### J
-A28013
- 17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S.D., JR., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.D., MOTHER : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1117 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered March 2, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP
-51
-AP
-0000573
-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and DUBOW, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 04, 2017 Appellant, T.D. (“Mother”), appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Family Court Division, which granted the petition of the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor Child, M.S.D. (“Child”). We affirm. In its opinion, the Family Court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Mother raises three issues for our review. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER 23 PA.C.S.A. SECTION 2511(A)(1), 2511(A)(2), 2511(A)(5), AND 2511(A)(8)? THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT TERMINATION OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF MOTHER BEST SERVED THE CHILD’S DEVELOPMENTAL, PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS UNDER 23 PA.C.S.A. SECTION 2511(B)?

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 2
- THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE GOAL CHANGE TO ADOPTION? (Mother’s Brief at 5). Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the following principles:

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 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. ... We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. In re Adoption of A.C.H. , 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 3
- as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191
-92 (Pa.Super. 2004). In re Z.P., supra at 1115
- 16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J. , 936 A.2d 1128, 1131
-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008)). DHS filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children on the following grounds:

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination (a) General Rule. ―The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties. (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well
-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. * * * (5) The child has been removed from the care of the

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 4
- 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. * * * (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)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b). “ Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along with consideration of the subsection 2511(b)

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 5
-

provisions.” In re Z.P., supra at 1117.

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

...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. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Termination under Section 2511(a)(1) involves the following: To satisfy the requirements of [S]ection 2511(a)(1), the moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties. In addition, Section 2511 does not require that the parent demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child and refusal or failure to perform parental duties. Accordingly, parental rights may be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) if the parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental duties. Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the parent’s explanation for ...her conduct; (2) the post
abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to Section 2511(b). In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Regarding the six
-month period prior to filing the termination

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 6
-

petition: [T]he trial court must consider the whole history of a given

case and not mechanically apply the six
-month statutory provision. The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case and consider all explanations offered by the parent facing termination of

...her parental rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary termination
. In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted). The grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2), due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied, are not limited to affirmative misconduct; to the contrary those grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties. In re A.L.D., supra at 337. “Parents are required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities.” Id. at 340. The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) was long ago stated in the case of In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636, 331 A.2d 172 (1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the petitioner for involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied.” In Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 7
-

327, 330 (Pa.Super. 1998). “Termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(5) requires that: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for at least six months; (2) the conditions which led to removal and 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 Z.P., supra at 1118. “[T]o terminate parental rights under Section 2511(a)(8), the following factors must be demonstrated: (1) [t]he child has been removed from parental care for 12 months or more from the date of removal; (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 Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1275
-76 (Pa.Super. 2003). “Section 2511(a)(8) sets a 12

–month time frame for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal by the court.” In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003). Once the 12

– month period has been established, the court must next determine whether the conditions that led to the child's removal continue to exist, despite the reasonable good faith efforts of the Agency supplied over a realistic time. Id. Termination under Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent’s current willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused placement or the availability or efficacy of Agency services. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 396 (Pa.Super. 2003);

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 8
-

In r e Adoption of M.E.P., supra
. Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination will meet the child’s needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.Super. 2006). “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent

-child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond.” Id. Significantly:

In this context, the court must take into account whether a bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship. When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation. In re Z.P., supra at 1121 (internal citations omitted). “The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be considered unfit and have

...her rights terminated.” In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001). This Court has said:

There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 9
- support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance. This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child. Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a parent exert [himself] to take and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life. Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the parent
-child relationship to the best of his... ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent
-child relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs. In re B.,N.M., supra at 855 (internal citations omitted). “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of

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

...her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of [the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” Id. at 856. On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2006).

In order to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion, we must determine that the court’s

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 10
- judgment was “manifestly unreasonable,” that the court did not apply the law, or that the court’s action was “a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,” as shown by the record. We are bound by the trial court’s findings of fact that have support in the record. The trial court, not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. When the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm, “even if the record could also support an opposite result.” Id. at 822
-23 (internal citations omitted). The Juvenile Act controls the disposition of dependent children. In re R.P., 957 A.2d 1205, 1217 (Pa.Super. 2008). Section 63 51 provides in relevant part:

§ 6351. Disposition of dependent child * * * (f) Matters to be determined at permanency hearing.

—At each permanency hearing, a court shall determine all of the following: (1) The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement. (2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of compliance with the permanency plan developed for the child. (3) The extent of progress made toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement. (4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child.

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 11
- (5) The likely date by which the placement goal for the child might be achieved. (5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency plan in effect. (6) Whether the child is safe.

* * * (9) If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months or the court has determined that aggravated circumstances exist and that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or to preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified family to adopt the child unless: (i) the child is being cared for by a relative best suited to the physical, mental and moral welfare of the child; (ii) the county agency has documented a compelling reason for determining that filing a petition to terminate parental rights would not serve the needs and welfare of the child; or (iii) the child’s family has not been provided with necessary services to achieve the safe return to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian within the time frames set forth in the permanency plan.

* * * (f.1) Additional determination.

—Based upon the determinations made under subsection (f) and all

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 12
- relevant evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall determine one of the following: (1) If and when the child will be returned to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian in cases where the return of the child is best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. (2) If and when the child will be placed for adoption, and the county agency will file for termination of parental rights in cases where return to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian is not best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. (3) If and when the child will be placed with a legal custodian in cases where the return to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian or being placed for adoption is not best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. (4) If and when the child will be placed with a fit and willing relative in cases where return to the child’s parent, guardian or custodian, being placed for adoption or being placed with a legal custodian is not best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.

* * * (f.2) Evidence.

—Evidence of conduct by the parent that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, including evidence of the use of alcohol or a controlled substance that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, shall be presented to the court by the county agency or any other party at any disposition or permanency hearing whether or not the conduct was the basis for the determination of dependency.

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 13
- (g) Court order.

—On the basis of the determination made under subsection (f.1), the court shall order the continuation, modification or termination of placement or other disposition which is best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(f), (f.1), (f.2), (g). “When the child welfare agency has made reasonable efforts to return a [dependent] child to [the child’s] biological parent, but those efforts have failed, then the agency must redirect its efforts towards placing the child in an adoptive home.” In re N.C ., supra at 823 (citing In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967, 973 (Pa.Super. 2004)).

