### J - S60017 - 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R.S.C., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: S.C., MOTHER No. 1091 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered March 24 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Orphans' Court at No(s): AD - 2014 - 0051 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 14, 2015 S.C. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s order involuntarily terminating her parental rights 1 

### to her minor son, D.R.S.C (born 11/2003). Mother’s counsel has also filed an application to withdraw pursuant to In Re: Adoption of V.E

. , 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992). After careful review, we affirm and grant counsel’s petition to withdraw. Chester County Department of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) removed D.R.S.C. from Mother and Father’s 2 

### care for two relevant periods,

____________________________________________ 1 

### We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R ., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s order is s upported by competent evidence. Id. Therefore, even where the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determ inations and judgment. In re Adoption of Atencio , 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994). 2 

### Father’s parental rights to D.R.S.C. have also been involuntarily terminated. However, he is not a party to this appeal.

### J - S60017 - 15

- 2 -

Novemb er 2010 - August 2011 and April 2013 3



### - present. 4 

### D.R.S.C.’s removal was a result of unsafe housing conditions and poor parental judgment. Specifically, Mother has a history of mental health problems, including emotional instability, and had been the victim of domestic violence at the hands of Father. CYF provided Mother numerous services to address the concerns that led to D.R.S.C.’s placement, including in - home services, family preservation and intervention services, housing assistance, life skill services , counseling, and family group decision making courses. While Mother did attend all supervised visits with D.R.S.C., she made minimal to no progress toward her initial goal of reunification and, as a result, CYF filed its petition to terminate her paren tal rights on July 10, 2014. After two days of termination hearings held on February 12, 2015 and March 17, 2015, the trial court involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights to D.R.S.C. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). Specifically, the court determined that: (1) Mother had made minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances that led to D.R.S.C.’s

____________________________________________ 3 

### Removal from the home was precipitated by Mothe r being evicted and having to live in her truck, as well as D.R.S.C. not being properly cared for. N.T. Termination Hearing, 2/12/15, at 22 - 23, 51. 4 

### CYF has been involved with Mother and Father and their other children, T.F.C., III (age 17), and C.C (ag e 15), continuously since November 2009 – years before D.R.S.C. was even born. Father’s history of substance abuse, domestic violence and poor judgment combined with Mother’s history of mental instability and inadequate parenting caused CYF to place T.F.C ., III, and C.C. in foster care.

### J - S60017 - 15

- 3 -

placement; and (2) termination would best serve the needs and welfare of D.R.S.C. Although the court recognized tha t Mother and D.R.S.C. have a bond, testimony revealed that the bond was unhealthy and that the damage of leaving the bond intact would cause more harm to D.R.S.C. than if the bond were severed. N.T. Termination Hearing, 2/12/15, at 66. Finally, and most impactful on the court, was Mother’s “continuing lack of insight after all this time . . . as to why her parental rights should be terminated.” Trial Court Opinion, 3/23/15, at 8. This timely appeal follows, in which counsel seeks to withdraw from repres entation. In V.E. , supra , our Court held: Counsel appointed to represent an indigent parent on a first appeal from a decree involuntarily terminating his or her parental rights, may, after a conscientious and thorough review of the record, petition the co urt for leave to withdraw representation if he or she can find no issues of arguable merit on which to base the appeal. Given the less stringent standard of proof required and the quasi - adversarial nature of a termination proceeding in which a parent is n ot guaranteed the same procedural and evidentiary rights as a criminal defendant, appointed counsel seeking to withdraw representation must submit an advocate's brief. 611 A.2d at 1275. In In re Adoption of V.G. , 751 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Super. 2000), our court reiterated the requirements counsel must satisfy before being permitted to withdraw in termination appeals: (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the defendant, c ounsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous, (2) file a brief referring to any issues in the record of arguable merit; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and

### J - S60017 - 15

- 4 -

advise him of his right to retain new counsel or raise any additional points he deems worthy of this Court’s review. Id. at 1176. Instantly, counsel has complied with the three prongs outlined in V.G. While counsel’s brief is somewhat sparse in argument and case law, 5 

### it does reference issues 6 

### of arguable merit. Therefore, we find it substantially complies with the withdrawal requirements. Commonwealth v. Wrecks , 934 A.2d 1287 (Pa. Super. 2007) (substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy withdrawal on appeal). Moreover, based on our o wn independent review of the record, including the notes of testimony from the termination hearings, relevant case law and the trial court opinion, we agree with counsel’s assessment that any appeal would be frivolous. We rely upon the decision authored b y the Honorable Mark L. Tunnell to affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights to D.R.S.C. under sections 2511(a) and (b) and advise the

____________________________________________ 5 

### We recognize that counsel’s brief is an advocate’s brief, as opposed to counsel’s brief in V.G. , which our court deemed “wholly inadequate” as it resembled a “no - merit” letter. 751 A.2d at 1177. Notably, however, our Co urt in V.G. did not remand for counsel to file a proper advocate’s brief where “our independent review of the record indicate[d] that, in fact, appellant ha[d] no issues of arguable merit on which she c[ould] base an appeal.” Id. 6 

### Specifically, those ar guably meritorious issues include the demonstrated bond between Mother and D.R.S.C. and the lack of a formal bonding assessment as it relates to a section 2511(b) analysis and Mother having obtained appropriate housing and maintained stable employment, in addition to several other completed services, in compliance with CYF’s service plan.

