J-S25032-24 

 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.M., A 

MINOR 

APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 1061 EDA 2024 

Appeal from the Order Entered March 19, 2024 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-DP-0000072-2021 

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.G.M., A 

MINOR 

APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 1062 EDA 2024 

Appeal from the Decree Entered March 19, 2024 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-51-AP-0000145-2023 

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BECK, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.: FILED JULY 29, 2024

J.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the decree entered by the Philadelphia 

County Court of Common Pleas (“orphans’ court”) terminating her parental 
J-S25032-24 

- 2 - 

rights to N.M.,1 born November 2020, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), 

(2), (5), (8), and (b), and the order changing N.M.’s permanency goal to 

adoption. Because we conclude that the orphans’ court did not abuse its 

discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights and in changing the 

permanency goal, we affirm. 

 The orphans’ court summarized the factual history of this case as 

follows: 

This family first became involved with [the Philadelphia 

Department of Human Services (“DHS”)] in 2016 due to concerns 

regarding the safety and welfare of N.M.’s siblings prior to her 

birth. N.M.’s six siblings were committed to DHS and the case 

was open for Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) services when 

she was born. Mother was minimally compliant with her Single 

Case Plan (SCP) objectives [related to N.M.’s siblings.2] 

N.M, was born at Temple University Hospital (TUH) [in 

November] 2020. N.M. and Mother tested negative for substances 

at birth. However, DHS learned that Mother tested positive for 

cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), and fentanyl while pregnant with 

N.M. On January 14, 2021, DHS received a General Protective 

Services (GPS) report alleging that two-month-old N.M. was 

admitted to St. Christopher’s Hospital. The transfer records 

indicated that Mother had a history of cocaine use, and that all of 

N.M.’s siblings were in DHS placement. The report was 

determined to be valid. On January 20, 2021, N.M. was 

discharged from St. Christopher’s Hospital and transferred to the 

____________________________________________ 

1

 N.M. and B.G.M. are the same child. This is a consolidated appeal from the 

order changing N.M.’s permanency goal to adoption and from the decree 

terminating Mother’s parental rights. For ease of review, we will refer to the 

child only as N.M. 

2

 Mother’s parental rights to her six other children were previously 

terminated. See In the Interest of: M.B.-M., 2512 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. 

filed May 30, 2024) (non-precedential decision); In the Interest of: A.M., 

744 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 21, 2022) (non-precedential decision). 
J-S25032-24 

- 3 - 

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). The discharge 

summary indicated that N.M. was born premature, had respiratory 

issues, anemia, and other diagnoses associated with her 

premature birth. On January 24, 2021, Mother was escorted from 

CHOP by security after she threatened to remove [N.M.] against 

medical advice. 

DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OPC) for N.M. 

on January 25, 2021. At the January 27, 2021[] shelter care 

hearing, the [c]ourt found that N.M. was medically needy. The 

OPC was lifted and the temporary commitment to DHS was 

ordered to stand. Upon discharge from CHOP, N.M. was placed in 

a kinship foster home. N.M. has remained in DHS care since the 

OPC was obtained. 

* * * 

N.M. was adjudicated dependent ... [and was] fully 

committed to DHS on December 7, 2021. At the March 31, 2022, 

initial permanency review hearing, the [c]ourt found that Mother 

was minimally compliant with her SCP objectives and had made 

minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances [that] 

brought [N.M.] into care. Permanency review hearings were held 

regularly throughout the case. At each permanency review 

hearing from 2021 to 2023, Mother’s compliance with her SCP 

objectives ranged from none to moderate. Permanency review 

orders indicate that Mother made minimal progress toward 

alleviating the circumstances that necessitated N.M.’s placement. 

