### J - S95033 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.P.S.B., a M inor : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : APPEAL OF: C.B., Father : No. 1725 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order May 9, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court at No(s): CP
- 51 - AP - 0000100 - 2016,

C P - 51 - DP - 0001739 - 2014 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.N.S.B., a M inor : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : APPEAL OF: C.B., Father : No. 1726 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order May 9, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court at No(s): CP
- 51 - AP - 0000101 - 2 016,

CP - 51 - DP - 0001149 - 201 2 BEFORE: STABILE, MOULTON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J. : FILED FEBRUARY 01, 2017 C.B. (“Father”) appeals from the O rders 1 

### granting the Petitions filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to involuntarily terminate his parental rights to his daughter, A.N.S.B., born in February 2011, and his son, C.P.S.B., born in July 2012 (collectively, “Children” ), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), and changing

1 

### This Court, sua sponte , consolidated Father’s appeals from the termination Ord ers.

### J - S95033 - 16

- 2 -

their permanency goals to adoption. 2 

### Additionally, Gary S. Server, Esquire (“Attorney Server”), Father’s counsel, has filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel and an accompanying brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We grant Attorney Server’s Petition to Withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s termination Orders. The trial court aptly summarized the factual and procedural history of this case, which w e adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/9/16, at 1
- 2. Father, through counsel, filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. On October 12, 2016, Attorney Server filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel. In the Anders Brief, the following questions are presented for our review: I. Whether[,] under the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6351, and 55 Pa. Code [§] 3130.74, in accordance with the provisions of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act [“ASFA”], 42 U.S.C. [§] 671 et seq. , reasonable efforts were made to reunite [] Father with [] Children[?] II. [W]hether the goal changes to adoption were the dispositions best suited to the safety, protecti on and physical, mental and moral welfare of [] Children[?] III. Whether it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s parental rights should be terminated under [23 Pa.C.S.A. §] 2511(a) [and] (b)[?]

2 

### DHS included S.S. (“Mother”) in its Petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights. On June 6, 2016, the trial court involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights to Children. Mother is not a party to the instant appeal.

### J - S95033 - 16

- 3 -

Anders Brief at 6 (numbering added, claims separated to conform to arguments set forth in brief). Father neither filed a pro se brief, nor retained alternate counsel for this appeal. We must first determine whether Attorney Server has complied with the dictate s of Anders in petitioning to withdraw from representation. See In re X.J. , 105 A.3d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that “[w]hen counsel files an Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits without first addressing counsel’s request to withdraw.”) . This Court has extended the Anders principles to a first appeal by an indigent parent from a decree involuntarily terminating his or her parental rights. See In re V.E. , 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa. Super. 1992). Pursuant to Anders , when an attorney belie ves that an appeal is frivolous and wishes to withdraw as counsel, he or she must (1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record and interviewing the [client], counsel has determined the app eal 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 [the client] and advise him of his right to retain new counsel or to raise any additional points that he deems worthy o f the court’s attention. In re S.M.B. , 856 A.2d 1235, 1237 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). With respect to the third requirement of Anders , that counsel inform the client of his or her rights in light of counsel’s withdrawal, this Court has held that counsel must “attach to [a] petition to withdraw a copy of the letter

### J - S95033 - 16

- 4 -

sent to the[] client advising him or her of their rights.” Commonwealth v. Millisock , 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005). Additionally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determin ed that a proper Anders brief must (1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is fri volous. Commonwealth v. Santiago , 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). Once counsel has satisfied the above requirements, this Court “must undertake an independent examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.” In re S.M.B. , 85 6 A.2d at 1237. Here, Attorney Server has complied with the requirements set forth in Anders by indicating that he “made a thorough and objective review” of the record and determined that an appeal would be frivolous. Further, the record contains a copy of the letter that Attorney Server sent to Father, informing him of Attorney Server’s intention to withdraw and advising him of his right to proceed pro se , retain counsel, and file additional claims. Finally, Attorney Server’s Anders Brief meets the stan dards set forth in Santiago
. Because Attorney Server has complied with the procedural requirements for withdrawing from representation, we will independently review the record to determine whether Father’s appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous.