### J - S60017 - 15

- 5 -

parties to attach a copy of Judge Tunnell’s decision in the event of further proceedings in the matter. Orde r affirmed. Counsel’s petition to withdraw granted. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 10/14/2015

# c

wh ich led to th e rem ov al or pl a cement of th e c hi l d w ithin a r eas on abl e pe ri o d o f tim e and serv i ces or a s s i s t an ce r ea so n ably availabl e t o the p ar e n t ar e n ot lik e l y t o r eme d y th e con diti o n s p ar ent c annot o r w ill n o t r e m edy th os e co ndition s w i thin a r eas on abl e p e ri od o f tim e. T h e th e con d iti o n s which l e d t o the rem o v al or p l aceme nt o f th e child c o n tinu e t o exis t, and th e th e c o u rt o r u nde r a vo lunt ary ag r ee m e nt with an age n c y for a p eri od o f at l eas t s i x (6) mo nth s , T h e co urt furth e r fin d s th at th e c hil d h as b ee n remo v e d f rom th e car e of th e p ar en t by said par en t p u r sua ntt o 23 Pa . C.S. A. §251 1 ( a )(2) ; and c o n ditio n s an d c aus e s of th e in capacity, n e g l e c t o r r efusal c annot o r will not be re m e di e d by th e care , c o ntro l o r s ub s i st en ce ne cessary for th e c hil d ' s p hys i ca l an d m e nt a l we ll- be ing an d th e th e s aid Stephani e C orum h as cau se d the said minor c hild to b e wi th o ut esse nti al par e nt al T he court fu rth er fin d s th at th e re p eat ed and con ti nu e d in cap a ci ty, n eg l ec t o r r e fu sal o f h as r e fu s ed or fai l e d t o perform p ar e nt a l duti e s pur s u ant t o 23 P a . C. S . A . § 2 5 1 l( a )(l); and s i x ( 6 ) month s, h as evid e nc ed a se ttl e d purpos e o f r e lin q u ishi n g p ar e nt a l cl ai m to th e c hild , or Th e court finds that Stephanie Corum, by c onduct continui n g for a p e riod of at l e ast \ 

### and he arin g h a d th e reon, AND NOW, to wit, th.is 2 3rd day of M arch, 2015, upon consideration of the Peti tion FINAL DECREE FILE NO. A D -I 4-00 5 I 

### IN RE : D . R.S . C . IN THE COURT O F COMMON PLEAS, CHEST E R COUNTY, P E NNSYLVANIA ORPHA NS' COURT DIVISION 

## /\ I ( Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PMMark 

### L. Tunn e ll , r-....;, c r: ~ o m ~ :i: 7. } :Jt rn - .:, · o » ~ - ' ::;,., --t j :-.J:J P l "oi N ;:,J oT! e .o o ::u r :.: O~f l1 

### J. -0 C

-.J .. , · z ); · ., 

## . ._ --{2.' 

## . ..... ( -:"? 

### :<<J? :-o n 0 ~ :. c '-D c:::

A i

_ .., 

# C E R TIFIE D From th e ' Re c or d ·

. '

. B Y THE C OURT : n atural p ar e nt could e x e r c i se. m ake edu cation a l decisions · and to ex e r cise such othe r authori ty con c e rn in g th e child a s a h a ve the autho ri ty, inte r alia, to c on s ent to m a j o r med i c a l , ps y chiatri c and surg ical tr eatm e n t , C h ildr e n, Youth and Fam ili e s s h all stand in loco pare n t is to the c h i ld and i n such c ap ac ity s h a ll afore s aid pare n t. Fu r ther, p e n di n g fina li zati on of a dop ti on , the C h e st e r C o unty Dep artme nt o f sai d child and adopti on of sai d c h ild may b e decr e ed w i thout further c o n s e nt of or n o ti ce to th e Chi l dr en, You th and Fami li es whi c h i s he r eby auth o ri ze d to g i ve con s en t t o th e a d o pti on o f 

### Step h an i e C orum i n respe c t t o 

### D . R. S . C . is hereby awarded t o Che s t e r C o un ty D e p artm ent of 

### C o ru m , th e n atu ra l mo ther of 

### D. R.S.C., i s g ranted , and th at a ll parent al ri g ht s and du ti es of Dep artme n t of C hil dre n , You th an d Fami li es fo r the t ermi n ation of p are nta l ri g ht s o f 