DHS filed petitions to change the goal from reunification to 

adoption and to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to 

N.M. on April 14, 2023. The [termination] hearing was held on 

January 30, 2024. Counsel for DHS called their first witness, CUA 

[c]ase [m]anager, David Matthews [(“Matthews”)]. N.T., 

1/30/2024, at 4-104. [Matthews] testified that CUA was first 

assigned to this family in 2016 or 2017. He testified that he was 

assigned to this family’s case in 2022. He testified that he 

maintained the CUA file and that he reviewed the entire file and 

history. [Id.] at 5. [Matthews] testified that N.M. came into DHS 

care at birth based on concerns regarding Mother’s drug use 

during her pregnancy. [Id.] at 6. He testified that SCP meetings 

were held regularly throughout the case. [Id.] at 6-7. 
J-S25032-24 

- 4 - 

Mother’s SCP objectives were as follows: (1) address drug 

and alcohol concerns and submit random drug screens at the 

Clinical Evaluation Unit (CEU); (2) address mental health 

concerns; (3) sign all necessary consents and releases; (4) attend 

the Achieving Reunification Center (ARC) for parenting, housing, 

employment, and anger management classes; (5) complete a 

parenting capacity evaluation (PCE); and (6) comply with courtordered visitation. [Matthews] testified that Mother’s SCP 

objectives essentially remained the same throughout the case. 

[Id.] at 41. At the January 30, 2024, [termination] hearing, 

[Matthews] testified that Mother’s compliance with her SCP 

objectives was minimal. He further testified that at that time, 

Mother made no progress toward alleviating the circumstances 

that brought N.M. into care. [Id.] at 41-42. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/3/2024, at 2-4 (record citations modified, footnote 

added). 

 Near the conclusion of the January 30, 2024, termination hearing, 

Mother indicated her desire to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights to N.M. 

N.T., 1/30/2024, at 149-50, 159-60. 

Mother signed [p]etitions to [v]oluntarily [r]elinquish her 

[p]arental [r]ights [the same day]. The [c]ourt held its decision 

regarding involuntary termination of parental rights in abeyance 

to allow Mother’s voluntary relinquishment petitions to mature. 

The matter was scheduled for March 19, 2024. Mother revoked 

the signed voluntary relinquishment of parental rights within thirty 

days. When the [termination] hearing reconvened on March 19, 

2024, the trial court found that [DHS] presented clear and 

convincing evidence to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental 

rights pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa. C.S.[] §2511 (a)(1), 

(2), (5), (8) and § 2511(b) and changed N.M.’s permanency goal 

to adoption pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6351. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/3/2024, at 1-2. 
J-S25032-24 

- 5 - 

 Mother timely appealed to this Court and complied with Pennsylvania 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. Mother presents the following issues for 

review: 

1. Did the [orphans’ court] err in terminating [Mother]’s 

parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.[] §§ 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2), 

2511(a)(5), and 2511(a)(8)? 

2. Did the [orphans’ court] err in finding that termination of 

[Mother]’s parental rights best served [N.M.]’s developmental, 

physical, and emotional needs under 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 2511(b)? 

Mother’s Brief at 6. 

In her brief, Mother solely challenges the termination of her parental 

rights and does not challenge the change of N.M.’s permanency goal from 

reunification to adoption. In reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating 

parental rights, we adhere to the following standard: 

In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights, 

appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the 

decree of the termination court is supported by competent 

evidence. This standard of review corresponds to the standard 

employed in dependency cases, and requires appellate courts to 

accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the 

[orphans’] court if they are supported by the record, but it does 

not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s 

inferences or conclusions of law. That is, if the factual findings 

are supported, we must determine whether the [orphans’] court 

made an error of law or abused its discretion. An abuse of 

discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court 

might have reached a different conclusion; we reverse for an 

abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest 

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Thus, 

absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient 

evidentiary support for the [orphans’] court’s decision, the decree 

must stand. We have previously emphasized our deference to 

[orphans’] courts that often have first-hand observations of the 

parties spanning multiple hearings. However, we must employ a 
J-S25032-24 

- 6 - 

broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine 

whether the [orphans’] court’s decision is supported by competent 

evidence. 

In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358-59 (Pa. 2021) (quotation marks, 

brackets, and citations omitted). 

Termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, which 

requires a bifurcated analysis. See C.M., 255 A.3d at 359. “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 section 2511(a).” In re 

C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-62 (Pa. Super. 2019). If the orphans’ court 

determines the petitioner established grounds for termination under section 

2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the court then must assess the 

petition under subsection 2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and 

welfare. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). Clear and convincing 

evidence is evidence that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to 

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the 

truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. 

Super. 2000) (en banc) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 As stated above, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights to N.M. 

pursuant to subsections (1), (2), (5), and (8) of section 2511(a). Orphans’ 

Court Opinion, 2/7/2024, at 8. “This Court may affirm the [orphans’] court’s 

decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any one 
J-S25032-24 

- 7 - 

subsection of [s]ection 2511(a).” In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989, 992 (Pa. Super. 