### J - S95033 - 16

- 5 -

In his fir st claim, Father asserts that DHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunite Father and Children. Anders Brief at 18. Father argues that the social workers assigned to his case “simply did not complete the tasks necessary to verify[] his employment or to show the [c]ourt that his housing was appropriate and safe for [C]hildren.” Id. Based on these contentions, Father claims that DHS violated the Juvenile Act and AFSA. 3 

### Id. However, Attorney Server points out that this argument is rendered frivolous by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s holding, in In re D.C.D. , 105 A.3d 662, 673
- 74 (Pa. 2014), that it is unnecessary to demonstrate that an agency has made reasonable efforts to reunite a parent with his child before the parent’s rights may be terminated. Anders Brief at 18. Attorney Server also indicates that, even if Father could present such a claim, it would not be supported by the evidence of record. Id. at 19. Attorne y Server states that “[t]he appropriate referrals, opportunities and services were provided to [F]ather. It was [F]ather’s inability[,] over the course of 21 months[,] to completely avail himself of the services that were offered to him, or to provide the necessary documentation, or to abide by the simple common sense rules of his visitation that ensured the safety of [C]hildren, that thwarted the attempt to reunify this family.” Id. at 20.
3 

### Citing to 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(B), Attorney Server asserts that AFSA “requires that a social service agency formulate a plan for assuring that the child receives safe and proper care and that services are provided to the parents.” Anders Brief at 19.

### J - S95033 - 16

- 6 -

As Attorney Server correctly points out, the Juvenile Act does n ot require a showing of reasonable efforts in order to terminate parental rights. See In re D.C.D. , 105 A.3d at 673
- 74. 4 

### Specifically, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that, while reasonable efforts should be considered and indeed, in the appro priate case, a trial court could insist upon their provision, we hold that nothing in the language or the purpose of Section 6351(f)(9) [of the Juvenile Act] forbids the granting of a petition to terminate parental rights, under Section 2511, as a conseque nce of the agency’s failure to provide reasonable efforts to a parent. Id. at 675. Thus, we conclude that Father’s first claim is frivolous. As Father’s second and third claims are related, we will address them together. In his second claim, Father arg ues that the change in Children’s permanency goal to adoption “was not the disposition best suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of [Children].” Anders Brief at 20. Father asserts that, during the hearing, Father “claim ed to have fulfilled some of his objectives,” and “denied that he had received the necessary continuity in [social] workers that he needed.” Id. Father also claims that he has a strong bond to Children, he has obtained stable housing, and he is ready to assume his parental responsibilities. Id.

4 

### Alt hough Attorney Server suggests that there may be a question as to whether Pennsylvania state law is in conflict with federal law, he fails to identify the particular conflict, or cite to any legal authority in support of such argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119( a) (requiring that each point in an argument contain “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”). Nevertheless, our independent research reveals no legal authority supporting such a claim.

### J - S95033 - 16

- 7 -

However, Attorney Server points out that “[F]ather[,] throughout the case[,] refused to accept completely the service[s] that could have been provided to him ... service[s that were] designed to keep him free of drugs and to provide him with the necessary skills to avoid drug addiction and to keep [C]hildren safe.” Id. at 21. Attorney Server further indicates that “a goal change to adoption in a loving family setting would be the disposition best suited to the s afety, protection and physical, mental and moral welfare of [C]hildren ... [b]ecause [F]ather failed to affirmatively assume his parental duties within the 21 months and failed to ... fully complet[e] the rather simple objectives imposed upon him in this case[ .]” Id. at 22. In his third claim, Father contends that DHS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his parental rights to Children should be terminated under Sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Anders Brief at 23. Father claims t hat he sufficiently fulfilled his objectives, is “clean from substances,” has stable housing and employment, and is capable of providing Children with the essential parental care, control and subsistence necessary for their physical and mental well
- being. Id. at 25 - 26. Father asserts that the conditions and causes that led to his incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal have been remedied within the time allotted by the Adoption Act. Id. at 26. Father argues that he is “best suited to provide [for] the dev elopmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of [C]hildren.” Id.

### J - S95033 - 16

- 8 -

However, Attorney Server contends that Father’s third claim is frivolous because he refused or was unable to achieve stability for himself or for Children. Id. Attorney Server as serts that “[F]ather demonstrated a total lack of insight into the problems that led to the placement of [C]hildren” and blamed the social workers for the termination of his parental rights. Id. Attorney Server also claims that Father failed to avail him self of drug treatment, obtain documentation of his employment, or allow access to his home. Id. Further, Attorney Server states that “the conditions that led to the incapacity, abuse and neglect had not been remedied” due to Father’s failure to cooperat e with his social workers. Id. at 27. Attorney Server argues that “[t]he evidence showed that [C]hildren had been in placement for almost two years, that they did not appear to have a meaningful bond with [F]ather, ... and that they would not be harmed in any way by terminating [Father’s] parental rights.” Id. at 27 - 28. In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant law, addressed Father’s second and third claims, and concluded that they lack merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/9/16, at 3
- 6. We ag ree with the reasoning of the trial court and affirm on this basis as to Father’s second and third claims. See id. Further, our independent examination of the record indicates that there are no other non
- frivolous claims that can be raised. See In re