### Ste ph ani e IT IS . O RD E RED , ADJ U DGE D an d D ECREE D th at the P e titi o n of Ch este r C o u nty we l far e of th e c hild p u r s u an t t o 23 Pa . C.S . A . §25 l l (a)(8 ). ch il d con ti nu e to e xi s t an d t e rm in ati on of par e nt al ri gh t s wou l d best s e rve the n e e d s and / the dat e of r e m oval or p l ac e m ent , th e c o n di ti ons wh i ch l e d to the removal o r pla c ement o f the co urt o r u nder a vo lu n t ary ag r e e m e nt wi th an a gency, twel v e month s o r more have l aps e d fr om The court furth e r finds that the child h a s be e n r e mov e d fr om the car e o f the p ar e n t by a t o 23 P a. C.S.A. §25 1 l(a)(S) ; and termi n ati on of the parent al rights would be s t s e rve the needs and w el fare o f the chi l d pur s uant Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM2 . D . R . S.C . 's par e nt s are S .D.C. ("Moth e r ") and T. F. C . , J r. ("Fath er"). old. I. D.R.S.C . is a m a le minor c hild, born N o v e mb er 7, 20 03; h e i s e le v e n (11) year s FINDINGS OF FAC T The co urt will terminat e th e p arental ri ghts o f b o th par en t s, ba s ed on 

### th e fo ll ow in g: What the Su p reme C ourt ca ll s "th e c lock o f c hil d h oo d " is ti ckin g. c hild 's b es t inter e st s to termi n ate . p ar en tal ri g ht s . D . R.S . C . . and hi s m o ther and , to s ome extent , hi s fath e r , and ar g u e d that it w ould n ot 

### be i n th e had n o t m e t it s burd e n o f proof . Alt e rn ativ e l y, th ey offe r ed ev id en c e of a s trong bo nd bet we en of D.R.S. C .' s m o the r 

### an d fath er . Th e par en ts c o n tes t ed th e s e p roc e e din g s, 

### asse rting th at CYF On July 10 , 2 014, C Y F started thi s ca s e , filing p e tition s to t e rmi n ate th e p are nt al ri g ht s p e rm anent livin g arr a n ge m e nt. r eview h e ari ng CYF s ought and w a s gran ted a g oal c han g e fro m r e unifi catio n t o a new Childr e n, Youth and Famili e s ("~ Y F") h a s worked int e n s i v el y w ith his par e nt s, but at a rece nt ha s b ee n 

### in fos t er c ar e fo r the ne arl y t wo (2) year s s i nce th e n . C h es t er C ounty D epartm en t o f D . R.S . C. w as adjud i cate d d ep e nd e nt in Juv e nil e D e p e ndenc y C o urt in April 2 01 3 an d DE C ISION FI L E NO. AD-1 4 -0051 IN RE : D . R . S.C. fN T HE COURT OF C OMMON PL E AS , C H ES T E R C OUNT Y, P ENNSYL V AN I A ORPHANS' C OURT DI V I S ION Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM2 3. D . R. S. C . h as two s ibl i n gs, T .F . C. , III (a g e 1 7 ) an d C.C . (ag e 1 5 ) . 4 . Altho u g h C Y F h a s b e en inv o lv e d w i th thi s famil y s in ce 1 9 99 , D.R . S .C. has been in fos t er c ar e th roug h C Y F for t w o b l oc k s of ti me ; from November 22 , 2010 , to Au g u st 18 , 2 011 , an d fr o m Ap ril 11 , 20 13 , to th e pre s ent. 5 . D .R.S .C .'s tw o s ibling s ar e al s o in CYF fo s t e r c are , altho u g h th e d ate s o f th e i r pla c e m en ts d o n o t e xa ctly corre sp on d t o D . R. S . C .' s d at es o f p l acem e n t. 6. M othe r h a s a hi sto ry o f m e nt al h ealth p ro b l e m s , i n cl u d in g em o ti o n al in s t ability an d i s s u es w ith d ome s tic v i o l e n c e, in ade q uat e p are n tin g, hou s e h o l d manageme n t and hou s in g . 7 . Fath e r h a s a hi s to ry o f su b s t ance abu se , une mp l oym e n t , dom e s tic v i o l e n c e , c rimin al v iol ati ons, po o r jud g m e nt and h ous i ng i s s u es. 8 . T he s e p roblems c au s ed D . R .S . C. an d hi s t wo br o th er s t o b e p l ace d i n CY F foste r car e , mos t r ecently i n A pri l 20 1 3 . 9 . F or y ear s CYF ha s pro vi d ed Mothe r an d Fath e r with n umero u s se rvices t o a ddr e ss th e i ss u es that l e d t o D . R.S. C .'s p l aceme n t i n fo s te r care , incl udin g but n o t limi t e d to , in

