues to decline. Mother also testified that this 

case has been increasingly difficult because any time she asks for clarification on a decision the 

Agency or Dr. Hennessy makes, or a reason why decisions are being made, the Agency claims that 

she is not complying with recommendations and that Mother lacks protective capacity. Mother 

testified that she asked the Agency what an appropriate gift would be for R.B.S. Jr., and was given 

no guidance, so she picked out a Nike T-Shirt she thought he would like. Mother testified that she 

was never informed the gift was inappropriate and never told that the gift was not given to R.B.S. 

Jr. Additionally, Mother testified that the first letter she gave R.B.S. Jr. and asked not to be shared is 

because Mother put in "I'm fighting for you" and she thought that may trigger him and wanted to 

remove the phrase. After she removed that phrase, she believed that the letter was fine, and was not 

told otherwise. 

Additionally, Mother also testified that it'sbeen incredibly difficult to be involved with R.B.S. 

Jr.'s therapy. Mather testified that a majority of her contact with Dr. Hennessy has been by phone, 

and that she is not very informed of what she needs to be doing to help R.B.S. Jr.'s therapy. She met 

with Dr. Hennessy one time, and was informed that R.B.S. Jr. has an issue with his feet. She said the 

only thing Dr. Hennessy taught her was to massage his feet, give him socks, and talk to him in a 

very calm voice. However, prior testimony provided that calm voices do not work well with R.B.S. 

10 

without reason, RB.S. Jr. was moved to Dr. Hennessey's practice, and that is when Mother began. to 

notice a decline in this case, and things like R.B.S.Jr's violent outbursts and suicidal ideation began 

Mother testified that this is something she discusses with her own therapist, and worries about retraumatization with R.BS. Jr. as his mental state continues to decline. Mother also testified that this 

case has beer increasingly difficult because any time she ass k for clarification on a decision the 

Agency or Dr. Hennessy makes, or a reason why decisions are being made, the Agency c.aims that 

she is not complying with recommendations and that Mother lacks protective capacity. Mother 

testified that she asked the Agency what an appropriate gift would be (orR.BS. Jr., end was given 

no guidance, 

so she picked out a Nike T-Shirt she thought he would like. Mother testified that she 

was never informed the gift was inappropriate and never told that the gift was not given to R.B.S. 

Jr. Additionally, Mother testified that the first letter she gave R.B.S. Jr. and asked not to be shared is 

because Mother put in "I'm fighting for you" and she thought that may trigger him and warted to 

remove the phrase. After she removed that phrase, she believed that the letter was fine, and was not 

told otherwise. 

Additionally, Mother also testified that it's been incredibly difficult to be involved with RB.S 

Jr's therapy, Mother testified that a majority of her contact with Dr. Hennessy has been by phone, 

and that she is not very informed of what she needs to be doing to help RB.S. Jr's therapy. She met 

with Dr. Hennessy one time, and was informed that R.B.S. Jr. has an issue with his feet. She said the 

only thing Dr. Hennessy taught her was to massage his feet, give him socks, and talk to him in a 

very calm voice. However, prior testimony provided that calm voices do not work well with.BS 

10 
Jr., nor does a maternal figure attempting to calm down R.B.S. Jr. immediately after a negative 

behavior, a fact Mother says she again, only learned during the hearing. Mother testified that it has 

been incredibly difficult to know what she needs to work on regarding R.B.S. Jr.'s mental health and 

how best to help him, because there is not a lot of communication about it. 

Finally, the Guardian Ad Litem (hereafter "GAL") and R.B.S. Jr.'s legal counsel both presented 

findings to the Court. Both reported that this case is very difficult due to R.B.S. Jr.'s mental state. 

The GAL reported that R.B.S. Jr. in the latest placement is happy and safe, and has expressed interest 

in being adopted. However, the GAL also reported R.B.S. Jr. wants to see his siblings but is worried 

what his response maybe. The GAL stated it is clear that the child wants to remain in his placement, 

but also that he wants a relationship with Mother and his biological siblings. The GAL also reported 

she is concerned by Mother's decision to drive which resulted in criminal charges for driving on a 

suspended license, because she believes that presented a backslide in Mother's progress. 