### J - S95033 - 16

- 9 -

S. M.B. , 856 A.2d at 1237. Accordingly, we conclude that Father’s appeal is frivolous, and Attorney Server is entitled to withdraw as counsel. Petition to Withdraw granted; Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/1/2017

### A s u mmary o f the 

### rel evan t p roc edural 

### hi s t o ry i s s e t fo rth as follow s:

O n Jan u ary 15, 2012, J o - Home P rotecti ve Services (" IH P S ") throu g h No rth Ea s t Treatm e nt Cente r (NET) was imp l emented for Sh akeema Si p p s (" mother ") and C hri sto ph e r Baker ( " fathe r ")
. I n January 20 12 , Moth er 

### ent e r ed a 

### drug and al c o ho l tr eatment impatient p r o gr am 

### thr o u g h G au n denzia and c o n tinue d there u n til Marc h 20 1 2
. Mothe r left th e tr e atm e n t pro gr am w ith ou t b e i n g dischar g ed. A t th e She l ter C are Hearing, he l d o n June 29, 2012 , th e Co urt referred mother an d father to the Clin i cal Eval u atio n U nit (C E U) for an a s sessment and a forthw i th drug and al c oho l sc reen. T he C ourt o rd ered the t emporary c o mmitm e nt t o DH S to st an d. At th e A dj ud i cat ory H eari n g hel d o n J u l y 9, 20 1 2 , A.N
. S
. B. was a d j udicated depe n de n t and full y committed t o DHS. 

### M o ther and father were al s o refe rr e d t o CE U for a dru g and alcoh o l 

### screen . On J uly , 30, 2012 , 

### mothe r gave birth to C. P
. S
. B
. F ac tu al and Pr o ce dur a l B a c k g r o un d : T h is app eal arises from thi s C ou rt 's O r der o n May 9 , 2016 , termi nati ng th e paren t al ri g hts o f C hri stophe r Bake r ( " father " ) , p ur suant t o the p e titi o ns fi l e d on behalf 

### of the Departm en t 

### of Hum an S ervi ce s (" OHS " ) by th e Ci ty o f Phi l adel p h i a So l icito r 's Office
. G ary Server, att o rn e y fo r father , filed a ti me l y ap pe al from th e M ay 9, 2016 o r der t erminating father 's p aren t al ri g ht s includin g an att ac h ed Co ncise Statemen t o f Erro r s , Affida v it o f Se rvi c e , and other r e l ate d documen ts necessary to perfect this App e al
. Y o un ge , J , OPINIO N Sup e rio r Co urt No. 1 72 5 EDA 20 16 N o . 1 726 EDA 2 016 APPEAL OF: C.B., Fath e r C P

- 5 1

- DP0 00 1 149- 20 1 2 C P

- 5 l -AP-00 0 0 1 01-2016 N RE : A
. N
. S
. B. 

## .. . . CP- 5 l -D P

- 0001 739- 2 0 1 4 C P -5 l- A P -0 000 I 0 0-20 1 6 11\ RE: C
. P. S. B ·

THE C O U R T O F COlvu\iiO N P LEAS OF PH I LAD E LP HI A C O UNT Y F IR ST J UD I CIAL D IS T R I CT OF P ENNSY L VAN I A



### FAM I LY C OURT DI V I SI O N pag e 1 Oct 05 2016 0 9: 12AM Ju d ge P eter F. Rogers 2 1 568 67 823 Circulated 01/09/2017 11:16 AM2

T h ereafter , in October 201 S , father was released from incarcerati on at State Correctional In sti tu ti o n ("SCI") Graterford and made himself available to CUA. Shortly thereafter, OHS held a Family S e rv i ce P l an (FS P ) mee ting. The ob j ec tives iden ti fie d for father were to: 1) housing; 2) empl oyment; 3) att end childr en ' s me d ical appo i ntmen t s; a n d 4) vis i ts. On May 9, 2 0 I 6, duri n g the Termi natio n of P aren t al Rights heari ng fo r father , the Court found by cl e ar and c on vinc i ng ev i dence th at fath e r 's pare n tal rights as t o A.N
. S.B. a n d C.P
. S.B. shou l d be te rm inate d pursuant to the J uven il e Ac t. Furthermo r e , the Court held it was in the b est interest of the c h i l dr en that the go a l be changed to A d op ti o n . O n Octo be r 4 , 2 012, at a Permane n cy Review Hearing, the Court found th at Aggravated C i r cums tances existe d as to father. The Court o r dered that DHS was to make no efforts to reun i fy fathe r w i th A.N. S
. B
. D H S was instru cted to ex p lore a mother / baby p l acement at Gaudenzia when ap propriat e .