- home se rv i c es, family pr es erv ati o n se rv ices , famil y int e rve nti o n s erv i ce s , li fe s kill s s e rv i c e s , in div id ual c o un s e ling , famil y g roup d e ci s ion maki ng, h o u s in g ass ist ance, an d famil y findin g s er vices , as w ell a s re g u lar co nt a ct wi th c as e w orkers fr om C YF and affi l i at e d co n tra c t s e rv ic e p rov i de r s. I 0 . D esp it e th es e servi ces , M o th e r and Fathe r have made m in i m al progres s t owards all e vi atin g th e ci r cum s tance s wh i ch n ec e ss it at e d th e c h i ld 's p la ce m e nt. 11. D . R . S. C . ha s b e en a d judicate d d e p e nd e nt in p ro c ee din g s m th e Ju ve ni l e Dep en d e nc y Co urt at # C P -15-51-2 0 10 . Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM

### 3

not a healthy bond. 17. There is a bond between D.R.S.C. and both Mother and Father ; however, it is influence charge and is awaiting sentencing. (Ex. CYF-1 (Docket No. 3604-2014).) influence. He pled guilty on January 13 , 2015, to at least his second driving under the 16. Father was arrested on or about October 20, 2014, for driving under the care. any real progress toward alleviating the conditions which led to D.R.S.C. 's placement in foster 15. Two caseworkers from CYF gave evidence in this case that neither parent made (Ex. Child"! (Opinion of 6/16/14 at pp. 6-7}.)

Mother has no insight as to how her behavior affects her children even after years of intensive services and weekly therapy. Mother avers she has made progress toward alleviating the conditions that first necessitated placement but even though she has consistently engaged in long-term weekly therapy and recovery programs there has been no improvement in her toxic behavior that causes emotional and psychological harm to her children. 2014 , the Honorable Anne Marie Wheatcraft, Juvenile Court judge, found that: (since discontinued by Mother). In_ an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), dated June 16, 14. In 2014, Mother appealed an order of the Juvenile Court to the Superior Court "minimal" progress toward the initial goal of reunification with D.R.S.C. (Id) 

### 13. The Juvenile Court determined that Mother and Father have made "no" or family services plans, as well as through the various hearings and orders of the Juvenile out and explained to Mother and Father by CYF caseworkers through, inter alia, periodic 12. What Mother and Father needed to do to regain custody of D.R.S.C. was spelled

Dependency Court. 

### See (Ex: CYF"2.) Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM

### 4 (5) T h e c hil d h as b ee n r e m ove d fr o m th e c ar e of th e par en t by th e co urt or u nd e r a volu n t ary ag r eem e nt w i th an age nc y for a

. 

### . 

## * * * ( 2 ) Th e repeat e d and c o n ti nu ed i nc apaci ty , abus e , n e g l e ct o r r e fu sal of th e parent h a s caused th e c hild to be w ithout essen ti al p are nt al car e, c o ntro l o r s ubsi s t e n ce n ec e ssary fo r hi s phys i cal o r m e n tal w e ll-b ei n g a n d th e conditions and c au s e s of th e incapacity, abu s e, n eg l ec t or r e fusal ca nn ot or w ill no t be r e m e d i ed b y the pare nt. ( l) T h e par en t by c ondu c t co n tinu in g fo r a period of at l east s i x month s im m e di at e l y p r e ced in g th e fili n g of the peti ti o n e ith e r has e v i de n ce 

### a se ttl ed purpose o f rel inqu i s h i ng par e n ta l claim to a c h ild or h a s r e fu se d or fai led t o p e rfo rm p ar e n tal duties. ( a) Ge n eral Rul e - T h e rig h ts of a p ar ent in r e g ar d to a c hi l d may b e termin at ed afte r a p etiti o n fil e d on an y of th e fo ll owi n g grou n ds : Secti o n 25 1.1 . Gr ou nd s fo r in vo lun tary t e rmi natio n Ac t , 23 Pa. C.S . A. §2 101 , e t seq . CYF see k s t e rmi nation based on the fo ll ow i n g : T h e gr ou nds fo r i nvo l u n tary termi nati o n of p ar e nt al ri ghts are s et forth i n the Adopti on DISCU SS IO N Co n c lu sio n s of L aw fil ed by C YF . 21 . Hi s c ourt app o i nte d coun s el ado p ts th e p ropo s ed F i n din gs o f Fact an d 20 . D . R .S . C . i s an ado pt abl e c h il d. have been am e li orat e d. 1 9 . D .R.S .C. h a s thrived in h is fo st er h o m e, an d hi s e arlie r agg res s i on an d actin g out p are ntal ri g hts w ill d o le ss harm t o D.R. S . C . than main tai nin g th e m . 1 8. S e ve rin g th e bo nd s bet wee n D. R . S.C . an d hi s p aren t s th rou g h t e rmi natio n of Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM

### 5 th e ne e d s and w e lfar e of th e child. 2 3 Pa. C. S. §25 11 ( b ) . Judici al inqui ry i s thu s t o be ce nter e d par en t al ri g ht s . A court in termin ating th e rig ht s o f a p are nt s hall g iv e p rim ary c o n s id eratio n to o f th e circum s t an c es , cl early w arrant s permi ttin g th e i nvoluntary terminati o n o f s aid p arent s ' and an y exp lan ati o n off e re d by th e p ar e nt s to d e te rmi n e i f that e v i denc e , in light of th e tot ali ty t e rminati n g par e ntal ri g h ts. In s t e ad , the c ourt mu s t th e n e xa min e th e individual cir c u ms tan ces peri o d in ex c ess of six (6 ) month s, s u c h a finding d o e s n o t in and of its e lf sup p ort an or de r c o n vincin g. E v en wh e n it i s e s t abli s h e d that a p ar ent h as fai l e d to p e r form paren tal dutie s for a P ar e nt al right s m ay not be t ermi nat e d in the ab se n ce of evid e n c e which i s cl e ar and mu s t exert him self o r h er se lf to tak e and m aint ain a p l ac e of import ance 

### in the c h il d 's lif e. 

### I d. req u ir e s affirm ative pe rforman ce . 

### I n re Bum s, 4 74 Pa. 6 1 5, 37 9 A .2 d 5 35 (1977). A par e nt need s lo ve , pro te cti o n , guid anc e and s uppo rt. . Th e par e nt al o bli gation i s a p os iti ve duty whi c h "p are ntal d uties» . P ar e nt al duty is b es t und e rst oo d in r e l ati o n t o the ne ed s of a c hild . A c hild Th e Penn sy lvania Suprem e C o urt h as st ated that th e re i s no s imp l e or e asy definition of

(8) Th e c hild has b ee n r e mov e d fr o m th e car e of th e par e nt by th e court or und e r a voluntary a gre e ment with an ag en c y, 12 month s o r mo re h ave el ap s ed from th e date of · r e m o v al or placement , the conditio n s which led to the r e moval or placem e nt of the child continu e to ex i s t and t e rmination of par e ntal rig ht s would b e st se rv e th e ne ed s and wel fare o f th e c hild.



## * 

# * 

# * period of at lea s t si x months, the conditions which led t o th e r e mov al o r pla ce ment of th e child continu e to e xi s t , the par e nt cannot or will n o t r e medy tho se cond i tion s within a rea so nab l e p eriod of ti me , the se rvi c e s or ass ist anc e rea son abl y a vail able to th e p arent are n o t lik e ly to r e medy th e c ondition s which led to th e r e m o v a l or plac e m e nt o f th e child within a r e a sonabl e perio d o f time · and t ermin ation of the par e ntal right s would best serve th e n ee d s and w e lfar e of th e child. Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM6 T hi s famil y h a s b e e n inv o lved with C YF c o ntinuou s l y s i n c e N o v e mbe r 2 0 09 an d ha d previou s ly re ceiv e d C Y F s ervi ces an d then h a d be en clo s e d. T h e curr e nt c a se w as i n i tiall y ope n ed i n 2 009 d u e to r e p o rts o f Ti m oth y C o rum , Sr. (" Fath er" ) be i ng i nto x i cat e d , threat e ning su ici de, and ch o ki n g Mo ther i n pr e s en ce of th e c hildr e n . E x t e n s iv e i n-h o m e s e r vi ce s w er e p rov id e d t o th e fa mil y but th e c hil dr e n co ntinued to b e in a n u n sa fe envi r onm e nt and we r e p la ced in fos t e r care i n Nov emb e r 20 10 . CYF work e d with the famil y int e nsiv e ly and r e un ific atio n occ urr e d in Au g u s t 20 11. In A pril 2 01 3 th e c hil dre n w er e t ake n fr om the h o m e ag ai n d u e t o i s s u es 

### - o f on -g o in g v i o l e n ce in th e hom e , Fath e r ' s co n tinued a lcoh o lis m , M o ther ' s la c k o f hou s in g, and h e r in abili ty t o k ee p the c h i l dr e n s a f

e . s u ccin c tl y a s fo Jlo w s: amply s u ppo rte d by th e or d e rs in the d ep en de n cy p roc eed i ng s . Ju dg e Whe atc raft s umm e d u p i ss ue s , and th e ne g ativ e i mp a c t th e y h a d o n D. R .S. C . T h e · t e s tim o ny o f th e ca se w ork er s is T h o s e b e havi o r s e b b ed an d flo we d. T h e c o u rt li st e ned t o t e s tim ony abo u t the par en t s ' 1 99 9 , fo u r (4 ) year s be for e D . R. S . C. w as e v e n born. sor did b e h av io r s o f Moth e r and F ather that b rou g h t th e m in to co nta c t with C YF g oin g b a ck t o Ca se w ork e r s familiar w ith D .R .S .C . and h is famil y te s tified ab ou t th e lon g and rath e r 

### re A dop ti on o

f H a m ilton , 3 79 Pa . S upe r . 2 7 4, 54 9 A .2d 12 9 1 (1 988 ) . i mp o rt an tly th e c ourt as ses s e s th e eff e c t of t e rmi nation on the ne e d s and w e l far e of the c hild . 