Additionally, R.B.S. Jr.'s legal counsel reported that the child has expressed a desire to be adopted. 

However, R.B.S. Jr. does not seem to understand what termination means, and has expressed a desire 

to see his siblings. Ultimately, the GAL recommended termination, but R.B.S. Jr.'s legal counsel 

could not make a recommendation either way. 

DISCUSSION 

The Court begins the discussion with noting that this case is highly complicated. There has 

been a tremendous level of progress by Mother in this case, during the second half of placement. 

The Court notes that if the Court did not find that Mother had made sustained and successful 

31 

Jr., nar does a maternal figure attempting to cal down R.BS. Jr. immediately after a negative 

behavior, a fact Mother says she again, only learned during the hearing. Mother testified that it has 

been incredibly difficult to know what she needs to work on regarding R.B.S. Jr's mental health and 

how best to help him, because there is not a lot of communication about it. 

Finally, 

the Guardian Ad Litem (hereafter "GAL") and R.B.S.Jr.'segal counsel both presented 

findings to the Court. Both reported that this case is very difficult due to R.BS. Jr's mental state 

The GAL reported thatR.BS.Jr. in the latest placement is happy and safe, and has expressed interest 

in being adopted. However, the GAL also reported R.BS. Jr. wants to see his siblings but is worried 

what his response may be. The GAL stated it is clear that the ct;ld wants to remain in his placement, 

but also that he wants a relationship with Mother and his biological siblings. The GAL also reported 

she is concemed by Mother's decision to drive which resulted in criminal charges for driving on a 

suspended license, because she believes that presented a backslide in Mother's progress. 

Additionally, R.BS. Jr's legal counsel reported that the child has expressed a desire to be adopted 

However, RBS. Jr. does not seem to understand what termination means, and has expressed a desire 

to see his siblings. Ultimately, 

the GAL recommended termination, but R.BS. Jr.'s legal counsel 

could not make a recommendation either way 

DISCUSSION 

The Court begins the discussion with noting that this case is highly complicated. There has 

been a tremendous level of progress by Mother in this case, during the second half of placement 

The Court notes that if the Court did not find that Mother had made sustained and successful 

II 
progress, the Court would not have returned the three (3) siblings of R.B.S. Jr. to Mother's care. While 

a majority of testimony was presented on Mother's misgivings, the Court feels that this case comes 

down to the PTSU and mental health of R.B.S. Jr. rather than any lack of progress Mother has made 

while working towards reunification. 

The court must undergo a two-step analysis when deciding whether to terminate an 

individual's parental rights. First, the court must determine whether the petitioner proved with 

clear and convincing evidence one of the grounds for termination stated in 23 Pa.C.S,A. § 2511(a). 

Next, the court must assess the child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare in 

accordance with 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) and the best interest of the child standard. The court must 

consider each case's individual circumstances and the parent's explanations to determine whether 

the "totality of the circumstances" justifies terminating the parent's rights. 7n re B.N.M., 856 A.2d 

847, 853 (Pa. Super. 2004). 

The Agency alleges grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

2511(a)(5), and 23 Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(8). The Court will first address the termination grounds found 

in all alleged sections. Then it will separately determine whether terminating Father and Mother's 

parental rights serves R.B.S. Jr.'s best interest. 

I. Termination Grounds for Father 

A. Termination Pursuant to 23 ra.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) 

Section 2511(a)(2) authorizes the court to terminate a parent's rights if: 

"The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the 

parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or 

12 

progress, 

the Court would rot have returned the three (3) siblings ofR.B.S. Jt. ta Mother's care. While 

a majority of testimony was presented on Mother's misgivings, the Court feels that this case comes 

down to the PTSD and mental health of RB.S. Jr. rather than any lack of progress Mother has made 

wile working towards reunification 

The court must undergo a two-step analysis when deciding whether to terminate an 

individual's parental rights. First, the court must determine whether the petitioner proved with 

clear and convincing evidence one of the grounds for termination stated in 23 PL.C.SA. S 2511(a) 

Next, the court must assess the child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare in 

accordance with 23 Pa.CS.A. 52511(b) and the best interest of the child standard. The court must 

consider each case's individual circumstances and the parent's explanations to determine whether 

the "totality of the circumstances" justifies terminating the parent's rights. In re BNM. 856 A.2d 

847, 853 (Pa. Super. 2004). 