Although the agency has the burden to show a goal change would serve the child’s best interests, “[s]afety, permanency, and well
-being of the child must take precedence over all other considerations” under Section 6351
. In re D.P., 972 A.2d 1221, 1227 (Pa.Super. 2009), appeal denied, 601 Pa. 702, 973 A.2d 1007 (2009) (emphasis in original); In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973, 978 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 782, 959 A.2d 320 (2008). “[T]he parent’s rights are secondary” in a goal change proceeding. In re D.P., supra
. Because the focus is on the child’s best interests, a goal change to adoption might be appropriate, even when a parent substantially complies with a reunification plan. In re N.C., supra at 826
-27. Where a parent’s “skills, including her judgment with regard to the emotional well
being of her children, remain problematic[,]” a goal change to adoption might be appropriate, regardless of the parent’s compliance with a permanency plan. Id. at 825. The agency is not required to offer services indefinitely, where a parent is unable to properly apply the instruction provided. In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 340 (Pa.Super. 2002). See also In re S.B., supra at 981 (giving priority to child’s safety and stability, despite parent’s substantial compliance with permanency plan); In re A.P., 728 A.2d

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 14
- 375, 379 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied, 560 Pa. 693, 743 A.2d 912 (1999) (holding where, despite willingness, parent cannot meet “irreducible minimum parental responsibilities, the needs of the child must prevail over the rights of the parent”). Thus, even where the parent makes earnest efforts, the “court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s need for permanence and stability to a parent’s claims of progress and hope for the future.” In re Adoption of R.J.S. , 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa.Super. 2006). In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 347 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 648, 12 A.3d 372 (2010) (some internal citations and quotation marks omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive and well
-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Joseph Fernandes, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The Family court opinion discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Family Court Opinion, filed June 15, 2017, at 1

- 18) (finding: (1-3) Mother failed to complete her FSP objectives or remedy conditions which led to Child’s dependency; Mother continues to deny all allegations of physical abuse of Child and his siblings and prostitution of Child’s eldest sibling; Mother completed parenting and anger management classes without substantial progress; Child consistently refused visits with Mother because Child does not feel safe with her; Mother admits she has not visited with Child since September 2015; Mother failed to perform parental duties through her persistent refusal to take any responsibility for why Child and his siblings came into foster care or her failure to complete FSP

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 15
-

objectives, particularly regarding mental health treatment; Mother continues to be incapable of providing Child with essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for Child’s physical and mental wellbeing; conditions which led to Child’s placement continue to exist, and Mother cannot remedy them within reasonable time; Child is currently in safe pre

-adoptive home and wants to be adopted; Child fears retu rning to Mother’s care; Child has strong bond with foster parents; Child’s behavior in school has improved since his placement with foster family; Mother’s parental bond with Child is attenuated; caseworker testified adoption is in Child’s best interest, a nd Child would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother’s parental rights were terminated; testimony from DHS’ witnesses was credible; changing goal to adoption and terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child under Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) was proper). The record supports the court’s decisions to change the family goal to adoption and terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child . Accordingly, we affirm, based on the Family Court’s opinion. Order affirmed. Judge Panella joins this memorandum Judge Dubow did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case.

### J
-A28013
- 17

- 16
-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 12/4/2017Circulated 11/21/2017 12:09 PM



### IN 

### THE COURT OF 

### COMMON PLEAS 

### FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA,: 

### FAMILY COURT DIVISION In 

### the 

### Interest of M.S.D., a 

### minor CP-51-DP-0002138-2014 CP-51-AP-0000573-2016 51

### -FN-001971-2014 

### APPEAL of: 

### T.D., 

### Mother 1117 

### EDA 2017 

### OPINION 

### Fernandes, 

### J.: Appellant T.D. 

### ("Mother") appeals from the order entered on March 2, 2017, granting the 

### petition filed by the Philadelphia Department 

### of Human Services ("DHS"), to involuntarily terminate 

### Mother's parental rights to M. S .D. 

### ("Child") pursuant to the 

### Adoption Act, 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), 

### and (b).' Yolanda Houston, Esquire, counsel for Mother, filed atimely Notice 

### ofAppeal 

### with a 

### Statement 

### ofMatter Complained 

### ofon Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b). 

### Factual and Procedural Background: The family in this casebecame known to DHS on September 8, 2014, when DHS received a Child Protective Services ("CPS") report alleging that 

### Wither and 

### Child's father 

### ("Father") Were 

### prostituting 

### Child's eldest sibling ("Sibling 1") to an unidentified male; that Mother and Father

were permitting the 

### unidentified male to visit their home daily; that the most recent incident allegedly occurred on September 7, 2014; 

### that Sibling 1 allegedly disclosed that she was sexually 

### abused and was in pain; 

### andthat Sibling 1 was 

### not present in school on September 8, 2014. The 

### report further alleged that Sibling 1 was fearful 

### ofMother and Father; and that Sibling 1 resided in 

### a home with Child and other siblings. The report was indicated. That same day, DHS went to the home, at which 

### point one 

### ofthe siblings informed DHS through the window that Mother was 

### unable to come to 

### the door. DHS telephoned the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") who 

### joined DHS outside 

### ofthe home. Mother took thirty minutes 

### to come to the door and initially 

### refused to let DHS enter 

### the home or speak to the children. Mother eventually agreed to allow

The termination and goal changetrial lasted three days. Due to the availability ofthe parties and court schedule, the trial started on October 12, 2016, and further testimony was taken on November 23, 2016, and finally on March 2, 2017. Page 1 

### of 18DHS to speak with the children, but took another thirty minutes to bring them to the door. DHS met with 

### Child's siblings; Mother informed DHS that Child was at an afterschool program. The children appeared fearful and guarded; however, there was no report of sexual abuse. Mother refused to permit DHS to complete a home assessment. Mother denied the allegations in the CPS report; refused to have Sibling 1 exaMined for signs 

### of sexual abuse; and refused to allow the children to be 

### interviewed by the 

### Philadelphia's Children Alliance ("PCA"). Father was not at home; Mother 

### informed DHS 

### that he was at work. DHS also observed text messages allegedly from Sibling 1 stating 

### that she 

### was being sexually abused by Father's friend between noon and 2pm. Sibling 

## l's alleged text messages stated that 

### Mother and Father were forcing her to have sex with an 

### unidentified male. The messages were dated from September 5, 2014, to September 8, 2014. DHS also 

### learned that Mother had contacted the school and had allegedly reported that Sibling 1 was ill and would not be in school that day. On September 9, 2014, DHS went to the 

### children's respective schools and 

### met with Sibling 1 and the other siblings; Child was not present at his school. 

### Sibling 1 

### confirmed the allegations in the CPS report. DHS obtained Orders for Protective Custody 

### ("OPC") for Sibling 1 and the other siblings,and placed them in a foster home through Presbyterian 

### Children's Village. On September 10, 2014, DHS learned that Mother and 

### Father 

### had used inappropriate physical discipline on 

### the children; that Mother and Father forced the children to kneel on 

### uncooked rice for up to an 

### hour at a time; and that Mother and Father forced the children to 

### run up and down the stairs 

### repeatedly 

### forextended

### perlods 

### oftime-while not being allowed 

### to drink or use the bathroom. Mother informed DHS that the maternal grandmother 

### ("MGM") would

### bring Child to DHS; MGM appeared at DHS with Child. DHS obtained an OPC for Child and 

### placed him with his siblings. On September 11, 2014, at the shelter care hearing, the OPC was 

### lifted and 

### temporary commitment to DHS was ordered to stand. The trial court ordered Mother and Father to 

### cooperate with DHS and allow DES to evaluate 

### their home. On 

### September 18, 2014, the trial court ordered no 

### visits for Mother and Father. On September 22, 2014, DHS 

### received a General Protective Services ("GPS") report alleging that 

### Child's brother 

### ("Sibling 2") stated that Child 

### wanted to figure out 

### iftwo boys could have sex and indicated that Child did that to him. Sibling 2 stated that this incident occurred two or three years prior, when he 