### In e v alu ates ay po s t -ab an d o nm e nt co nta c t b e t we e n th e par e nt a n d c hild , an d l a s tly an d m o s t a ss e s se s an y e x p lan ati on or e x ten u atin g cir c um s t an c es m a de b y th e p ar e nt. Ne x t , th e co urt ' de termine s if th e statuto ry require me nt s i n § 2 51 l (a ) h a ve b ee n satis fie d. 

### If th ey h ave , th e c o urt In s um mary , i n P e nn s y lv ania w hen i nv ol un tary te rmin ati o n is s ou g h t th e 

### c ou rt fir s t P a . 59 0 , 5 1 5 A. 2d 8 83 (1 9 86 ) . on th e be s t i n t e r es t s of th e c hild rather th an the fault of th e p ar e nt. 

### I n re A d op tio n of J.J

, 5 11 Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM7 o rd e r s . her b e ha vior h a s b e en as "i mpactfu l" on he r c hil dre n as d e sc rib e d in v arious de pe nd e n c y c hildre n ar e s till i n p lace m en t " , th at s h e ha s " lo s t e ve rything ", and th at s h e d o esn 't kn o w why T o w ar ds the e nd o f h er t esti mo ny in c ou rt , Moth e r s tat e d th at s h e " d o esn ' t know w h y h e r se rvi ce pl ans . Un fo rtu nately , n o m e a s urable pro g r es s t o war ds r e uni ficati o n c o uld b e seen . M o th e r point s ou t th e numerou s w ay s in whi c h she fe e ls she ha s be e n c o mpliant with argum e nt s. under s t and s th at r ec ov e ring al c oholi cs d o " s lip " , thi s · co n du c t be l i e s th e F athe r 's curr e nt th es e proc ee din g s h a d b e gun , ha s pl ea ded g uilty and i s a waitin g se nt e n ci ng . Whil e th e court be havior and h is c om mitm e n t to re co very . On the other hand , he was arre s t e d fo r D U I a fte r w ith hi s s p o n so r s . B oth s po ns or s testifie d in court ab out the m arked improv e men t in F ath e r's "app r opri at e ly " with him. In r ecen t m o nth s , F ather h as atte nd e d A A m e etin gs and is working For e x ampl e , M oth e r an d Fath e r att e nd ed a ll v is i ts with D.R. S .C . 

### - and ac t e d them . ac compli s h , and th e n for tho se r eas on s urge the c o urt th at C YF ha s not prov e n it s c a se a gainst M o ther and Fath e r coun te r by p o intin g out the it e ms that they did manage t o · ( Ex . C hild

- 1 (Opini o n of 6/1 6/ 14 at pp. 6 - 7) . )

In thi s m att er , C Y F petition e d to c han ge th e goal from reunifi c ati on w ith Mother to anoth er pl ann e d p e rman e nt living arran ge ment a s none o f th e oth e r p e rm anen c y optio ns ar e currently fe as ibl e for the s e childr e n. We ag re e d a chan ge in g o a l . 'Y as appropriate and th e p e ti ti o n w as g ran te d . O f co u r s e th at c han ge is not mad e lightly, bu t th e lon g and int e n s iv e hist o ry of thi s ca se m ake s it approp ri ate . 

# * 

# * * .· , . : Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM

### 8 Th e c o urt was amazed. Mothe r 's con tinuing l ac k of i n s ight a ft er all thi s time i s a chi ef factor in the court ' s mind as t o why h e r parenta l ri g hts s hould b e terminated. Although not c o ntain e d in th e pa c ket of depend e n c y o rder s p resented t o the co urt and admitted as Ex. C YF~ 2, thi s c ourt has t aken judicial notic e o f th e mo s t recent Perm anenc y Rev ie w Ord er d at e d Fe b ruary 5, 2 015 co nc ernin g D. R . S. C. Judge Wh eatcra ft fou nd th at the r e w as " mi nim al co mp li an ce" b )' the Mo ther and F ath e r w ith regar d to a perm ane n cy p l an an d " n o p rog r e ss " b y M o ther and F athe r « toward s a ll ev iati n g th e cir cum stan ces w hi c h n ec ess it ate d D.R.S . C.' s o ri g in al pl ace m e nt. " D . R . S . C. has an e moti o nal bond with Mother. He i s wo rri ed ab o ut h er , e v e n " s car ed" for h e r . T h e court w as ask e d t o w atch a vide o t ap e of D .R. S . C . m a d e o ve r a year a go wh e r e in he cri e s th at h e mi s ses h e r . Fran kl y , th e co urt faults th e Moth e r for the d e r e licti o n s th at p ut h e r son i n th i s p ath e tic and unh ea lthy p os i tion. D .R . ~ .C . d o e s n o t w an t to b e a dopt e d. He s e ems h ap py an d · h ea lth y i n hi s fos t e r h o me. W h e r e an age n cy i s p e titioni ng fo r t e rmi nati o n of pare n tal ri g ht s it i s n ot n ece ss ary fo r th e a g e ncy t o de mo ns trate a pe nd i n g a d op ti on no r that a p e rs on w i th a p r ese n t i nt e ntio n to

