J-S42030-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: L.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: K.C., BIRTH MOTHER

No. 63 WDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000153-2015

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JUNE 07, 2016

K.C. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered December 16, 2015, in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which involuntarily 

terminated her parental rights to her minor daughter, L.C. (“Child”), born in 

April of 2012.1 After a careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and 

the applicable law, we affirm on the basis of the orphans’ court’s opinion. 

The orphans’ court has aptly summarized the factual and procedural 

history of this case, and we adopt its recitation. See Orphans’ Court 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The order also terminated the parental rights of Child’s putative father, 

T.W., and the parental rights of any unknown father that Child may have. 

Neither T.W., nor any other alleged father, has filed an appeal from the 

order terminating his parental rights. 
J-S42030-16

- 2 -

Opinion, 2/11/2016, at 1-3. Importantly, the Allegheny County Office of 

Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”) filed a petition to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights involuntarily on September 23, 2015. A termination hearing 

was held on December 14, 2015, during which the orphans’ court heard the 

testimony of CYF family services caseworker, Stacey Policicchio. In addition, 

the parties stipulated to the admission of a psychological evaluation 

prepared by Terry O’Hara, Ph.D.2 See N.T., 12/14/2015, at 3; Exhibit 4 

(Psychological Evaluation Report). Following the hearing, on December 16, 

2015, the orphans’ court entered its order terminating Mother’s parental 

rights to Child. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal on January 12, 2016, 

along with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. 

Mother now raises the following issue for our review. “Did the 

[orphans’] court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in 

concluding that [CYF] met its burden of proving that termination of [] 

Mother’s parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child 

pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(b)[?]” Mother’s brief at 5. 

When considering an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, 

we are guided by the following standard. 

The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases 

requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and 

____________________________________________

2 Mother did not appear at the termination hearing. Mother’s counsel did 

appear at the hearing, and conducted cross-examination of Ms. Policicchio.
J-S42030-16

- 3 -

credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported 

by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate 

courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law 

or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an 

abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest 

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial 

court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely

because the record would support a different result. We have 

previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often 

have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple 

hearings.

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks 

omitted). 

Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated 

analysis. 

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). Only if 

the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants 

termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in 

the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): 

determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the 

standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the 

needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the 

emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention 

paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such 

bond.

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

The orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 

Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), and (b), which provide as follows. 
J-S42030-16

- 4 -

(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.

***

(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.

***

(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights 

of a parent shall give primary consideration to the 

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the 

child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on 

the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, 

furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be 

beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition 

filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not 

consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions 

described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the 

giving of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (b).
J-S42030-16

- 5 -

In the instant matter, the Honorable Kathleen R. Mulligan has 

authored a thorough and well-reasoned opinion in support of her decision to 

terminate Mother’s parental rights. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/11/2016, 

at 5 (unnumbered pages) (finding that Mother is incapable of providing for 

Child’s needs and welfare, as evidenced by her past behavior and her failure 

to appear at the termination hearing). Critically, Judge Mulligan accepted 

the expert opinion of Dr. O’Hara that the benefits of adoption would 

outweigh any detriment that Child would suffer as a result of the 

termination. Id. at 5; Exhibit 4 (Psychological Evaluation Report), at 6. Dr. 

O’Hara was unable to analyze the bond between Child and Mother, because 

Mother failed to participate in his psychological evaluation. Exhibit 4 

(Psychological Evaluation Report), at 5. However, Dr. O’Hara explained that 

there is no indication that Mother is capable of providing for Child’s needs 

and welfare, given the information provided to him by CYF. Id. Dr. O’Hara 

also observed that Child appears to have a secure attachment with her 

foster parents. Id. at 5-6. Child’s foster parents display strong parental 

skills, and are able to provide Child with a safe, secure, and stable 

environment. Id.

As we agree with the sound reasoning of the orphans’ court, we adopt 

the orphans’ court’s opinion as dispositive of the issue presented in this 

appeal, and we affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights. In the 

event of future proceedings, the parties are directed to attach a copy of the 
J-S42030-16

- 6 -

orphans’ court’s February 11, 2016 opinion to this decision. The opinion 

should be redacted to exclude the birthdays of Child and his sibling, L.G.3

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/7/2016

____________________________________________

3 We note that Child’s guardian ad litem has filed a brief in support of the 

order terminating of Mother’s parental rights.
-~-------· - ... , .. ~·---- 

--- -----·---·- 

I Neither Father has appealed the decision terminating parental rights. 

2 L.G. has been placed with his biological father. 

Hospital because she said they were coughing and having nosebleeds. Both L.C. and 

health. Stacey Policicchio testified that the Mother had taken the children to Children's 

of concerns with the mother's drug and alcohol use as well as the state of her mental 

Stacey Policicchio testified that on October 6, 2012, CYF opened a case because 

June of 2007. 

At the December 14, 2015 hearing, caseworker Stacey Policicchio testified to the 

history of the case. The Child was born on April. 2012, to Mother. The alleged father 

of the child is T. W. (Father) and the petition included an Unknown Father1• The Mother 

has a son L.O. born on Septembe. 20052• Children Youth & Families, (CYF) first had 

contact with the Mother in October of 2005, and then again on December of 2006, and 

parental rights to her minor child L.C. (Child). 

K.C. (Mother), appeals my December 14, 2015, Order of Court terminating her 

K.R. Mulligan, J. 

Opinion 

Superior Court No. 

63 WDA 2016 

a minor. 