### was four or five years old and it happened only once. 

### The report was found to be valid. DHS 

### conducted ahome 

### assessment 

### ofMother and 

### Father's home and foundthe home to be in deplorable condition. The 

### home was 

### infested with cockroaches and rodents; there were serious structural
Page 2 

### of 18damage and exposed wiring in the home; and there were no beds in the home. DHS determined that the home posed a 

### health hazard. On September 29, 2014, Child was moved to his current foster home, due to allegations that Child had sexually inappropriatebehavior with Sibling 2 while they were at 

### parent's home. At the adjudicatory hearing on September 30, 2014, Child was adjudicated 

### dependent along 

### with his siblings and they were all committed to DHS custody. The trial court found that Child had been diagnosed 

### with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and

was 

### prescribed Concerts. The trial court ordered DHS to refer Mother and Father to the Achieving Reunification Center 

### ("ARC") and 

### that Mother and Father be referred 

### to Behavioral Health Services 

### ("BHS") for 

### consultation and evaluation. The trial court granted Mother and Father supervised visits at the agency. On December 14 and 18, 2014, DHS received a CPS report and GPS 

### report, respectively, alleging that Mother and Father 

### had prostituted Sibling 1 for money and Father 

### had been 

### raping her since she was four years old; the children began to report physical abuse suffered while in the care 

### of Mother and Father. The reports alleged that the children 

### reported that Mother and 

### Father beat them with belts, rods, metal brushes, or whatever was lying around; that they were beaten before school and 

### when they returned home from school; that Child

was 

### beaten so badly once 

### that his eyes bled; and that the children were trained to lie to school officials 

### about any 

### sustained injuries. The reports 

### further alleged that Sibling 2 saw 

### Father beat Child; 

### that Sibling 2 saw 

### Child

### just lying there; that Father told Sibling 2 to call an ambulance and all 

### the children 

### were instructed to say that Child fell and hurrhimSelf,- and that the children were very 

### afraid 

### of retaliation from Mother and Father for divulging the information related to the physical abuse. The CPS was indicated and the GPS was substantiated. At a December 22, 2014, permanency review hearing, the trial court ordered that visitation continue as arranged, and that Mother confirm visits with the agency twenty four hours in advance and that the agency confirm via email with 

### Mother no later than the morning 

### ofthe visits. The trial court took noticethat Child attended individual therapy through the Village and received wrap-around, therapeutic support 

### staff("TSS"), and behavioral specialist consultant ("BSC") services in school. The trial courtalso ordered Mother and Father to sign consents for the necessary releases for Child to receive treatment. On 

### January 9, 2015, DHS received a GPS report alleging that Mother was intimidating the children to not report anything further andhad been trying to get the children to anger the foster 

### mother so that 

### the foster mother would hit them. The 

### reportwas substantiated. At a September 3, 2015, permanency review, the trial court noted that Child was hospitalized at Horsham Partial
Page 3 

### of 18Program, and had 

### been taken to the hospital for mental health once in July 2015 and twice in 

### August 2015. The trial court ordered that 

### if Mother and Father refuse to sign the necessary releases, DHS is 

### permitted to sign for all routine medical treatments for Child.
DRS"

### filed a petition to 

### involuntarily terminate 

### Mother's and 

### Father's parental rights as to Child and

### change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption onJune 22, 2016. (N.T. 10/12/16, pg. 7). The petition for 

### termination 

### ofparental rights and goal change was heard on October 12, 2016, 

### November 23, 2016, and March 2, 2017. Child had been in care for almost twenty-nine 

### months 

### at thetime 

### ofthe 

### termination trial date.
The DHS sexual abuse 

### investigator testified that the home had serious concerns at the time 

### of Child's removal, such as 

### cockroach androdent infestations and exposed wiring. DHS also testified that 

### Mother denied all 

### allegations 

### ofthe prostitution 

### ofSibling 1 and the physical abuse 

### of Child and his siblings. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 22-45, 50-58).
All 

### parties stipulated to the expertise 

### of the Forensic Health Specialist ("Specialist") in the 

### parenting capacity evaluation ("PCE") and psychosexual evaluation she conducted on Mother. The PCE was conducted in 

### August 2015 and the psychosexual evaluation was conducted in July 2016. The Specialist 

### testified that Mother understoodthe test and was consistent in 

### her answers, but 

### her responses indicated an intentional attempt to portray herself in a positive light. At times 

### Mother dernecithat DHS was ever in 

### her home, though

### shewas very 

### clearthat there were

### no issues

or 

### concerns with the condition 

### ofthe home. Mother 

### reported that she did not learn anything from the 

### parenting and anger 

### management classes that she took. The Specialist recommended that Mother enter into 

### mental health therapy to develop an understanding as to why Child and his siblings came into care and her role in it; and that Mother retake the parenting and anger 

### management classes to gain some benefit. The Specialist also recommended that Mother submit
to a polygraph. Mother insisted 

### that DHS kidnapped and stole her children from her. The 

### Specialist testified that, overall, 

### Mother continues to deny all allegations regarding the concerns 

### that brought Child and 

### his siblings into care. 

### Mother denied the 

### prostitution 

### of Sibling 1 and the physical abuse 

### of Child and his siblings. The Specialist testified that Mother does not have the 

### present ability to parent as she does not seem to have gained any benefit from therapy. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 59-60, 65, 67-72, 74-75, 78-80, 93-94, 109-110).