The Agency alleges grounds tor termination under 23 PA.CS.A. $$ 2511(a)02), 23 Pa.CS.A. 

2511(a)(5), and 23 Pa.CS.A. $ 2511(a)(8). The Court will first address the termination grounds found 

in all alleged sections. Then it will separately determine whether terminating Father and Mother's 

parental rights serves R.B.S. Jr's best interest. 

I, Termination Grounds for Father 

A. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.CS.A. $ 2511()02) 

Section 2511(a)2) authorizes the court to terminate a parent's rights if 

"Te repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the 

parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or 

12 
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." 

23 Pa. C,S.A. § 2511(a)(2). 

The Agency has established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for termination 

of Father's parental rights under § 2511(a)(2). Father has not cooperated with the Agency in any 

meaningful way which has caused R.B.S. Jr. to be without essential parental care. Father has had 

numerous opportunities to be involved with services and has flouted almost every opportunity. 

This has caused R.S.S. Jr. to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for 

his physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, Father's incapacity cannot be remedied in a timely 

manner, as evidenced by his unwillingness to participate in this case meaningfully. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§2511(a)(2). 

B. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa,C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5) 

Section 2511(a)(5) permits the court to terminate parental rights when.-

"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." 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(,5). 

The Agency has established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for termination 

of Father's parental rights under § 2511(a)(5). Father has not cooperated with the Agency in any 

13 

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" 

23Pa.CS.A. $2511(a)02) 

The Agency has established, by clear and convincing evidence, the grounds for terminatior 

of Father's parental rights under g 2511(a)(2) Father has not cooperated with the Agency in any 

meaningful way which has caused R.B.S. Jr. to be without essential parental care. Father has had 

numerous opportunities to be involved with services and has flouted almost every opportunity 

This has caused R.B.S. fr. 

to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for 

his physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, Father's incapacity cannot be remedied in a timely 

manner, as evidenced by his unwillingness to participate in this case meaningfully, 23 Pa.CS.A 

$2511(a)02). 

B. Termination Pursuant t6 23 Pa.CS.A, $ 2511(a)(5) 

Section 2511(a)(5) permits the court to terminate parental rights when: 

"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 reasor.able 

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 

nights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child." 

23Pa.CS.A. $2511(a)05) 

The Agency has established, by dear and convincing evidence, the grounds for termination 

£ Father's parental rights under $ 2511(a)(5). Father has not cooperated with the Agency in any 

13 
meardngful way which has caused R.B.S. Jr. to be without essential parental care. Father has failed 

to address the Agency's mental health concerns, failed to seek drug and alcohol treatment for his 

addiction, failed to maintain a crime free lifestyle which resulted in Father being incarcerated three 

(3) times during the life of this case. Father has had numerous opportunities to be involved with 

services and has flouted almost every opportunity. This has caused R.B.S. Jr. to be without essential 

parental care, control or subsistence necessary for her physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, 

Father's incapacity cannot be remedied in a timely manner, as evidenced by his unwillingness to 

participate in this case meaningfully. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a)(2). 

C. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(6) 

The court may terminate a parent's parental rights under § 2511(a)(8) if: 

"The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or 

under a voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve 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 serve the needs and welfare of the child." 

23 Pa.C.S.A. y 2511(a)(8). 

The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds 

found in § 2511 (a)(8). At the time of the hearing, R.B.S. Jr. had been in foster care for approximately 

thirty-right (38) months. Father has clearly failed to address any of the problems that led to R.B.S. 

Jr. being removed from the home. Father has failed to address the Agency's mental health concerns, 

failed to seek drug and alcohol treatment for his addiction, failed to maintain a crime free lifestyle 

which resulted in Father being incarcerated three (3) times during the life of this case, and failed to 

14 

mearungful way which has caused RBS. Jr. to be without essential parental care. Father has failed 

to address the Agency's mental health concerns, failed to seek drug and alcohol treatment for his 

addiction, failed to maintain a crime free lifestyle which resulted in Father being incarcerated three 

(3) times during the life of this case. Father has had numerous opportunities to be involved with 

servies and has flouted almost every opportrity. This has caused RB.S. Jr. to be without essential 

parental care, control or subsistence necessary for her physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, 

Father's incapacity cannot be remedied in a timely manner, as evidenced by his unwillingness to 

participate in his case meaningful'y.23Pa.CS.A. $2511(2)2) 

C. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. $ 2511(a)(8) 

The court may terminate a parent's parental rights under g 2511(a)):f: 

"The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court Or 

under a voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve months or tore 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 serve the needs and welfare of the child." 