, The r eafte r) o n Apri l 15, 2013, at a Permanency Review Hearing the Court noted th at A.N.S.B. h ad bee n r esiding w i th moth e r i n a mother/baby drug and alcohol program at Gaudenzia
. However , mothe r an d A.N.S.B
. ' s wher e abouts became unknown to OHS. D H S made several attempts t o locate the fami ly to n o avail. The Court ordered th at the DHS commitment be d is charged retro acti v e Lo March 28, 2013 and the petition was to re m ain open. On Sep t emb e r 

### 25, 2013, OHS r ec eived a General Protec tive Services Re p ort ( " GPS" ) al l eging that moth e r freq u e n tly l eft he r children al one without adult s upervis i o n . T h e report alle g ed an ad d i ti o n al h o useho ld member reported l y had five chil dren also residing in the home with mother
. The re p ort furthe r al l eged there was no adul t s u perv i sion in the home for the s even childre n . The report stated the chi l dren fel t neglected and i n fe ar . There was no furniture n or ref ri gerator in the home , exce pt for t wo mattr esses . Additio n ally , mother had an outstandin g warrant for her arrest. The report was substantiated. O n December 9, 

### 2013, at a Permanency Review Hearing , the Court noted that the family's w h ereabouts were unknow n to O HS. The Court o r de r ed the peti tion t o r emain open and the open b e n c h warr ant w as to s t an d
. D H S was to complete a Parent Locator Sear c h (" P LS " ) for the famil y ; DHS was to o bt ai n an O r der of P r otec tive Custo d y (" OPC") and p l ace the children when ap p r opriate. Subse qu ently, in December 20 1 3, m other came to OHS for help. Mo ther and the children entered the Eliza Shirley House, but only remained for a few days and l eft on her own accord. O n Ju l y 7, 2014, at a Permanency R eview Hearing, th e Co u rt orde r ed that the bench warrant as to mo th e r was t o stand; th at the Co mmu nity Umbre ll a Agency ( " CUA" ) Turning Po i nts for Children ("T P C") was to h i r e an on - ground private i n vestigator to assist i n l o cati n g moth e r and A
. N
. S
. B. , and if th e A.N
. S.B
. we r e locat ed, an OPC was to be obtained through OHS an d to place he r with p o l ice ass i s t , if necessary. O n Jul y 2 I , 2 0 1 4, the private investigat o r l ocate d the fa.mi l y at a residence o n Pratt Street. On the same day , D HS obtained and OPC and placed A
. N.S
. B. in foster care . O n Ju l y 3, 20 1 4, at a Shelter Care H eari n g , the Cou rt li fted the OPC and discharged the temporary commitmen t as to A
. N
. S
. B, and recommitted her to D H S; the Court also ordered tb e temporary commitmen t t o OH S as to C.P
. S
. B. to stand
. page 2 Oct 05 2016 09: 1 2AM J udge Peter F. Rogers 21568678233

Di s cu s sion TI1e groun d s for invo l unt ary te rmi nati on o f pare n tal right s are 

### enumerat ed i n the A d o ption A c t at 23 Pa. C
. S
. 

### § 2 5 J l. Under thi s statu t e , the tri al court mu s t e n ga ge i n a bifurcated proce ss i n w hi c h it initially focu s e s on th e c o n duct o f the par e n t und e r § 251 1 ( a). I n t h e Inte res t of 

### B. C. , 36 A .3 d 60 1 ( P a.Super 2012)
. I f th e trial co u rt d e termi nes that th e p ar ent 's c on du ct w arran ts te rmination un d er§ 

### 25 1 1 (a), i t 

### mu.st then en g ag e in 

### an an a lys i s o f 

### the be s t i n ter es t o f 

### th e c hild und e r § 25 1 1 ( b)
. Id. 

### In th e p resent case , father ' s p ar ental rig ht s wer e t e rmi nat e d bas e d on §§2 5 1 l (a)( l ), ( 2 ), (5), ( 8 ) and § 2 5 1 l (b )
. In proceedings t o in volu n tarily te rminat e p ar e n t al ri g h ts the burden o f pr o of i s o n the party s e e kin g 

### t e rminati on t o e s t abl i s h by clear and c o nvincin g e v id e n c e the e xi s t e n ce o f gro u n d s for terminati o n . 