2013). We focus our analysis on section 2511(a)(8). 

 Mother argues that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by 

terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(8) on the basis 

that she failed to comply with several of her SCP objectives. See Mother’s 

Brief at 13. Mother asserts that she is now able to care for N.M., as she has 

attended parenting classes, receives social security benefits, has housing, and 

participated in substance abuse and mental health treatment programs. Id.

To terminate parental rights under section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner 

must prove: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for 12 months 

or more; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child 

continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the 

needs and welfare of the child. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 

2008); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8).3 Notably, this subsection “does not 

require the court to evaluate a parent’s willingness or ability to remedy the 

conditions that led to the placement of the child[].” Interest of M.E., 283 

A.3d 820, 832 (Pa. Super. 2022). Rather, “the relevant inquiry regarding the 

____________________________________________ 

3

 Although separately enumerated, this Court has interpreted the needs and 

welfare analyses required under subsections (a)(8) and (b) to utilize the same 

legal standards and to be based upon the same evidence. See Matter of 

Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 448 (Pa. Super. 2017) (combining 

discussion of the children’s needs and welfare pursuant to subsection (a)(8) 

and subsection (b) because the “third element of [s]ection 2511(a)(8) 

requires that the [o]rphans’ [c]ourt conduct an analysis similar to that 

required under [s]ection 2511(b)”). 
J-S25032-24 

- 8 - 

second prong of [section] 2511(a)(8) is whether the conditions that led to 

removal have been remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and 

child is imminent at the time of the hearing.” Id. (quotation marks and 

brackets omitted). Further, “[w]ith respect to any petition filed pursuant to 

subsection [(a)(8)], the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to 

remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent 

to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); see 

also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 255 n.8. 

The orphans’ court provided the following explanation for its decision to 

terminate Mother’s parental rights under section 2511(a)(8): 

N.M. was born [in November] 2020, and is three years old. 

N.M. has been in care continuously since an OPC was obtained on 

January 25, 2021. She has spent over three years outside of the 

care and control of Mother. The record reflects that N.M. has 

resided with her current kinship foster parent for approximately 

two years. The conditions that led to N.M.’s placement included 

Mother’s substance abuse, mental health, parenting capacity, 

anger management, and ability to keep N.M. safe. At N.M.’s birth, 

Mother had other children with open dependency cases. The same 

SCP objectives were established for Mother after N.M. was 

adjudicated dependent. Subsequently, Mother was ordered to 

complete a PCE at the March 31, 2022, initial permanency review 

hearing. 

Since N.M. has been in placement, Mother has made 

minimal to no progress toward alleviating the circumstances that 

brought N.M. into care despite attempts by CUA to facilitate 

reunification. [Matthews] testified at the January 30, 2024, 

[termination] hearing that Mother was minimally compliant with 

her SCP objectives and made no progress toward reunification. 

N.M. has been in foster care for over three years, which is an 

inordinate amount of time and is much longer than the statutory 

period requires for permanency. The conditions that brought N.M. 

into care continue to exist ... . 
J-S25032-24 

- 9 - 

At the January 30, 2024, [termination] hearing [Matthews] 

expressed concerns regarding Mother’s mental health, substance 

use, anger management, parenting capacity, and ability to safely 

care for N.M. While Mother completed drug and alcohol treatment 

... in March 2021, she has subsequently tested positive for 

substances on various occasions at the CEU. [Although] Mother 

indicated that she was prescribed benzodiazepines and opiates for 

a health condition, CUA has been unable to verify her 

prescriptions. While Mother previously engaged in mental health 

therapy ..., it is unclear whether she is still engaged, whether she 

takes mental health medication, or if the program addressed her 

specific mental health diagnoses. [Matthews] has also been 

unable to confirm Mother’s treatment at ... any ... mental health 

provider and has been unable to obtain a treatment plan and 

progress report because Mother refused to sign the necessary 

releases. [Matthews] continues to have concerns for Mother’s 

mental stability due to her inconsistent treatment and threatening 

behaviors toward CUA and DHS staff. While Mother completed an 

anger management program, [Matthews] continues to have 

concerns [about her] ability to control her anger due to her 

persistent threatening behaviors. Mother also failed to comply 

with the court ordered PCE to assess her ability to safely care for 

N.M. While Mother testified that she begged for a PCE, a PCE 

never occurred because Mother tested positive for opiates, failed 

to provide the evaluator with a list of her prescribed medications, 

and was not engaged in drug and alcohol treatment at the time. 