23 Pa.C5A$2511(8)(8) 

The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds 

found in3 2511 {a)8). At the time of the hearing R.BS. Jr. had been in foster care for approximately 

thirty-right (38) months. Father has clearly failed to address any of the problems that led to R.B.S 

Jr. being removed from the home. Father has failed to address the Agency's mental health concerns, 

failed to seek drug and alcohol treatment for his addiction, failed to maintain a crime free lifestyle 

which resulted in Father being incarcerated three (3) times during the life o this case, and failed to 

14 
cooperate with the Agency in any meaningful way. It is apparent to the Court that Father will not 

cooperate with the Agency and work on any of the concerns the Agency has. As such, the Court 

finds grounds to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to § 2511 (a)(8). 

II. Termination Grounds for Mother 

A. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) 

Section 2511(a)(2) authorizes the court to terminate a parent's rights if: 

"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." 

23 Pa. C. 5,A. § 2511(a)(2). 

Here, the Agency by clear and convincing evidence established the termination grounds 

found in § 2511(a)(2), relative to Mother. Irremediable incapacity by Mother has caused R.B.S. Jr. to 

be without essential parental care for his mental wellbeing and conditions cannot be remedied. The 

abuse of R.B.S. Jr. caused such trauma that Dr. Hennessy recommended no contact with Mother, as 

it causes R.B.S. Jr. continued trauma and concerns of self-harm. This initial incapacity caused R.B.S. 

Jr. to be without essential parental care for his wellbeing and according to the expert testimony of 

Dr. Hennessy, there conditions continue to exist as the triggers are Mother's home, Mother's family, 

and Mother's presence. Accordingly, the Court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights 

pursuant to § 2511(a)(2). 

B. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5) 

15 

cooperate with the Agency in any meaningful way. itis apparent to the Court that Father will not 

cooperate with the Agency and work on any of the concems the Agency has. As such, the Court 

finds grounds to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to $ 2511 (a)(8) 

IL. Termination Grounds for Mother 

A. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. $ 2511(a)02) 

Section 25l1(a)2) authorizes the court to terminate a parent's rights if 

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 

23Pa. CS.A.$ 2511(a)2) 

Here, the Agency by clear and convincing evidence es:ablished the termination grounds 

found in 6 2511(a)(2), 

relative to Mother. Irremediable incapacity by Mother has caused R.B.S. Jr. to 

be without essential parental care for his mental wellbeing and conditions cannot be remedied. The 

abuse o! R.BS.Jr. caused such trauma that Dr. Hennessy recommended no contact with Mother as 

it causes RB.S. Jr. continued trauma and concerns of self harm. This initial incapacity caused RB.S. 

Jr. to be without essential parental care for his wellbeing and according to the expert testimony of 

Dr. Hennessy, 

there conditions continue to exist as the triggers are Mother's home, Mother's family, 

and Mother's presence. Accordingly, 

the Court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights 

pursuant to $ 2511(a)2) 

B. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. $ 25116a)(5) 
Section 2511(a)(5) permits the court to terminate parental rights when: 

"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." 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5). 

The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds 

found in § 2511(a)(5). At the time of the hearing, R.B.S. Jr. had been in foster care for approximately 

thirty-eight (38) months. The conditions, by way of R.B.S. Jr.'s triggers, continue to exist. Per the 

expert testimony of Dr. Hennessey the conditions continue to exist, and Mother cannot remedy due 

to the nature of the abuse and ongoing trauma of R.B.S. Jr. While Mother has made progress in 

almost every area of her life, R.B.S. Jr.'s extensive trauma cannot be remedied in Mother's care, per 

expert testimony of Dr. Hennessy. While it is clear that Mother does love R.B.S. Jr. very much, and 

has worked hard to address the problems that led to the placement of R.B.S. Jr., R,B.S. Jr.'s trauma is 

intrinsically linked to Mother, and seems unlikely to be resolved. As such, the Court finds grounds 

to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to § 2511(a)(5). 

C. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8) 

The court may terminate a parent's parental rights under § 2511(a)(8) if: 

16 

Section 2511(a)5) perrits the court to terminate parental rights when: 

"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 pacement of the child within a reasonable period of tire 

and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and 

welfare o the chid." 

23 Pa.CS.A.$2511(a)05) 

The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds 

found in S2511(a)(5). At the time of the hearing R.B.S. Jr. had been in foster care for approximately 

thirty-eight (38) months. The conditions, by way of R.B.S. Jr's triggers, continue to exist. Per the 

expert testimony of Dr. Hennessey the conditions continue to exist, and Mother cannot remedy due 

to the nature of the abuse and or.going trauma of RB.S. J. While Mother has made progress in 

almost every area of her life, R.BS. Jr's extensive trauma cannot be remedied in Mother's care, per 

expert testimony of Dr. Henness. While it is clear that Mother does love R.B.S. Jr. very much, and 

has worked hard to address the problems that led to the placement of R.BS.Jr. RB.S. Jr.'s trauma is 

intrinsically linked to Mother, and seems unlikely to be resolved. As such, the Court finds grounds 

to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to $ 2511(a)(5). 

C. Termination Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. $ 2511(a)(8) 

The court may terminate a parent's parental rights under $ 2511(a)(8)ii 

16 
"The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or 

under a voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve 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 serve the needs and welfare of the child." 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8). 

The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the termination grounds 

found in § 2511 (a)(8). At the time of the hearing, R.B.S. Jr. had been in foster care for approximately 

thirty-eight (38) months. R.B.S. Jr.'s continued trauma and extensive triggers linked to Mother's care 

continue to exist. While Mother has attempted to remedy the trauma caused to R.B.S, Jr., testimony 

provided by Dr. Hennessy shows that R.B.S. Jr. is still not safe in Mother's care, and the trauma 

continues to exist. Termination of Mother's rights would best serve the needs and welfare of R.B.S. 

Jr. As such, the Court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to § 2511 (a)(8). 

III. The Child's Best Interests 

Havitlg found the Agency established with clear and convincing evidence the termination 

grounds for Mother and Father stated in § 2511(a)(2), § 2511(a)(5) and§ 2511(a)(8), the Court must 

determine whether terminating parental rights serves R.B.S. Jr.'s bes interest. The Court must ive

"primary determination" to the child's "developmental, physical, and emotional needs." 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). This analysis involves an examination of "intangibles such as love, comfort, 

security, and stability." In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006). The court must assess the 

bond the children have with their parents and whether termination would sever "existing, 

17 

"The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court of 

under a voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve months or more have 

elapsed from the date o: removal or placement, the conditions which led to 

the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of 

parental rights would serve the needs and welfare o: the child." 

23Pa.CS.A.$ 2511(a)(8) 

The Agency by clear and convincing evidence also established the terr.ination grounds 

found in$ 2511 (a)(8). At the time o: the hearing RBS, Jr. had been in foster care for approximately 

thirty-eight (38) months. R.B.S. Jr's continued trauma and extensive triggers linked to Mother's care 

continue to exist. While Mother has attempted to remedy the trauma caused to R..S. Jr., testimony 

provided by Dr. Hennessy shows that R.B.S. Jr. is still not safe in Mother's care, and the trauma 

continues to exist. Termination of Mother's rights would best serve the needs and welfare of R.BS 

Jr. As such, the Court finds grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to 32511 (a)(8) 

III. The Child's Best Interests 

Having found the Agency established with clear and convincing evidence the termination 

grounds for Mother and Father stated in $ 2511(a)(2), $ 2511(a)(5) and$ 2511(a)(8), the Court must 

determine whether terminating parental rights serves RB.S. Jr.'s best interest. The court must give 

"primary determination" to the child's "developmental, physical, and emotional needs." 23 

Pa.CS.A. 32511(b). This analysis involves an examination of "intangibles such as love, comfort, 

security, 

and stability." In e CP., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006). The court must assess he 

bond the children have with their parents and whether termination would sever "existing, 

17 
necessary, and beneficial relationship[sl." In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008)(citing In 

re. C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2000). The court must pay "close attention" to the effect 

severing the bond with a parent has on the children. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). 