Page 4 

### of 18The CUA caseworker that handled the case from 

### December 2015 to August 2016 testified that 

### Mother's SCP objectives were to attend weekly psychotherapy; to monitor academic and attendance goals for Child; to attend anger 

### management and parenting classes; and to attend weekly supervised visits at DHS. 

### Mother's SCP objectives were consistently the same throughout the case. 

### Mother enrolled atthe Consortium for psychotherapy, but never provided CUAwith any 

### documentation other than attendance slips. CUA 

### testified that Child only attended a few visits towards 

### the beginning 

### ofCUA's assignment 

### ofthe case. Child stopped attending and indicated to CUA 

### that he did not 

### want visits with Mother because he did not feel safe around her. Child was 

### consistent in refusing visits with Mother each week. The CUA caseworker testified that Mother 

### continued 

### to deny 

### the allegations 

### that brought Child 

### andhis siblings into care and accuse DHS 

### of kidnapping her children. Child receives wraparound services in school and mobile therapy at home. 

### Mother focused more on 

### what happened at the beginning 

### ofthe case, rather 

### than on 

### what

was 

### continuously going on with Child. Child enjoys being in the care 

### ofhis current foster parent and is 

### willing to be adopted by her. Child reported that he is afraid to go home. The CUA 

### caseworker testified that reunification with Mother was ruled out because her PCE indicated that 

### Mother was unable to 

### provide permanency and safety for Child's well-being, and Child did not 

### wish to be 

### returnedto Mother. Mother categorically denied the sexual abuse allegations, physical abuse allegations, and the housing issues that brought 

### Child and his siblings into care. The CUA 

### caseworker also- 

### testified that Child would 

### not suffer irreparable- harm 

### if -Mother's rights- were 

### terminated. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 121-128, 130-133, 138-141, 144).
The 

### current CUA case manager, who took over the case in September 2016, testified that Mother

was 

### moderately compliantwithher SCP objectives. 

### Mother completed an intake at the Consortium in 

### April 2016 and has been attending ongoing bi-weekly outpatient therapy. Mother signed 

### releases for her attendance record and evaluation only. CUA informed Mother that she needed a release 

### for the content 

### ofMother's therapy atthe 

### Consortium to gauge her compliance, but Mother refused, claiming she wanted to 

### consult with her attorney. As ofthe date 

### ofthe termination trial, 

### Mother 

### had not provided a release for 

### the treatment 

### plan 

### ofhertherapy to CUA. Mother refused
to 

### participate in the polygraph, as recommended by the Specialist. The CUA case manager 

### testified that Mother continued to deny that any 

### physical discipline occurred in the home and to

accuse DHS 

### ofkidnapping her children. Mother also refused to acknowledge that there were ever any issues with the condition 

### of the home or 

### Child's inappropriately sexualized behavior. The Page 5 

### of 18CUA case manager testified 

### that the issues in the home have been resolved, and the home is appropriate, but there are still no beds in the home. Mother reported that Father moved out 

### ofthe home in December 2014, a few months after Child and his siblings were removed. CUA testified that Mother completed all 

### ofher SCP objectives, except for the polygraph. However, Mother still does not take 

### responsibility for why Child and his siblings came into care. Since the CUA case manager received the case, 

### Child has not requested any 

### visits with Mother. Child reported 

### that he is especially afraid 

### of Father and does not feel 

### that Mother can protect him. The CUA case 

### manager testified that 

### Mother and Child do not have a 

### parent-child relationship. Child 

### would not suffer any irreparable 

### harm 

### ifMother's parental rights were terminated. The foster parent meets all 

### of Child's needs. 

### Adoption is in 

### Child's best interests. After the CUA case manager was excused in the middle 

### ofthe 

### trial, Mother's attorney 

### requested to add nine additional witnesses to her case-in-chief; the 

### trial court denied her request. (N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 8-17, 21-22, 27-29, 32, 34-37, 40-45). Mother testified that she 

### understands why Child and his siblings were taken out 

### ofthe home, but only 

### acknowledged allegations 

### ofphysical abuse against Sibling 1. Mother claimed that her home

was 

### under renovations when Child and his siblings were removed and denied that there were any cockroach issues. 

### Mother denied the allegations 

### ofprostituting Sibling 1 and that there was ever inappropriate physical 

### discipline in the home. Mother completed parenting classes twice and claimed that she 

### benefited from them, but spoke more about fire safety and proper nutrition than 

### behavior modification 

### without physical discipline. 

### Mother's second class 

### of anger management is still outstanding. 

### Mother claimedto be working on

### her PCE and psychosexual evaluation goals. 

### Mother admittedto refusing the polygraph, claiming that the results would be manipulated against her. 

### Mother admitted 

### that she 

### has been throughfour therapists at the Consortiumand testified that she 

### has spent the 

### most time working on coping skills and strategies to get Child and his siblings back in her care. 

### Mother claimed to have signed a release for the CUA case 

### worker as to the content 

### of her therapy in 

### August 2016, around the time that the case was transferred. Mother admitted that her previously close relationship to Child has been destroyed or, at the very least, damaged. Mother again denied any inappropriate sexual behavior from Child and claimed that Child was removed from his 

### siblings' foster home because he needed therapy. Mother has not 

### visited with Child since September 2015, a year and a 

### half ago. Mother only sees Child at his 

### doctor's appointments. Mother denies that Child does not want to see her and claims CUA has Page 6 

### of 18not 

### allowed her to see Child for all 

### this time. 

### Mother claims she completed all 

### of her SCP 

### objectives and has gained a deeper understanding 

### ofwhat it means to be a parent. (N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 

### 47-55, 57-60, 65-71, 73-76). 

### Following testimony, the trial court terminated 

### Mother's and 

### Father's parental rights to Child under §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).2 

### Discussion: Mother avers that the 

### Trial Court erred:

1. When it found that [DHS]by clear and convincing evidence has met its burdento terminate Appellants Parental Rights under 23 PA. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), §2511(a)(2), §2511(a)(5), and §2511(a)(8). 2. 

### When it found that the 

### termination of Mother's parental rights was in the 

### Child's best interest and 

### that [DHS] has 

### met its burden 

### of [proof] pursuant to 23 PA. C.S.A. §2511(b). 3. 

### In changing the 

### permanent placement goal from reunification to adoption. 

### Mother has appealed the involuntary termination 

### of her parental rights. The grounds for 

### involuntary termination 

### of parental rights are enumerated in the Adoption Act at 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(a), whichprovides the 

### following grounds 

### for §2511(a)(1): (a) 

### General rule

# - The rights 

### ofaparent, inregard to a child, may be terminated after a petition is filed-on 

### any

### ofthe following grounds: (1) The parent, by conduct continuing for a period 

### of at least six months immediately 

### preceding 

### the filing 

### of the petition, 

### has either evidenced a settled purpose 

### of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.
In 

### proceedings to 

### involuntary terminate parental rights, the burden 

### ofproof is onthe party seeking 

### termination which 

### must establishthe existence 

### ofgrounds fortermination by clear and convincing evidence. In re Adoption 

### ofAtencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994). To satisfy section (a)(1), the 

### moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence 

### ofconduct sustained for at least six 

### months prior to the filing 

### of the 

### termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties. However, the six-month

2 The trial court terminated parental rights to Child ofboth Mother and Father, but only Mother appealed. Page 7 

### of 18period should not be applied 

### mechanically; instead, the 

### court must consider the whole history 

### of the case. 

### In re B.N.M, 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004). The standard 

### ofclear and convincing evidence is defined as 

### testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier 

### of fact to come to a clear 

### conviction without hesitance 

### ofthe truth 

### ofprecise facts in issue. In



### re C.R.S., 696 

### A.2d 840, 843 (Pa. Super. 1997). The 

### petition for involuntary termination 

### ofparental rights and termination were filed on June 22, 2016. For the six month 

### period prior to filing, Mother did not successfully complete her SCP objectives. The DHS sexual abuse investigator testified that Mother's home created a serious 