There have also been numerous issues and incidents during 

Mother’s visits throughout the case, which continued to exist as 

recent as Mother’s last in-person visit in July 2022. Mother’s 

supervised visits with N.M. were moved from CUA to DHS for 

increased security due to Mother’s behaviors. However, following 

an incident in July 2022, Mother’s visits were changed to virtual 

for the safety of N.M. and DHS/CUA staff. For these reasons, 

Mother’s visitation never progressed beyond supervised [visits]. 

Additionally, Mother was inconsistent with visitation throughout 

the case, and the testimony reflects that Mother often ends 

visitation with N.M. early. 

The evidence reflects that while there has been some 

compliance by Mother to complete her SCP objectives, there has 

not been enough progress to enable reunification of N.M. with 

Mother. Mother has failed to complete her SCP objectives to 
J-S25032-24 

- 10 - 

alleviate the need for placement. ... N.M. deserves permanency 

and should not wait indefinitely. Moreover, the evidence clearly 

established that termination would best serve the needs and 

welfare of [N.M]. N.M. has resided with the kinship parent for 

approximately two years and is well-adjusted in her home. She 

is bonded to the kinship parent who she looks to for love, support, 

care, and comfort. She also looks to her kinship parent to meet 

her basic needs as well as her emotional, therapeutic, and medical 

needs. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/3/2024, at 19-21. 

 Our review of the record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusions. The 

record reflects, and Mother does not dispute, that N.M. has been in care for 

nearly three years at the time of the termination hearing in January 2024. 

See Shelter Care Order, 1/27/2021. N.M. was removed from Mother’s care 

primarily because of untreated substance abuse and mental health issues. 

N.T., 1/30/2024, at 6-8. Mother’s SCP objectives were to attend drug and 

alcohol treatment and submit random drug screens, attend mental health 

treatment, sign all necessary consents and releases for medical information, 

attend parenting education classes, obtain and maintain housing and 

employment, attend anger management classes, complete a PCE, and comply 

with court-ordered visitation. Id. at 7-10. The record reflects that Mother 

has at least attempted to address several of her SCP objectives throughout 

the life of the case, as she has completed drug and alcohol treatment 

programs, she has attended parenting education classes and anger 

management programs, and she has housing suitable for N.M. Id. at 8-9. 

Nonetheless, the record reveals that most of the issues that led to N.M.’s 
J-S25032-24 

- 11 - 

removal from Mother’s care continue to exist, namely those issues relating to 

Mother’s substance abuse and mental health issues, and that she has failed 

to fully comply with her SCP objectives. 

At the termination hearing, Matthews testified that Mother tested 

positive for controlled substances on several occasions after she completed 

drug and alcohol treatment. Id. at 12-16. Specifically, Matthews testified 

that Mother tested positive for benzodiazepines on January 6 and 13, 2022, 

for alcohol on December 8, 2022, and for opiates on May 31, 2022, January 

9, 2023, on February 21, 2023. Id. Mother’s attempts to explain these 

positive test results are tenuous at best. With respect to the positive test 

results for the benzodiazepines, Mother provided a picture of a prescription 

pill bottle from Rite Aid in her name containing diazepam, but the bottle does 

not indicate when she filled the prescription. See id. at 15. For the positive 

test results for opiates, Mother points to a list of medications indicating that 

she had a prescription for hydrocodone that she filled on February 1, 2022, 

but this prescription predated her earliest positive test for opiates, by three 

months and there is no indication in the record she was permitted to refill the 

February 1, 2022 prescription. See id. Mother also points to a letter from a 

certified nurse practitioner indicating that she once again had a prescription 

for hydrocodone as of early 2023, but she presented no evidence of an actual 

prescription or that she ever filled a prescription for hydrocodone in January 

or February 2023. See id., Exhibits M-5, M-6. Additionally, Matthews testified 
J-S25032-24 

- 12 - 

that Mother on multiple occasions refused to attend drug screens. Id. at 17, 

22, 51. Because of her multiple positive drug screens, Mother was unable to 

receive a PCE and was thus could not comply with that SCP objective. Id. at 

35. 