· a d o pt ex i s t s . 23 P a . C . S .A . §25 l 2 (b ) . Pe rp e tu ati n g th e b irth p ar en t s ' in vo l v e m en t d e sp i te th e ir inab i lity t o care for a c hil d c ould i n f

ac t fo r ec l ose any h op e for a do pti o n. 

### In th e M a t te r ofT D ., . 949 A.2 d 9 10 , ( P a . S u p e r. 2 00 8) . The p are nt s ar gue h e r e as they di d in J u v e nil e C ourt th at D .R .S . C. m ai n t ain s a b ond w ith mo th er . T h e y u rg e th at th e court s h o u l d c on s id e r thi s pur s u an t t o §25 11 ( b) of th e A d op tion A ct w h i ch re qu i r es c ourt s to g i ve prim ary c on s i derati o n to th e deve l opme n t al , ph ys i cal and em o ti on a l n ee d s and w e l far e of th e c h il d wh e n co nsid e ri n g a t e rmin atio n pe titi o n . Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM9 

### T.S.A tf. 62 0 

### Pa. at 631 .



### I n w e i g hin g the d iffic ult fa c t o r s d i sc u sse d ab ove , co urt s mu s t k eep th e ti c ki n g c l o ck of childh oo d e ve r in m ind . Childr e n are y oun g for a scan t numbe r o f years, and w e h av e an obli gati o n 

# to see to thei r he a lthy dev e l o pm e nt quickl y. C ourt w ent o n t o ob se rve in 

### T.S. M th at: par e nt against th e dam ag e th at the bond m ay cau se i f th e bond i s l e ft in tac t. Th e S up r e m e Ultim at e ly, th e c ou rt mu s t we i g h th e injury o f br eaking a c hild 's bond t o 

### a bi o l og ic al c ann o t , h e said , b e mi sc on s tru e d as "b on din g." 

### I d at 5 35 . T h e failur e to corr ec t p are ntin g an d b e h a vioral di so rder s whi c h ar e h armin g the c h i ldr e n mo s t abu sed o f c hildr e n "will ofte n h arb or s om e positi v e e moti on tow ards th e abu s ive par en t. " deci s ion , Judge T amili a obse rv ed that i t w as " an immu tabl e psyc h o l og ical tru th " th at eve n th e p ar e n t will not n e ce ss arily re sult in th e d e n ial of a t ermin ati o n p e titi o n . In the S u p e ri or C o urt A.2d 5 29 , 535 (P a. Super . 2 00 8 ) , re cog ni z in g th at th e m e re e xi s t e nc e of a b o nd of 

### a child to 

### a with 

### the sep robl e m s , It cit e d wi th ap proval 

### a Superior Court de c i s ion in In Re: K. K.R .-S., 

### 95 8 t o th e child . T he Suprem e Court 

### in In Re T. S.Atf. , 6 2 0 Pa. 6 02, 71 A. 3 d 251 (201 3 ), grappl e d c hild , s he s hould not be h eard t o s ay that th e bon d sh o uld b e pr ese rv e d l est 

### furth e r harm re s ult Wh ere th e mother 's abu s i v e or negl ec tful par en ting h a s c r e at e d 

### a pathologic al b on d in th e abu s iv e o r n egl ec tful par e nt mo s t ce rtai nly do es n ot se rve the n ee ds and w e lfare of th e ch i l d . p erm anent livi n g arrang e m e nt o n a cco unt of an unh ea lthy o r ev e n p athol og ical bond w ith an T h e court i s c on ce rn e d that k e e ping a ch ild un a vail able fo r ad o ption or anoth e r c o n s ideratio ns , nor d o e s 

### it m entio n th e word " bond." · Th e s tatut e do es n ot provid e an y gu i d anc e as t o how the co urt i s s up p o sed to e v a lu at e th ose Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM10 

### 3. Bo th par e nt s w e r e r e p r e se n t e d b y co u n se l th roug h o u t thi s m att e r . 4. This Cou rt h a s j uri s dic ti

_ o n i n th i s m att e r and v e n u e i s pro p er. 5 . Bo th par e nt s h a ve fai l e d t o p e r fo rm p ar en t al du ti e s r e lativ e t o D . R.S.C . fo r m o r e th a n s ix 