### health risk for Child as there were 

### cockroach and rodent infestations and exposed wiring through holes 

### in the walls. Mother 

### testified that the home was under renovations when Child and his siblings were removed from the home. The CUA case manager testified that the home is now appropriate, but there were no beds in the home at the time 

### ofthe home assessment. The CUA

case 

### manager and case worker 

### both testified that Mother refuses to acknowledge that any repairs to the home were needed in the first place and denies 

### that there was ever a cockroach problem. Concerns about 

### Mother's ability to keep the house clean and free 

### of repairs remain. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 31-36, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 29, 36; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48). Mother enrolled at 

### the Consortium for psychotherapy, but never gave CUA access to the content 

### ofher therapy sessions. Mother claimed she signed the release for the CUA case worker, though only days before he 

### transferred the case to the CUA case manager. Mother testified that she has been working on coping skills and strategies on how to get Childback into 

### her care during therapy sessions. Mother 

### admittedthat since startingtherapy in October 2015, she has been 

### through four different therapists, 

### which indicates inconsistency in her therapy. The Specialist testified that Mother did not seem to be 

### taking much away from therapy as she consistently continues to deny all allegations 

### ofphysical abuse 

### of Child and his siblings, the 

### prostitution 

### of Sibling 1, and that there was ever anything 

### wrong with the conditions with the home. After the evaluations, the Specialist recommended that Mother take a 

### polygraph test, but Mother continuously refused. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 29-36, 69- 75, 78-80, 94, 124-125, 129-130; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 8-14; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48, 52-55, 57-59; 65-68, 70-76). The CUA case 

### worker testified that Mother completed 

### her parenting and anger 

### management classes. However, the Specialist testified that Mother didnot seemto gain any insight into being a better parent or controlling her anger from those classes and recommended that she 

### retake them. Mother completed 

### a second set 

### ofparent classes and claimed that she gained 

### abenefit Page 8 

### of 18from them, but testified to learning more about fire safety and proper nutrition for Child rather than 

### behavior modification. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 70-72, 126-127; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 49-52). The CUA case 

### worker testified that Child started refusing visits 

### with Mother early in the case because he did 

### not feel safe around her. Child was consistent in his weekly refusal 

### of visits with Mother. Since the CUA case manager 

### took over the case in September 2016, Child has not 

### requested visits with Mother. Child reported to the CUA case manager that he is especially afraid 

### of Father and does not feel that Mother can 

### protect him. 

### Mother admitted that she has not visited with Child since September 2015, over a year and a 

### half ago. 

### Mother has only seen Child at 

### doctor's appointments. Mother denied that Child refused to see 

### her and instead blamed CUA for not allowing 

### her to see Child. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 127-128, 130-133; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 15-17, 27- 28, 34; 

### N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 68-71). Overthe six months 

### prior to the filing 

### ofthe termination petitions, Mother failed to perform her parental duties by 

### her constant failure to take responsibility for why Child and his siblings came into care and to successfully complete 

### her SCP objectives, especially her 

### treatment plan for 

### her mental health therapy. Mother refused to sign releases to disclose her mental 

### health treatment plan. 

### Mother's inability to perform those parental duties is not 

### limited to the six 

### month period, but extends 

### throughout the life 

### ofthe case. Child has been in care fortwentynine months. Child needs permanency. Mother has an affirmative duty to place 

### herself in a parenting position. Mother evidenced a settled purpose 

### ofrelinquishing parental claims to Child by 

### failing and refusing to 

### perform her parental duties. 

### Since these facts were demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court did not err 

### or abuse its discretion in terminating 

### Mother's parental rights under this section. The 

### trial court terminated 

### Mother's parental rights under 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(a)(2). This section 

### of the Adoption Act includes, as a ground for involuntary termination 

### of parental rights, the 

### repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal 

### of the parent that causes the child to be 

### without essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessaryfor his physical ormental wellbeing; and the conditions and causes 

### ofthe incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal cannot or will not be 

### remedied by the parent. This ground is not limited to affirmative misconduct. It may include acts 

### ofrefusal to perform parental duties, but focuses more specifically on the needs 

### ofthe child. Adoption 

### ofC.A.W , 683 A.2d 911, 914 (Pa. Super. 1996).

Page 9 

### of 18Child 

### was taken into DHS custody because Mother was unable to provide essentialparental care; 

### Sibling 1 

### reportedbeingprostituted by Mother and Father; Child and his siblings reported physical abuse 

### from Mother; and 

### Mother's home was a health risk to Child and his siblings. Mother was unable to remedy the causes 

### of her repeated and continued incapacity to provide Child with 

### essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for Child's physical and mental wellbeing. 

### Mother did not successfully complete her SCP objectives. At the time 

### of removal, the 

### home 

### was infested with cockroaches and rodents and had exposed wiring through holes 

### in the walls. 

### Mother testifiedthat the home was underrenovations at the time 

### ofremoval and denied the 

### presence 

### of cockroaches. The Specialist testified that Mother wavered between denying and 

### admitting that DHS was ever in the home. The CUA case manager testified that the home is now 

### appropriate, but lacked beds atthe time 

### ofthe home assessment. Mother testifiedthat there is now

a 

### bed in the home forChild. Mother also testified 

### that Fathermoved out 

### ofthe home a few months after 

### Child's removal. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 31-36, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 29, 36; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 

### 47-48). Mother is 

### currently still attending the Consortium for psychotherapy, meaning she has 

### not yet completed that objective. Mother did not provide any documentation regarding the 

### content 

### of her therapy to 

### CUA at any point during the case. Mother refuses to sign releases for 

### her 

### mental health treatment plan. 

### The Specialist and CUA all testified that Mother continuously denied all 

### of the allegations 

### of Siblings 1's prostitution, the physical abuse 

### of Child and his 

### siblings, and the home 

### havingany issues: The Specialist also recommended that Mother submit to a 

### polygraph test, 

### which she 

### continuously refused to take. The Specialist also testified that 

### Mother did not seem to be gaining any benefit from the therapy sessions. Mother still has not 

### accepted the concerns that caused 

### Child's coming into care and her role in it. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 29-36, 69-75, 78-80, 94, 124-125, 129-130; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 8-14; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48, 52- 55, 