L.C. CP-02-AP-0000153-2015 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION 

TN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Circulated 05/25/2016 04:36 PM
··- ·---·····-------··---·---··· ···---···----- 

L.O. were admitted to Children's Hospital. During the interview with CYF, Mother was 

described as very suspicious and she was afraid that people were after her. Stacey 

Policicchio testified that the children were removed on October 7, 2012, when Mother 

went to Western Psych. The Child was adjudicated dependent on November 9, 2012, and 

the child was placed in foster care with supervised overnights and permission to return to 

Mother's care provided Mother remained in Sojourner House, a residential drug and 

alcohol treatment facility. Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from Sojourner House 

and Family Links (another residential drug and alcohol facility). Nonetheless, it did not 

appear that Mother had relapsed. Subsequently, the child was returned to Mother's care 

and the dependency case was closed an April 16, 2014. 

Stacey Policicchio testified that on September 19, 2014, CYF received a report 

regarding mother possibly being under the influence. The home was in deplorable 

condition and the U.S. Marshall had gone to the house to serve a warrant. Mother was 

evicted from her housing and went into treatment at Family Links in September 2014. 

On January 26, 2015, Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from Family Links. On 

March 13, 2015, the Child was removed from Mother because the Child was left by 

Mother with family friend. On March 27, 2015, the Child was again determined to be 

dependent and it was ordered that she remain in placement with the family friend. The 

Child has remained in placement with this family friend since that date and this 

placement is the proposed adoptive home. The last visit that Mother had with the Child 

was on May 10, 2015. 

CYF developed a service plan for Mother to address her drug and alcohol issues 

which was never successfully completed. Stacey Policicchio testified that Mother was 
--------·----------·----·-----------·-·----·-------------------------------- 

Following the hearing, I granted CYF's TPR petition and found that CYF met its 

burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination against the 

Mother existed under 23 Pa. C.S.A §2511 (a) subsections (2), (5). I also found that CYF 

met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination 

against both Father and Unknown Father existed under 23 Pa. C.S.A §2511 (a) 

ordered to have a drug and alcohol evaluation with POWER, an agency providing drug 

and alcohol services, and to follow recommendations. On June 8, 2015, Mother came to 

the CYF office after being released from jail and completed the POWER evaluation and 

was recommended for partial hospitalization. On July of 2015, Mother reported not 

wanting to complete the recommendations. On August I 0, 2015, while incarcerated 

again, Mother reported not wanting to complete the recommendations. 

Terry O'Hara Ph.D., a licensed Psychologist, conducted interactional evaluations 

between the Child and family. While Dr. O'Hara was prepared to testify at the December 

14, 2015 hearing, all parties stipulated to Dr. O'Hara's report and therefore, Dr. O'Hara 

did not testify, but his reports were admitted into evidence. 

Dr. O'Hara's reports concluded that the Father and Mother are in no position to 

reasonably care for the Child's needs and welfare at this time. If the Child were placed 

with Mother at this time, she would be at risk for homelessness, exposure to significant 

instability, and exposure to substance dependence by the Mother 

Mother, Father, and Unknown Father failed to appear at the December 14, 2015, 

termination hearing although Mother was represented. Father and Unknown Father's 

whereabouts are unknown. 
-------· ..... ·---- ···~----~-- -- 

·------------·~-- ... 

The Supreme Court has instructed us that [I]f the grounds for termination under 

subsection (a) are met, a court "shall give primary consideration to the developmental, 

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." Pa. C.S.A §251 l(b). The 

emotional needs and welfare of the child have been properly interpreted to include 

"[ijntangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability." In re K.M, 53 A3d 781, 791 

(Pa.Super.2012). In In re E.M, [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa.1993)], this Court held that the 

Mother does not appeal my findings that grounds exist for termination of her 

parental rights under Pa. C.S.A §2511 (a). However, Mother argues in her Concise 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal that despite not appealing the grounds for 

termination, that the termination was inappropriate due to a needs and welfare analysis 

pursuant to Pa. C.S.A §2511 (b ). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has repeatedly found 

"that parent 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 his or her 

immediate physical and emotional needs." In Re Adoption of Godzak, 719 A.2d 365, 368 

(Pa. Super. 1998). 

In the Mother's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Mother 

claims that the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in 

concluding that Allegheny County Children, Youth and Families met its burden of 

proving that termination of Birth Mother's Parental Rights would meet the needs and 

welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A §2511 (b ), by clear and convincing 

evidence. 

subsections (1 ), (2), (5), and' that terminations met the needs and welfare of the child 

pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A §251 l(b) 
...... ·--· ···--------~--- 

Date: February 11, 2016 

It is clear that the Mother, Father, and Unknown Father are in no position to meet 

the needs and welfare of the child as evidenced by their past behavior as well as their 

failure to appear at the December 14, 2015, termination hearing. 

Stacey Policicchio testified that she had the opportunity to observe the Child in 

the pre-adoptive foster home and she is doing "really well". Stacey Policicchio further 

testified that the Child's is very well adjusted and she has no developmental problems. 

In Dr. O'Hara's opinion, the pre-adoptive foster parents exhibit stability and 

strong parenting skills warranting the adoption of the Child. Finally, it is Dr. O'Hara's 

opinion that the benefits of adoption for the child such as safety, security and stability 

outweigh any potential deficits in the termination of parental rights for the Child's 

parents. 

For the above reasons, the order of December I 4, 20 l 5, should be affirmed. 

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 serving the parental bond. In re K.M, 53 A3d at 

791. In re: T.S.M, 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013).