However, the child's needs and welfare are the most important factors. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 760. 

The Court firids that there is no bond or attachment between R.B_S. Jr. and Father. In fact, 

testimony provided by all parties indicated that there is a severe trauma response to Father. The 

Court finds that R.B,S. Jr.'s needs and welfare are best met with terminating Father's parental rights. 

The Court acknowledges that Mother loves R.B.S. Jr. and does want him returned to her care. 

The Court also takes notice that Mother has worked exceptionally hard to dramatically change her 

life. However, R.135. Jr. does have mental health concerns that Mother has not been able to address 

given the severity of R.B.S. Jr.'s symptoms. While R.B.S. Jr. is confused and does not fully 

understand what termination is, as reported by both his legal counsel and the CAL, the Court finds 

that R.B.S. Jr.'s mental condition appears to be more stable in his foster home, than in the care of 

Mother. Further, there was testimony presented that while there is a bond between Mother and 

R.B.S. Jr., that bond is not a safe, secure bond, but rather a trauma bond. Therefore, the Court finds 

that terminating Mother's parental rights serves R.B.S. Jr.'s developmental, physical, and emotional 

needs and welfare. 

CONCLUSION 

This Court finds the Agency met its burden, by proving through clear and convincing 

evidence the grounds for involuntary termination of Mother and le'ather's parental rights found in 

18 

necessary, and beneficial relationship[s]" In re K.ZS, 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008)(citing In 

re. CS., 761 A.2d 1197, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2000). The court must pay "close attention" to the effect 

severing the bond with a parent has on the children. In re LM,, 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 207) 

However, the child's needs and welfare are the most important factors. J re.ZS.,946 A.2d at 760. 

The Court finds that there is no bond or attachment between R.BS. Jr. and Father. In fact, 

testimony provided by all parties indicated that there is a severe trauma response to Father, The 

Court finds that R.B.S. Jr's needs and welfare are best met with terminating Father's parental rights 

The Court acknowledges that Mother loves R.B.S. Jr. and does want him returned to her care 

The Court also takes notice that Mother has worked exceptionally hard to dramatically change her 

lie. However, RBS. Jr. does have mental health concerns that Mother has not been able to address 

given the severity of RB.S. Jr's symptoms. While R.BS. Jr. is confused and does not fully 

understand what termination is, as reported by both his legal counsel and the GAL, the Court finds 

that R.BS Jr's mental condition appears to be more stable in his foster home, than in the care of 

Mother. Further, there was testimony presented that while there is a bond between Mother and 

RB.S.Jr., 

that bond is not a safe, secure bond, but rather a trauma bond. Therefore, the Court finds 

that terminating Mother's parental rights serves BS. Jr's developmental, physical, and emotional 

needs and welfare 

CONCLUSION 

This Court finds the Agency met its burden, by proving through dear and convincing 

evidence the grounds for involuntary termination of Mother and Father's parental rights found in 

18 
23 Pa.C.S.A. §§2511{a)(2), 2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8). Further, terminating Mother and Father's 

parental rights is in the best interests of R.B.S. Jr. 

BY THE COURT: 

C: Alina Reed, Esq, 

Karen Muir, Esq, 

Jeffrey M. Davis, Esq. 

Erica Shoaf, Esq, 

Brian Baker, Esq. 

MCCYS 

File 

19 

,• lr.• ;. 

AARON L. GINGRICH 

JUDGE 

23Pa.CS.A. $82511(a)62), 2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8). Further, terminating Mother and Father's 

parental rights is in te h best interests of RB.S. Jr 

BY THE COURT 

AARON L GINGRICH 

JUDGE 

c: Alina Reed, Esq ,-, 

Karen Muir, Esq 

"• ·- . 

,- -- ' ., .s 

Jeffrey M Davis, Esq. 

' -, 

' 

Bica Shoat, Esq. ,, ' oe 

' 

Brian Baker, Esq 

J '' 

·:- ' ; 

MCCYS : " , 

File C.-.) 

- 

2 

,,, 

� 4 

19