### 57-59; 65-68, 70-76). 

### Mother completed anger management and twice completed 

### parenting classes after the Specialist 

### reported that Mother had not gained any benefit from the classes and 

### should retake them. 

### Mother testified that she learned fire safety and proper nutrition for Child from 

### the parenting classes. However, 

### Mother has not provided any details as to what she learned to 

### modify her behavior or disciplinary techniques to parent her Child. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 70-72, 126-127; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 49-52). The CUA case worker testified that Child beganrefusing visits with 

### Mother as soon as he came into care. Child reported to CUA that he did not feel safe around 

### Mother and did not feel that she could protect him. Child has not requested visits since September
Page 10 

### of 182015, 

### when Mother last visited with Child. Mother only sees Child at his 

### doctor's appointments. Mother denies that Child 

### refuses to visit with her and 

### blames CUA for not allowing her to see Child. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 127-128, 130-133; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 15-17, 27-28, 34; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 68-71). Mother has failed to take affirmative steps to place 

### herself in a position to parent Child. Child needs 

### permanency, which Mother 

### cannot provide. Mother is unable to take immediate custody 

### ofChild and ensure his needs and safety. Child is fearful 

### ofMother. Mother continues to show an 

### inability to safely protect Child. 

### Mother is still unable to comprehend why Child 

### was removed from her home. Mother still 

### refuses to disclose her mental health treatment plan. 

### Mother is 

### unable to 

### remedy the conditions and causes 

### ofthe incapacity, abuse, or neglect for 

### Child's physical and mental well-being. Therefore, DHS met its burden under §2511(a)(2) 

### of the 

### Adoption Act and 

### termination under this section was also proper. Mother also appeals the trial 

### court's termination 

### of parental rights under 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(a)(5), which 

### permits termination when a child was removed, by court or voluntary agreement, and 

### placed with an agency if, for at least six months, the conditions which led to the 

### placement 

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

### period 

### oftime, the services reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy 

### the conditions leading to 

### placement, and 

### termination best serves the 

### child's needs and welfare. DHS, as a

### child and youth agency, cannot be 

### required to extend services beyond a 

### period 

### of time 

### deemed reasonable by the legislature or be subjected to herculean efforts. A 

### child's life cannot be put on hold in hope that the parent will 

### summon the ability to handle the responsibilities 

### ofparenting. In 

### re 

## IT, 817 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 2001). As a consequence, 

### Pennsylvania's Superior Court has 

### recognized that a 

### child's needs and welfare require agencies to work toward termination 

### of parental rights when a child has 

### been placed in foster care beyond reasonable temporal limits and 

### after reasonable efforts have 

### been made by the agency, which have been ineffective. This 

### process should be completed within eighteen months. In 

### re 

### NW, 851 A.2d 508 (Pa. Super. 2004). Child 

### in this case has been in DHS custody since September 2014, twenty-nine months by the end 

### ofthe 

### termination trial. Child was placed in care because Mother was unable to parent. 

### Mother's chiefobstacles to 

### reunification was her failure to 

### understand why Child and his siblings came into

care in the first place 

### and her role in their placement, 

### her denial 

### of all the allegations, 

### her failure
Page 11 

### of 18to grant CUA a release or 

### disclose the treatment plan 

### ofher psychotherapy, and her failure to 

### successfully complete all 

### of her SCP objectives. Mother was aware 

### of her objectives. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 36-39, 121-124). 

### Mother did complete her initial classes 

### ofanger management and parenting. The Specialist testified that Mother did not seemto gaining anybenefit from the classes
at the 

### time 

### of Mother's evaluations. Mothdr took parenting classes for a second time 

### after the evaluations. Mother testified 

### that she did learn 

### about parenting from the classes and went into detail 

### about fire safety and 

### proper nutrition for Child, but did not elaborate upon any behavioral 

### modification and 

### disciplinary techniques that she claims to have learned. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 70- 72, 126-127;N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 49-52). Mother still has not provided documentation 

### ofcompleting her 

### second anger 

### management class. 

### Mother's home, which at the time 

### of Child's removal was infested 

### with cockroaches and had exposed wiring and holes 

### in the walls, is now appropriate. At the time 

### ofinspection, 

### however, Mother did not have any beds in the home, though she claims to have 

### them now. 

### CUA and the Specialist testified that Mother refuses to acknowledge that there

were 

### any issues with 

### the house to begin with. Concerns about 

### Mother's ability to keep the house clean 

### and free 

### ofrepairs remain. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 31-36, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 29, 36; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48). 

### Mother is 

### enrolled at the Consortium forpsychotherapy, but has not provided CUA 

### with a release as to 

### the treatment plan 

### ofher therapy. Throughout the case, Motherrefused
to 

### acknowledge any 

### ofthe 

### allegations that brought Child and his siblings into care and continues

to- 

### deny all 

### ofthem; including 

### that there were 

### any issues 

### with the horne. The Specialist testified that, 

### from Mother's evaluations, Mother does not seem to be gaining any benefit or insight from her therapy. Mother 

### continuously blames DHS and CUA for stealing 

### her childrenfrom her. The 

### Specialist recommended 

### that Mother submit to a polygraph test, but Mother refused to take it, 

### claiming that the results would be 

### altered against her favor. Mother's blaming 

### ofCUA and denial 

### of her role in 

### Child's coming into care indicates that she has not successfully completed her therapeutic program. Mother has 

### been throughfour different therapists at the Consortium, 

### which indicates that 

### Mother's therapy has been inconsistent. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 29-36, 69-75, 78-80, 94, 124-125, 129-130; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 8-14; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48, 52-55, 57-59; 65-68, 70- 76). 

### Mother has not visited with Child since September 2015. Child consistently refuses to visit with Mother, reporting to CUA 

### that he does not feel safe around 

### Mother and does not feel that she 

### could protect him Child has 

### consistently refused to see Mother every week. Mother testified 

### that she still sees Child at his 

### doctor's appointments. Mother claimed the CUA has prevented 

### her from
Page 12 

### of 18seeing Child and denies that Child refuses to visit with her. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 127-128, 130- 133; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 15-17, 27-28, 34; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 68-71). Child is in the care 

### ofafoster parent who takes care 

### ofall 

### ofhis needs. The trial 

### court always found that DHS made reasonable efforts to 

### reunify Child with Mother. The trial court also found that Mother was unable to remedy the 

### conditions which led to 

### Child's placement within areasonable amount 

### oftime as evidenced by 

### Mother's failure to 

### successfully complete her SCP objectives. Child is currently placed in a safe, permanent, and 

### pre-adoptive home. The 

### trial court 

### heardtestimony that adoption is in 

### Child's best interests and he 

### would not suffer any irreparable harm 

### ifMother's parental rights were terminated. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 138-141, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 21-22). Child wants to be adopted and is fearful 

### ofreturning to Mother. Mother was given ample time to place 

### herselfin a position to parent Child. Child cannot wait for Mother to decide when to be a parent. The conditions which led to the 