### in re Adop t ion of Atenc io; 6 5 0 A.2d J 064 (P a . 1 99 4 ). The s tand ar d of cl e ar and convi n c ing ev i de n ce is d e fi ned as t estimo n y that is s o " c l ear , d i re c t , w ei g hty an d con vi n c in g a s t o enable th e trier of 

### fact to come to a clear co n vi c ti o n withou t he si tation o f tbe tru th of the precise facts 

### in i s s u e." In re JD
. WM

, 

### 810 A2d 

### 688 , 690 ( Pa.Supe r . 2 002)
. T o satisfy§ 2511 (a)( l ) , the moving party mu s t pro du c e cl e ar and co nv i nci n g e v id e n c e o f co n du c t sustained for at l eas t six (6) months p rior to 

### fr lin g oftbe t ermi n ati on p e ti ti o n , whi ch r e v eal a settl ed i n t ent t o reli n qui s h par ental c laim to a ch i ld or a refu sal o r fai lur e to perform paren t al duti e s. 

### I t i s c l ear from th e re c ord that for a period of s ix (6 ) m o nths le a d ing u p to the filin g of the Peti tion fo r Invol un tary Termi n ation, fath er fai l ed to pe rform parental du ti e s for the chi l dr e n . The Co urt fo u n d by clear and co n v i nci n g evidence that th e fathe r refus e d or fai le d to p erfo rm her p arental du ties. I n the instan t matter, fathe r was g i ven r e vi se d 

### F SP o bj e ctive s in O c t o ber 

### 20 1 5, aft e r hi s re l eas e fr om incarcerati on at 

### SC I. (N
. T. 5 1 9 1 16 , p. 

### 15). Testi m on y of s o cial wo rk er r e vealed , father w a s found, at b es t , t o have onl y parti ally co mp l e t ed some of h is FSP o b jectives
. (N. T
. 5 /9 / 1 6 , pp . 3 6 , 37). Moreove r , father did not provide the Court with 

### any doc u mentation that wou l d s ub s tanti ate a fi n di ng that th e chi l dren c o uld safely be r e turn ed t o hi s car e. Id
. F ath e r f

ailed t o de m onstrat e th at he could pr ovi d e the childr en w ith stab l e h o u si n g, o r that he was gainfull y e mpl o y ed (N. T
. 5 /9 / 1 6 pp . 36,37 ) Testimo n y re v ealed father did not attend chil d's me d ical appointm e n t (N .T
. 5/9/16 pp. 36 , 3 7 ) A paren t ha s an affirmative du ty to act in her children 's be st i n terest. " Par e n t al du ty re q uires th at th e pare n t n ot yie l d to every problem, bu t must ac t affirmatively , wi th g ood faith intere st and e ff ort , to main tain the parent-c h i l d relati onshi p to th e b es t of his o r her abili ty , ev e n i n di ffi c u l t Is s ue s 1 ) Whe ther u nder the Juve n ile Act , 42 P a . C
. S
. s e c tio n 635 1, and 5 5 Pa
. Cod e Secti o n 3 1 30
. 74, i n accordan c e with the prov is ions o f th e F ederal A do ptio n and S a f e f ami li es Act, 

### 4 2 U
. S. C. Secti on 

### 671 ct seq ., reasonable effort s were m a de to r eu n it e th e F ather with his child 

### and whethe r the goal change to Adoption 

### wa s the d i s po s iti o n w e ll 

### s ui t ed t o 

### the safety , pro t ectio n 

### and phys i cal , me n t al 

### and m o ral 

### welfare o f the c hi l d
. 2) W h eth e r it was p roven by clear and convin ci n g evi dence that F ath er ' s p arental ri ghts s hould be t e rminated un der Secti on s 2 5 l l (a )( 2 ) and 25 1 l (b). T he appeal of fath er is as fo ll ows : pa ge 3 Oct 05 2016 09: 1 2.AM J udge Peter F

. Rogers 21568678234

c ir cumstanc es. " 

### In re Dal e A
. . If , 683 A. 2 d 2 97 , 302 ( Pa. S uper . 199 6 )
. I n r ef e r en ce t o th e p ar e n tal c o ntact , " to be l egally sig n ifican t , th e contac t must be s t ea d y and co n siste n t ov er a p eriod 

### o f time, con tri bu t e to the p s yc h olog i cal h eal th of the c h i l d, an d muse d emonstrate a se rious intent o n the part 

### o f th e par e nt to r e cu l ti vat e a paren t
- c hild r e l atio n sh ip , and mus t d e m ons trate and willi n gn e ss and c apaci ty to un d ertake the paren ting ro le "
. 