Regarding Mother’s mental health treatment, the record reflects that 

she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety 

disorder, major depressive disorder, opioid dependence, PCP use disorder, and 

cocaine use disorder. Id. at 148. While Matthews testified that Mother had 

attended some treatment for her mental health issues, her mental healthcare 

provider informed him that Mother was no longer under their care, and that 

she was not successfully discharged from their program. Id. at 23-24. 

Matthews further testified that Mother did not complete the release and 

consent forms needed so that he could receive information about the progress 

she made while in treatment. Id. at 24-25. Additionally, Matthews stated 

that he had safety concerns because of Mother’s inability to manage her anger. 

Id. at 29, 53. Specifically, Matthews testified that Mother accused him of 

sexually inappropriate behavior and that she threatened to sue the members 

of CUA and DHS for harassing her and violating her rights. Id. at 34. 

Consequently, based on the foregoing, Matthews stated that he had 

ongoing concerns about Mother’s mental health and the current state of her 

sobriety. Id. at 51-53. Thus, the record supports a finding that Mother largely 

has not addressed, let alone remedied, the concerns that resulted in N.M.’s 
J-S25032-24 

- 13 - 

removal from her care, and the orphans’ court did not err in finding clear and 

convincing evidence to satisfy termination under the first two prongs of section 

2511(a)(8). 

We next consider whether the record supports the orphans’ court’s 

conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s 

rights pursuant to the third prong of section 2511(a)(8) and section 2511(b). 

Although Mother cites caselaw related to section 2511(b), she makes no 

argument whatsoever regarding whether terminating her parental rights best 

serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of N.M. 

See Mother’s Brief at 13-14. As this Court has repeatedly stated, where an 

appellate brief fails to provide discussion of a claim and fails to develop an 

issue in any other fashion capable of meaningful review, the claim is waived. 

In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 942 (Pa. Super. 2018). Here, 

Mother waived any challenge with respect to the third prong of section 

2511(a)(8) and section 2511(b) by failing to develop an argument in her brief. 

See id.

Even if Mother had preserved her challenge we would conclude that it 

lacked merit. Section 2511(b) provides: 

The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary 

consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs 

and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be 

terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as 

inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical 

care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. 

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). 
J-S25032-24 

- 14 - 

Our analysis focuses on whether termination of parental rights would 

best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of 

the child. T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[T]he determination of the child’s needs 

and welfare requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent 

and child. The utmost attention should be paid to discerning the effect on the 

child of permanently severing the parental bond.” Id. (quotation marks 

omitted). 

Additionally, our Supreme Court has explained that “the parental bond 

is but one part of the overall subsection (b) analysis[.]” Interest of K.T., 

296 A.3d 1085, 1113 (Pa. 2023). The needs and welfare analysis must also 

include the consideration of factors such as: “the child’s need for permanency 

and length of time in foster care ...; whether the child is in a preadoptive home 

and bonded with foster parents; and whether the foster home meets the 

child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs, including intangible 

needs of love, comfort, security, safety, and stability.” Id. (citations omitted). 

“These factors and others properly guide the court’s analysis of the child’s 

welfare and all [their] developmental, physical, and emotional needs.” Id. 

Importantly, “[orphans’] courts have the discretion to place appropriate 

weight on each factor present in the record before making a decision regarding 

termination that best serves the child’s specific needs.” Id.

With respect to its needs and welfare analysis, the orphans’ court 

explained: 
J-S25032-24 

- 15 - 

Based on the evidence, this [c]ourt determined that N.M. 

would not suffer any irreparable harm if Mother’s parental rights 

were terminated. N.M. has been DHS care continuously since 

January 2021. She has resided with her current kinship parent 

for approximately two years. N.M. is now three years old and has 

spent her entire life outside of the care and control of Mother. 

There was compelling testimony presented at the [termination] 

hearing that while N.M. acknowledges Mother on the screen during 

virtual visits, there is no parent-child bond or connection between 

N.M. and Mother. Mother has not consistently visited N.M. 

throughout the case, and often ends the visits early when she does 

attend. Mother’s visits with N.M. were always supervised. 