### ( 6 ) month s im m ed i at e l y pr e c ed i ng th e filin g of the P e ti ti o n s in thi s m att e r. 2 3 P a . C . S. A. § 25 1 1 (a) (l ). 6 . Both par e n ts h ave r e p eat e dly and continu a ll y d emo n strate d an i nc apa city t o p ar e nt D. R.S . C . and , th e r e fo r e , th e c hild i s with o u t esse ntial par en t al c are , co ntro l o r su b s i s t en c e n ec e s sary for h i s p h ys i c al o r m e n ta l w e ll -be i ng, and the c o n diti ons and cau ses o f th at in cap ac i ty can not o r w ill n o t b e rem e d ie d b y th e p ar e nt s . 23 P a . C . S .A. §2 5 1 1 ( a) ( 2 ) : 7 . D . R . S.C . h as bee n r e m o v e d fro m th e care o f M oth er and Fathe r 

### by th e J u v e nil e Co urt fo r a peri o d i n ex ce ss of s i x (6) month s, th e co nd i ti o n s w hi c h l ed t o th e r e mov al o r 2 0 1 4. 

### 1. C YF fi l e d Petiti ons to T e rminate Parent al Ri gh ts as t o M oth e r and F ather o n Ju l y 10 , 2 014 . 2. M o th e r and F ath e r w e r e se rved wi th th e P e ti ti o n s 

### b y c on s t abl e o n Aug ust 

### 1 4, C ON CL USION S O F LA \1\ 1 I n 

### T. S. M, th e S upr em e Court r ev e r se d the d e c i s i o n o f th e trial c o u rt th at d e n i e d the p etitio n for terminati on b e cau s e s uch d en i al "m e re l y p ro l o n ge d an d , in d ee d , ex ac e rbat e d th e h arm suff

ere d by the c h ildr en." 

### Id. at 6 33 . Th e S u p r e me C o urt c onclud e d " wi tho u t h es itati o n that it be st s erve s th e i r n ee d s an d w e l far e t o sev e r the i r bo n d with M o the r pe rm a nentl y in ord e r t o p e rmi t th e m t o be p l a ced forth with i n t o h e a lth y , p e rm a n en t ho mes." 

### I d. at 6 34 . T h i s court b e li e ve s no Je ss i s tru e at bar . Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM1 1 Mark 

### L. T unn e ll , Dat e: March 2 3, 2 015 c » r: 

### J. 

# - C;r, 1 c.n :r. · ::o 31: r11 ;.:r, ~~ ~ ~ C > :::0 rn "'i'I r-o ::.0 (.;.} 'J w c, ::> , - - o~ I ("""" ....... "U 

## z~ ~ 

# ... ~~ -1::i . 

### w ~<I! 

# . . '.'Cl ('"J 0 )>O 

# . c:;; \.I) zo

-1 BY T HE C OU R T: An approp riat e o rd e r fo ll o w s. o th er p e rm anent liv i ng arrang e m e nt ar e ap p ropriat e i n th e ci rc um s t an ces of thi s case . 1 1 . T e rmin ation of p ar e nt al righ ts and , th e r e for e , fre e ing D . R.S. C . for a doption o r P a . C. S.A . § 251 l ( a) an d (b) . 10 . C YF h as m e t it s burd e n of cl ear and c onvin c ing e viden ce r e lativ e to 23 be b es t serv ed by termination of pare n t al ri g hts . 23 Pa .C . S . A . §25 1 1 (b ) . 9. T he d e ve l op m ent al , ph ys ical an d e moti o nal need s and w e lfar e of D . R.S .C. w i ll s e rv es the n e ed s and . w elf are of D .R . S . C. 2 3 Pa. C .S . A . § 251 l(a)( 8 ). the r e m o val and p l ac e ment o fD . R.S.C . continue to e xi s t and termi nati o n of p arent al ri g hts bes t Court, mo re than tw e lve (12) month s hav e pass e d s i n c e r e moval , the co nd itio n s whi c h led t o 

### 8 . D . R . S .C. h as been rem o ved from the c are of Mo th e r and Fath e r by th e Juvenil e right s b e s t se rv e s the n e ed s an d we l fare of D . R . S. C . 2 3 Pa. C. S . A. § 251 l(a)(5) . and p l ace m ent of D .R .S . C . for twenty - thr ee co nse cuti v e month s , an d t ermination of p arent al re m e died and will not rem e dy within a rea s onabl e tim e the c ond i tions which l e d t o the re moval w ithin a r ea son able p e riod o f tim e , th e servi c es and a ss i s tanc e provid ed to th e par e nts h a ve n ot p la c ement of the chi l d conti nue to exi s t, th e par e n ts c annot or will not r e m e dy tho se condition s 

### . ' Circulated 10/05/2015 01:30 PM