### I n re D.J S. , 73 7 A2d 283 , 2 8 6 ( Pa.S uper . 1999) (q uo ti n g 

### In re Adoption of

Ham i lton, 5 4 9 A.2 d 1 29 1 , 

### 1 295 (Pa
. Sup e r. 1988 ) ). 

### In th e pres en t m att er, A. N.S.B. and C.P.S. B
. ha v e bee n in th ei r c u rr en t p l acem en t for twe n ty one m onths. (N.T. 5 /9 / 1 6, p . 9, 1 2 )
. T h e testi m o n y estab l is he d the c h il dr en are resi ding i n a p osi ti v e environme n t with the ir fo s te r p ar ents and p r e-ad o pti ve reso ur c e fo r al m ost two year s . 

### Id. Furthe r , the fo ster p arents p ro vi d e fo r A. N. S
. B.'s an d C .P.S.B.'s daily needs and the childr en h ave dev elo pe d a p ar en t -c hild bo n d wi th th e m . (N .T
. 5/9/16, pp. 1 1 , 1 2 )
. W h il e th e r eco rd al so r eflects that fathe r h a s had v i si t s with the c hi ldren i n th e co mmu nity , o nce a week, fathe r ' s v isit s n eve r in c r eased to overnigh t or weekend visits. (N
. T
. 5 /9 / 16, p . 1 6 )
. S ec ti on 25 1 1 (a)(2) r equ i r es th at " r e p eated an d continued i n capa city, abu se neglec t o r refusal of the pare nt h as cause d the ch i ld t o b e w ith o ut esse n tial p are n tal care , control o r s ub s i st e nce necessary for her p h ysical o r m e nt al well- bein g and th e condition an d causes of the i n cap a city , abu se , negl e ct, or r e fus al , cannot or wi ll n o t be remedied b y the p aren t. 2 3 Pa
. C. S
. 

### § 2511 ( a )( 2 )
. It i s i ncu mb e nt upo n a p aren t , whe n separ at e d fr o m his chi l dre n , t o maintai n commu n i cati o n and associ ation w i th the ch il dren
. This requires an affirmati ve demonstration o f paren t al dev o tion , impos i ng up o n th e pare n t th e duty to e xe rt h im se l f , t o t ake an d maintai n a p l ace of importance i n hi s c h i l dr e n 's l i ves. 

### I

n re V.E., 6 1 1 A.2d 1 2 67 , 1 2 7 1 (P a . Super. 1 9 92)
. T e rmination of p arental ri ghts und e r §25 1 1 (a)(2) is not li mi ted to affi rm ative miscon du ct b u t may i n clude acts of refusal , as we ll as i n cap acity to p e rform par ental d u ties
. in re A. L

. D

. , 797 A
. 2d 326 , 337 ( P a . S up e r . 2002). As o f the M ay 9 , 2016 h eari ng, A
. N.S
. B. and C
. P
. S. B
. h ave bee n in car e fo r tw e n ty
- one ( 2 1 ) mon th s , and fathe r had no t progressed i n h i s F SP pe rm anen c y objecti v es i n a way th at w o u l d p e rmit r e unifi cati o n to occ ur (N.T. 5 / 9/16, p. 3 6-38}. M o r eov e r , fath e r i s n o s tran ger t o OH S, as h e kn o w s fir s t -hand throu gh OH S' invo l v e m e n t with h i s othe r thr e e c h i l dre n and th e s ub s eq ue n t in vo l unt ary te rmi natio n of h i s par e ntal righ t s and the imp o rt a n ce o f b i s r ole in re g ain i ng custody of A.N
. S .B
. an d C
. P
. S
. B
. (N. T. 5 /9 / 1 6, p p . 33, 34). The Court is n ot co nvin ced th at fath e r w ould hav e the ability t o exer cis e p roper judgmen t in th e future towar d s parenti n g the s e extremely y oun g c h ildren, ages three an d five, r e s pectively
. (N
. T
. 5 1 9116 , pp . 16 , 26 )
. More o ver , father 's housing si tuati on i s sp e c u l ati ve . T e s ti mony r e vea l e d fathe r ' s nam e is no t o n the lease w her e he r es i d es , an d fathe r and h i s ch il dren wou l d, i ndeed , be at th e m e rcy o f h is p ar am o ur . (N
. T
. 5 / 9 /1 6 , p p . 3 1, 32 )
. T hus , father wou l d as k th e C o urt to p l ac e the ch i l dre n in a situation whe r e he and the ch il dr e n co u l d potenti all y become homeless. A d d itio n a lly, father fa