### placement 

### of Child continue to exist, and Mother cannot and will not remedy them within a 

### reasonable amount 

### oftime. As a result, the trial court found that termination

### ofMother's parental rights 

### would in the 

### best interests 

### ofChild's physical, intellectual, moral, and emotional well-being. The 

### trial court made 

### this determination on the 

### basis 

### of clear and convincing evidence, so 

### termination under this section was proper. The 

### trial court also terminated 

### Mother's parental rights under 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(a)(8), which 

### permits termination when: The child 

### has been 

### removed from the care 

### ofthe parent by the court or under a voluntary 

### agreement with an agency, 12 

### months or 

### more have elapsed from the date 

### ofremoval or 

### placement, the conditions 

### which led to the removal or placement 

### of the child continue to 

### exist and termination 

### ofparental rights would 

### best serve the needs and welfare 

### ofthe child.
This 

### section does not require the 

### court to evaluate a 

### parent's willingness or ability to remedy the 

### conditions which initially causedplacement or the availability orefficacy 

### ofDHS services offered
to the parent, only the present state 

### ofthe conditions. In 

### re: Adoption 

### of

## KJ, 938 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2009). The party seeking termination 

### must also prove by clear and convincing evidence 

### that the 

### termination is in the best interest 

### ofthe child. The best interest 

### of the child is 

### determined after consideration 

### ofthe needs and 

### welfare 

### of the child such as love and comfort, security and stability. In 

### re Bowman, A.2d 217 (Pa. Super. 1994). See also In 

### re Adoption 

### of T.TB., 835 

### A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003). Page 13 

### of 18Child has been in care for at least 

### twenty-nine months and needs permanency. Child is currently 

### placed with a foster 

### parent who 

### provides for all 

### of Child's needs. (pgs. 10/12/16, pgs. 138-141, 144). 

### Mother has not successfully completed her SCP objectives and has not placed 

### herself in a 

### position to.parent Child. 

### Mother's outstanding objective was mental health therapy to gain insight into the reasons for and 

### her role in why Child and his siblings came into care. Mother was aware 

### ofher objectives, which were consistent throughout the life 

### ofthe case. (MT. 10/12/16, pgs. 39, 121-124). CUA 

### testified that Mother made repairs to the home, which at the time 

### of Child's removal was infested with cockroaches and had exposed wiring with holes in the wall. The home is 

### now appropriate, 

### though there were no beds in the home at the time 

### of the home inspection. 

### Mother testified thatthere are 

### now beds in the home. CUA and the Specialist testified that Mother 

### refused to acknowledge 

### that there 

### were any issues with the home in the first place. 

### Mothertestified that the home was under 

### renovations at the time 

### of Child's removal and that there were never any cockroaches. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 31-36, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 29, 36; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47- 48). 

### Mother is enrolled at 

### the Consortium for psychotherapy, but has not provided CUA with a 

### release as to the treatment plan 

### ofher therapy. CUA and the Specialist testified that Mother refuses to 

### accept any 

### responsibility for Child and his siblings coming into care and denies all 

### ofthe 

### allegations 

### ofSiblings 

## l's prostitution, physical abuse 

### ofChild and his siblings, and

### that the home had any issues to begin with. Mother blames DHS and CUA forkidnapping her children from her. 

### -Mother also denies 

### that Child exhibited any inappropriate sexual behavior; Mother claims that 

### Child was removed from his siblings' foster home because he 

### needed therapy. The Specialist 

### recommended that Mother submit to a polygraph after she completed the PCE and psychosexual evaluations. Mother 

### refused to take the polygraph, claiming that the results would be altered 

### against

### her favor. 

### Mother has been through fourtherapists since starting therapy, meaning that 

### her therapy has 

### been somewhat inconsistent. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 29-36, 69-75, 78-80, 94, 124-125, 129-130; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 8-14; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48, 52-55, 57-59; 65-68, 70-76). Mother 

### completed her anger 

### management and parenting classes. The Specialist testified that Mother did not seem to gain any 

### benefit from the programs and recommended that she retake them. Mother 

### testified that she 

### retook the 

### parenting class and learned how to be a betterparent. Mother detailed 

### fire safety and proper nutrition for Child, but said little as to the behavioral modification and 

### disciplinary techniques she 

### claimed to have learned. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 70-72, 126-127; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 49-52). 

### Mother's second anger management class is still outstanding. Mother is still
Page 14 

### of 18

### unable to 

### comprehend why Childwas removed from herhome. Mother is unable to safely parent and 

### protect Child. CUA 

### testified that 

### Child consistently refuses to visit with Mother. Child 

### reported to CUA that he did not feel safe around Mother and that he did not feel that she could protect him. Mother has not visited with Child since September 2015, though she attends his 

### doctor's appointments. Mother denies that Child refuses to see 

### her and blames CUA for not allowing 

### her to 

### visit with Child. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 127-128, 130-133; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 15- 17, 

### 27-28, 34; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 68-71). The trial court heard testimony that adoption is in 

### Child's best interests. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 138-141, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 21-22). Child is fearful 

### of Mother and wants to be adopted. The conditions 

### that led to Child's placement into care continue
to 

### exist as 

### Mother failed to successfully complete her SCP objectives. The testimony 

### ofthe DHS 

### witnesses were credible. 

### Mother is not ready or able to parent Child, take custody 

### of Child, and

ensure his needs. As the record contains clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the 

### best interests 

### ofthe Children, the trial court did not abuse is discretion and termination under this 

### section was also proper. 

### After a 

### finding 

### of any grounds for 

### termination under section (a), the court must, under 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(b), also consider 

### what 

# - if any 

# - bond exists between parent and child. In re 

### Involuntary Termination 

### ofC.W.S.M 

### and KA.L.M, 839 A.2d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2003). The trial 

### court must examine the status

### ofthe bond to determine whether itstermination "would destroy

an 

### existing, necessary and beneficial relationship." In 

### re Adoption 

### ofT.B.B., 835 

### A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003). In assessing the parental bond, the trial court is permitted to rely upon the 

### observations and evaluations 

### of social workers. In re 

### KZS., 946 A.2d 753, 762-763 (Pa. Super. 2008). 

### In cases where there is no evidence 

### of any bond between the parent and child, 

### it is 

### reasonable to infer that no bond exists. The extent 

### of any bond analysis depends on the 

### circumstances 

### ofthe 

### particular case. 

### M At 762-763. However under 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511(b), 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,

### iffound to be beyond the control 

### ofthe parent. Mother has not visited 

### with Child since September 2015, over a year and a 

### half ago. Child 

### consistently refuses to visit with Mother. Child does not feel safe around Mother, even reporting
to 

### CUA that he is afraid to go home and does not believe that Mother can protect him. Child is
Page 15 

### of 18fearful 

### ofreturning to 

### Mother's home. Mother only sees Child at his 

### doctor's appointments. CUA testified 

### that Mother does not have a parental relationship with Child. Mother testified 

### that she had a strong bond with Child and admitted 

### that her bond with Child has been destroyed, or at least heavily damaged, byhis 

### placement in care. 

### Mother's parental bond with Child is attenuated. Child has a strong bond with his foster parent and wishes to be adopted by her. Upon entering care, Child had behavioral issues in school which caused his wraparound services to be temporarily stopped for a period 