In determining the best interest of the child, this [c]ourt 

must consider both the needs and welfare of the child such as 

love, support, care, and comfort. N.M. does not look to Mother to 

meet these needs. She does not ask about Mother or express a 

desire to see her. Instead, N.M. looks to her kinship parent to 

provide her with love, support, care, and comfort. She also looks 

to her kinship parent to meet her basic needs as well as for safety 

and stability. While Mother is permitted to engage in N.M.’s 

medical care, she has failed to do so. The kinship parent, not 

Mother, has attended to N.M.’s medical needs throughout the 

case. N.M. is well-adjusted in her kinship home and is bonded to 

her kinship parent. Her current kinship parent is a pre-adoptive 

resource for N.M. For these reasons, [Matthews] testified that it 

would be in N.M.’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be 

terminated so that N.M. could be freed for adoption. 

Clear and convincing evidence has been presented to 

establish that there would be no irreparable harm caused to [N.M.] 

if this [c]ourt terminated Mother’s parental rights. N.M. has been 

in care for over three years. She deserves permanency and 

should not wait indefinitely. Based upon the evidence presented, 

this [c]ourt properly found that it would be in the best interest of 

[N.M.] to grant DHS's petition to terminate the parental rights of 

Mother pursuant to § 2511(b) and for [N.M.]’s permanency goal 

to be changed to adoption. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 5/3/2024, at 22-23. 

 The record reflects that Mother’s visits with N.M. were initially in-person 

and supervised at the CUA offices but they had to be moved to DHS because 
J-S25032-24 

- 16 - 

the CUA had to call the police during one of her visits. N.T., 1/30/2024, at 

36-37. Issues continued with visits at DHS, as Matthews testified that Mother 

was verbally aggressive towards DHS staff. Id. at 38. Thus, Mother’s visits 

with N.M. were changed to virtual visits. Id. at 39. Matthews explained that 

consequently, the frequency of Mother’s visits with N.M. deteriorated, stating 

that Mother’s visitation was “sporadic,” that she would often go more than a 

month without visiting with N.M., and that sometimes the visits would be as 

short as five minutes. Id. at 39-40. 

Regarding the relationship between N.M. and Mother, Matthews testified 

that while N.M. acknowledged Mother during visits, no parent-child bond 

exists between them. Id. at 43. Matthews explained that N.M. does not ask 

about Mother, nor does she express a desire to see her. Id. In contrast, 

Matthews testified that N.M. is bonded to her kinship parental, Mother’s 

cousin, with whom N.M. has resided for approximately two years. Id. at 46-

47. Matthews stated that N.M. calls the kinship parent “mom,” and that N.M. 

looks to her kinship parent to meet her everyday needs, her medical needs, 

and her emotional needs, including love, support, care, and comfort. Id. at 

47-48. Consequently, Matthews further testified N.M. would not suffer any 

irreparable harm if Mother’s parental rights were terminated. Id. at 44. 

Lastly, Mother herself conceded that she was not currently capable of caring 

for N.M. Id. at 149-50. 
J-S25032-24 

- 17 - 

 Based on the record before us and the standard of review we must 

employ, we discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court’s conclusion 

that N.M. is bonded to her kinship parent, that the kinship parent best meets 

N.M.’s needs and welfare, and that N.M. will not be irreparably harmed by 

terminating Mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, we conclude that the 

orphans’ court did not err in determining that N.M.’s developmental, 

emotional, and physical needs and welfare are best met by terminating 

Mother’s parental rights under the third prong of section 2511(a)(8) and 

2511(b). 

As the orphans’ court’s determination pursuant to section 2511(a)(8) 

and (b) is supported by the record, we must affirm the decree terminating 

Mother’s parental rights to N.M. See C.M., 255 A.3d at 358-59.4

 Decree affirmed. Order affirmed. 

 Judge McLaughlin joins the memorandum. 

 Judge Dubow did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case. 

____________________________________________ 

4

 We note that although Mother has waived any claims regarding the goal 

change to adoption by failing to raise any argument, our decision to affirm the 

orphans’ court’s termination decree necessarily renders moot the decision to 

change N.M.’s permanency goal to adoption. In re Adoption of A.H., 247 

A.3d 439, 446 (Pa. Super. 2021). 
J-S25032-24 

- 18 - 

Date: 7/29/2024