j )ed to fo ll ow-up w i th CEU , s o that a dete rmi nation cou l d be made whe th e r he n ee d ed tr e atm e n t. (N
. T
. 5 / 9 /1 6 , p . 29). F ather' s own co n duc t , ha s se rv ed as a b arrier to r e u nifi c ati on , as fathe r i s unab le to per fo rm h is paren tal du ti es. · § 251 1 ( a ) ( 5 ) r equires that : (5) The ch ild h as be en r e m o v e d fr om the car e of the par e n t by th e co u rt o r under a voluntary a g r eement with an a g e n c y for a pe rio d of at l eas t s i x mo n th s , the c o n ditio n s pag e 4 Oc t 05 2016 0 9: 12AM Judge Peter F. Rogers 215686782 35 w hi c h l ed to the r emoval or p l ace men t o f th e c hil d conti nu e t o ex i s t, th e parent cannot o r w ill n o t r eme dy th ose c o nditi on s w ithin a reas onab le time , th e s erv i ces o r assi st an c e rea so n ably a vailable t o the par en t ar e n o t l ik e l y to reme dy th e c ondi tio ns w hi c h Jed t o th e r emo val o r p l acemen t o f the ch il d wi th i n a r easo n abl e p eri od of time 

### and t e rmin atio n o f p are nt al ri gh t s w ou l d bes t s erv e the n ee d s an d w e l f are o f th e! c hil d
. §25 11 ( a )( 8 ) stat e s: (8) T h e c h i ld h as bee n rem ove d from the c ar e of th e p ar ent by th e co urt or u nder a v o luntary ag r ee men t w i th an a ge n cy, twe l v e ( 1 2) m on th s o r m ore has elaps ed fro m the d ate of the r e m oval or pl a c e me n t, the con d iti o n s w h ic h l ed to the rem o val o r p la cem e nt o f th e chi l d co ntin ue t o e xis t an d termi natio n of th e p ar ent al rig h ts wou l d se rve th e be s t n eeds an d welfare o f the chi l d
. T h e e v i dence as d i scusse d abov e p ur su ant to § 2 5 11 (a )( 5) an d (a)(8 ) , eq u a ll y su pport the Co urt ' s co n c lu s i on to termi n at e fath e r 's p ar ent al rig ht s. In o r de r to te rmin at e the p ar e n tal ri g ht s , th e p arty s ee king termi n ation must pr ove by clear and conv in ci n g ev i de n ce that th e termi nati o n is i n the best in ter es t o f the chi l d. 23 P a. C
. S
. §2 51 1 (b ) ; 

### In re Bo w m an, 6 4 7 A
. 2d 217 ( P a . Sup e r . 199 4 ). Th e best i ntere s t o f the chi ld is d e term ine d after co n s i d e r ati on o f th e ne e d s an d we l far e of the chi l d
. The trial co u rt mus t e x ami n e th e indi vidual c i r cu m s tan ces of e ach cas e and co n si d e r a ll exp lan ati ons offe r e d by th e p ar e nt faci n g te rminati on o f thi s par e ntal righ ts to det ermi ne if th e e vi den ce , in the 

### li gh t o f the t ota li ty o f th e ci r c um s t anc e s , clearl y w arran t invo l untary te rmi n atio n . Wh e n de term inin g the bes t inter est of th e ch il d , man y fact or s ar e to b e anal yz ed, " s u ch as l ov e , c o m fo rt , sec urity, sec uri ty an d stabi lity. 

### I n re Ado pti o n oJT

B
. B ., 83 5 A.2d 3 87 , 397 (Pa. Super
. 2 003 )
. Anothe r facto r that a co u rt is t o co n s i de r i s w hat, 

### if any, bo nd ex i st fo r the chi l d. 

### In re Involu nta ry Term i nat i on of C. WS.M and K.A
. L
. M

. , 8 39 /\. 2d 4 1 0 , 4 15 (Pa. Su p er 2 0 03). Pursuan t to Sec tion 25 1 1 ( b ) , the trial co urt rou s t t ake accoun t whe th e r a natural pare nt al bo n d exists betwee n c hild and p ar ent , a n d whe the r t e rmi nati on would des troy an ex i sti n g, n ecessary and ben e fi c i al r e l ati o nship
. 