### oftime. 

### Child has 

### been doing much better in the foster 

### parent's care. The foster 

### parent takes care 

### of all 

### of Child's needs. CUA 

### testified that adoption is in 

### Child's best interests and that Child 

### would not suffer irreparable harm 

### if Mother's parental rights were terminated. Child is in a safe, permanent, and pre-adoptive home. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 127-133, 138-141, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 13-17, 21-22, 27-29, 32, 34-37; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 68-71). The DHS 

### witnesses were credible. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found, by clear and 

### convincing evidence, that there was no parental bond and that 

### termination 

### of Mother's parental rights would not destroy an existing beneficial relationship. Mother also alleges that the court erred in changing 

### Child's permanency goal from 

### reunification to adoption. In a change 

### of goal proceeding, the 

### child's best interest must be the focus 

### ofthe trial 

### court's determination. The 

### child's safety and health are paramount considerations. In 

### re 

### A.H, 763 A.2d 873 (Pa. Super. 2000). 

### Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act recognizes family 

### preservation as
one 

### ofits 

### primary purposes. In the 

### Interest 

### of P.P. 

### a Minor, 957 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Super. 2008). As
a result, welfare agencies 

### must make efforts to reunify the biological parents with 

### their child. 

### Nonetheless, 

### ifthose efforts fail, the agency must redirect its efforts toward placing the child in an adoptive home. Agencies are not 

### required to provide services indefmitely when a parent is unwilling or unable to apply instructions received. In re R.T., 778 A.2d 670 (Pa. Super. 2001). The trial court should 

### consider the best interest 

### of the child as it exists presently, 

### rather than the facts at the time 

### ofthe 

### original petition. Mother is not ready or able to parent Child. At the time 

### ofthe termination trial, Mother had not 

### successfully completed her SCP objectives. Mother denied that there were any issues in the home to begin with and instead 

### testified that the home was under renovations when Child was removed from the home. The home is 

### now appropriate, but there were no beds in the home at the time 

### of the home assessment. Mother claims that Father moved out 

### of the home shortly after Child was
Page 16 

### of 18removed, but CUA testified 

### Father appeared to still be living there. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 31-36, 144; 

### N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 29, 36; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 47-48). Mother still attends psychotherapy at the 

### Consortium and has not granted CUA access to her treatment plan or progress notes. Mother continues to deny all 

### ofthe allegations 

### of abuse, child prostitution, and concerns about the home which 

### brought Child and his siblings into care. The Specialist testified that, based on her evaluations, Mother is not gaining any 

### benefit from her therapy sessions as she also continues to blame DHS and CUA for 

### kidnapping and stealing her children. After the evaluations were 

### completed, the Specialist 

### recommended that Mother submit to a polygraph test. Mother refused to take it, claiming that the results would be altered against her. 

### Mother's therapy has also been 

### inconsistent, as she has 

### been through four 

### different therapists in under a two-year period. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 29-36, 69-75, 78-80, 94, 124-125, 129-130; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 8-14; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 

### 47-48, 52-55, 57-59; 65-68, 70-76). 

### Mother completed parenting and anger management classes. The Specialist testified 

### that Mother did not seem to have gained any benefit from the 

### programs and 

### recommended that Mother retake them. Mother testified that she completed a second 

### set 

### ofparenting classes. The second anger management class is still outstanding. Mother described learning fire safety and proper nutrition for the Child, but did not give any specifics as to the behavioral modification and 

### disciplinary techniques she claimed to have learned. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 70-72, 126-127; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 49-52). Mother has 

### not visited with Child in over
a

### yearand a half. Child 

### consistently refuses to 

### visitwith Mother. Child 

### does not feel safe around 

### Mother and does not believe that she can 

### protect him. Child is fearful 

### ofreturning to 

### Mother's home. 

### Mother only sees Child at his 

### doctor's appointments. Mother blames CUA for keeping her from 

### visiting with Child and denies 

### that Childrefuses to visit with her. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 127- 128, 130-133; N.T. 11/23/16,pgs. 15-17, 27-28, 34; N.T. 3/2/17, pgs. 68-71). 

### Child's behavioral issues at 

### school have 

### stabilized due to the foster 

### parent's efforts. Child is in a safe, permanent, and pre-adoptive home. The trial court heard testimony that adoption is in 

### Child's best interests. (N.T. 10/12/16, pgs. 138-141, 144; N.T. 11/23/16, pgs. 21-22). Child needs permanency, which Mother cannot provide. 

### Mother is still unable to understand why Child came into care and what role she 

### played in him being removed from her home. The DES witnesses were credible. The 

### record established by clear and convincing evidence that the change 

### of permanency goal from 

### reunification to adoption was proper. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it 

### changed the goal to adoption. Page 17 

### of 18

### Conclusion:
For the aforementioned reasons, the 

### court properly found that DHS met its statutory burden by clear and convincing evidence regarding termination 

### of Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C. S. A. §2511 (a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) since it would best serve 

### Child's emotional needs and welfare. The court also properly found 

### that changing the 

### Child's permanency goal from 

### reunification to adoption was in 

### Child's best interest. The trial 

### court's termination 

### ofMother's parental rights and change 

### of goal to adoption were proper and should be affirmed.

By the court,

Joseph Fernandes, J.

Page 18 

### of 18IN 

### THE COURT OF 

### COMMON PLEAS 

### FOR THE COUNTY OF 

### PHILADELPHIA FAMILY COURT DIVISION In the 

### Interest ofM.S.D., a 

### minor

APPEAL of: 

### T.D., 

### Mother CP-51-DP-0002138-2014 CP-51-AP-0000573-2016
51-FN-001971-2014 1117 EDA 2017 

### Proof ofService

I hereby certify that this court is serving today, June 15, 2017, the enclosed Opinion upon the following persons: Courtney Norella, Esq. City 

### ofPhiladelphia Law Department 1515 

### Arch Street, 

# le Floor Philadelphia, 

### PA 19102 Attorney for DHS Sarah 

### Parker, Esq. 

### Defender's Association 1441 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorney 

### forAppellee/Child, M.S.D. 

### Yalonda Houston, Esq. 208 W. 

### Front Street Media, 

### PA 19063 

### Attorney for Appellant/Mother, T.D. Michael Nix, Esq. 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 182 

### Philadelphia, PA 19109 

### Attorney for Father By: ijaya '.-Singh Law Clerk to the Hon. Joseph Fernandes Philadelphia Family Court 1501 Arch Street, Suite 1431 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 686-2660