### In re C.S., 7 6 1 A
. 2d l J 97(P a. S up e r . 2 000 ). In th e in s tan t m att er , the t e sti m ony est abli s h ed that A.N.S .B
. an d C
. P.SB. would no t s uff e r irr eparabl e e m o tional harm i f fathe r's p are nt al rights were termi nated
. (N.T. 5 1 9 11 6 , p p . 8 -1 1 , 1 7, 1 8 )
. Th e te s tim o n y o f the C UA s oci al work e r, M s. D i xo n , estab l i s hed th at A.N
. S .B
. and C
. P .S. B
. ar e w i th pre- a d opti ve fos ter p arent s wh o hav e dev e lope d a s trong p ar e nt-chil d b o n d with the m. (N.T
. 5 / 9/16 , pp . 9 , 1 0 , 12). I n fac t , Ms
. D ixo n t estifi ed that du ring fathe r 's mos t rece n t visi t w i th C .P
. S .B ., s h e ran a way fr o m fathe r an d bac k to th e fos t er parent s . (N.T. 519116 , p . 9). F urth e r , th at C.P
. S
. B
. h as e xpre ssed her d esire n o t to s e e fath e r . (N
. T
. 5 / 9 / l 6, p. 1 0)
. A lth o u g h , i t was noted th at A. N .S. B
. m ade no affi rm ative co mm e nt r eg ard i n g he r d esire t o see fathe r , Ms
. D ixon c l earl y stat ed that both ch i l dr e n thr oug h th ei r ac tio ns e x pres s a co ntinu ed res i stan c e to ward v i s i tin g w ith fath e r , and that the c h il dren 's b eh avi o r toward suc h visi t s g re w pro gress i ve l y wo r se. (N.T. 5 /9 / 1 6, p p. 9 , 18 , 19). Furthe rm o r e, the soc i al wo rk e r testi fi ed that duri n g fath e r ' s vis it s , s h e d i d not o b s erv e a p are nt- c h il d relati on shi p bet wee n fathe r an d th e c hi l dren , an d th at father di d n o t ha v e a paren t ch ild bo nd w i th ei th e r c hild
. Th e soc i al wo rke r's testi mo n y n ot e d s uch a rel atio n s h ip be tween bo th c h ildr en wi th their fos ter parents . (N
. T. 5 / 9/16 , pp . 9- 1 1 )
. pag e 5 Oct 05 2 016 09 : 13 AM .lldge Peter F. Rogers 2 156867 8236



### Mo r e o ve r , eve n i f fath er we r e giv en th e o p portunity t o care for A.N
. S
. B
. an d C
. P .S. B , father' s p lan s for th e fu tu re ar e spec u lati ve. The r e fo re, thi s 

### C o urt found based on all 

### th e ev i dence p resent e d that terminati ng the par e ntal ri ghts of fathe r as 

### t o A. N. S.B. and 

### C
. P .S
. B. would not cau se them 

### i rre p arable harm du e t o th e ir pare nt-chil d bond with th e i r fos t er p arents m eet their daily needs
. Ac c o rd ing l y , A.N
. S.B
. and 

### C
. P .S.B. should be 

### ad o p ted , as i t is 

### in the i r b e st i n teres t. (N .T
. 5 /9 / 16 , 

### p p . 8, 1 8). ' 

### The Tri al Court fo u n d by cl e ar an d convinc i ng ev i dence that the Dep artment of H um an Serv i ce s me t i ts statutory b urden pursuant to 23 P a . C
. S
. § 25 1 1 ( a) & 

### ( b) an d that it was in the bes t in t e r es t of the chi l dren to c h ang e the goal to 

### a dop tion
. (N
. T. 5 ! 9 / 1 6 , 

### pp . 36

- 38 ). 

### Co n cl u s i o n : F o r the fo r egoing re a so n s , the C o urt fi nd s th at the D e p artment o f Human S e rvices met its statutory burden by clear and 

### co n v incing evidence r eg ard i n g the t e rmi n ation of par e n tal ri ghts pursuant to 2 3 P a . C.S
. §2511 ( a ) ( t ) , ( 2 ), (5) 

### and ( 8 ) 

### and § 25 1 1 ( b )
. 

### Furthe rmore , the Court finds that i t s 

### ruli n g w ill no t cause A.N
. S
. B. 

### no r C.P
. S. B
. to suffer irr e p arab l e h arm and it i s 

### i n th e 

### best in t erest of the 

### c hil dren base d 

### on the te s timony regard i ng tbe childr e n ' s s afe ty , p r o t ec ti on , mental , p h y s i c al an d 

### mo r al we l fare , to te nn.inate fath er' s p aren tal rights
. Accordi n g l y , the Tri al Court ' s Ord e r e n t e r ed on May 9 , 2016, 

### t erminati n g th e 

### parental ri ghts of fath er , C hris t ophe r Baker , shou ] d be properly a f fi rmed
. p age 6 Oc t 05 2016 09 : 14 AM Judge Peter F. Rogers 2 1 56867823