J-A10003-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: M.C.T. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

APPEAL OF: R.T. AND C.N. : No. 1792 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered September 24, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2014-3972

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P. J., MUNDY, J., AND JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED APRIL 09, 2015

Appellants, R.T. (“Father”) and C.N. (“Mother”) (collectively, 

“Parents”), appeal from the order entered in the Centre County Court of 

Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, which granted the petition of the Centre 

County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) for involuntary termination of 

Parents’ parental rights to their minor child, M.C.T. (“Child”), who was born 

in July 2009. We affirm.

In its Opinion and Order granting involuntary termination of Parents’ 

parental rights (dated September 23, 2014, and filed September 24, 2014) 

the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts of this case.1 

Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. 

 

1 On page two of the court’s September 2014 Opinion and Order, the court 

mentions two referrals CYS received regarding Child’s well-being in July 

2012 and August 2012. The court mentions that in July 2012, CYS received 

a referral about a naked boy (Child) wandering alone on 3rd Street. The 

court also mentions that in August 2012, CYS received another referral 
J-A10003-15

- 2 -

Parents raise the following issue for our review:

WERE THE TRIAL COURT’S DETERMINATIONS SUPPORTED 

BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE?

(Parents’ Brief at 4). 

The standard and scope of review applicable in termination of parental 

rights cases are as follows:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating 

parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the 

decision of the trial court is supported by competent 

evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, 

or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s 

decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has 

granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental 

rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision 

the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. 

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.

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. 

 

regarding Child wandering alone on the street, after which Trooper Haponski 

returned Child to Parents. At the termination of parental rights hearing, 

Trooper Haponski testified that on August 13, 2012, he received a radio 

dispatch about a naked child walking around the streets alone. The trooper 

learned this boy was Child and ultimately returned Child to Parents. Further 

testimony from one of the CYS caseworkers also mentioned an earlier 

referral regarding Child’s welfare in July 2012, but the caseworker did not 

describe the basis for that referral. In any event, it appears the court might 

have inadvertently overlapped the content of these two referrals. 

On page three of the court’s September 2014 Opinion and Order at ¶10, the 

court states CYS filed a dependency petition on August 28, 2014; the correct 

date for the dependency petition was August 28, 2012. 
J-A10003-15

- 3 -

The standard of clear and convincing evidence means 

testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing 

as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, 

without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. 

We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis 

exists for the result reached. If the trial court’s findings 

are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the 

court’s decision, even though the record could support an 

opposite result. 

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) (internal citations omitted). 

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Thomas 

King Kistler, we conclude Parents’ issue merits no relief. The trial court 

opinions discuss and properly disposed of the question presented. (See Trial 

Court Opinion, filed October 27, 2014, at 1; Opinion and Order, filed 

September 24, 2014, at 6-10) (finding: ample evidence presented at 

termination hearing demonstrated that dangerous conditions existed in 

Parents’ home, and removal of Child from Parents’ home was necessary for 

Child’s welfare; following Child’s removal from Parents’ home, Parents were 

very uncooperative with CYS; Parents refused to allow CYS caseworkers 

access to home on numerous occasions; Mother became extremely hostile 

toward CYS after incident in which CYS caseworker requested to be present 

when Mother gave urine sample for detection of drugs, to ensure Mother did 

not falsify her sample; Mother was outraged at CYS’ request and remained 

openly antagonistic to CYS thereafter, which deterred CYS’ ongoing efforts to 
J-A10003-15

- 4 -

restore Child’s family to level of functioning that would enable return of Child 

to Parents; CYS’ request was not form of “indignity” designed to embarrass 

or harass Mother but was merely routine verification process; Child has 

made dramatic improvements while living with initial foster family and 

current foster family; Child has progressed from speaking no more than four 

words2and having abject fear of water and bathing, to well-developed and 

prospering child; individuals most familiar with Child’s care and treatment 

testified about Child’s remarkable and outstanding progress while in foster 

care; notwithstanding Child’s show of familiarity and affection to Parents 

during visits, termination of Parents’ parental rights under circumstances of 

this case was in Child’s best interests; CYS met its burden for involuntary 

termination of Parents’ parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), 

(a)(8), and (b)).3 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s 

opinions.

Order affirmed. 

 

2 Child’s initial foster mother testified that Child could say only the words 

“num-num,” “gun,” “kill,” and “movie,” upon Child’s placement.

3 On page seven of the court’s Opinion and Order, the court cites In re 

Adoption of C.L.G. The correct citation for the quoted portion of this case 

is: 956 A.2d 999, 1009-10 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en banc). Additionally, on the 

following page of the court’s Opinion and Order, the correct citation for In re 

V.E. and J.E. is: 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa.Super. 1992). 
J-A10003-15

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/9/2015
DO ORD )(s 

Date: October 24, 2014 

Superior Court in this matter. 

that no further opinion is necessary at this time. The Court hopes this Opinion aids the Honorable 

therein. Therefore, the Court relies on its previous Opinion and Order and respectfully submits 

September 24, 2014 was correctly entered, the reasons for which were adequately addressed 

respectfully submits, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), that this Court's Opinion and Order of 

examination of the notes of testimony. Upon review of Appellants' Statement, the Court 

evidence. Appellants have also raised any properly preserved issues that may appear upon 

on appeal, that the termination of parental rights was not supported by clear and convincing 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b ). Appellants raise one matter complained of 

contemporaneously with a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to 

appeal on October 22, 2014 of this Court's Opinion and Order of September 24, 2014 

and t. ; parents to the above-named child, filed an Appellants, ~ • "'t • \'l. 

C') '""-) 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PE~YLV ~IA..y, 

ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ;=: 

zo(j;m c:> ITI :ri .,, -l ~ ...... c:, 

IN RE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO No. 3972 o -o o l> :::o -< c:: ::?: ....,.. • 

--~ • C, • \ • . z l> ~ a, " .:::0 

~~r=;; :3 ~ 

OPINION IN RESPONSE TO MATTERS COMPLAINEDibgori~Ai 

;o F-i 

-c (0 

KISTLER,J. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
DO ORD lil.S 

offered to them by the agency. 

history of being uncooperative with CYS and have refused to take advantage of the services 

2.. C.>tfr\c;\ '~ parents, ll-·"T", (fa~),... C · N · (P'll7t11ir}(jarents) have had a long 

as well as lack of supervision of the children. 

family of" ~ . c . T.. c· tl1\ \ d ~) , since 2005 due to concerns surrounding home conditions, 

1. Centre County Children and Youth (CYS) has had intermittent contact with the 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

of Pact of all parties: 

great comfort and assurance incorporating those Findings ofFact after review of the Findings 

together with his inherent interest in the best interests of the child, provide the Court with 

Guardian ad litem. The objectivity and the balance of the Guardian ad litem 's observations, 

in almost complete and identical form, the Proposed Findings of Fact as set forth by the 

Children and Youth Services, the Guardian ad litem, and the parents, the Court hereby adopts 

after submission of Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by Centre County 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2014, after hearing on August 15, 2014, and 

KISTLER,J. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE INTEREST OF: 

r.....:, 

C') =, 

r 

,_., 

-n !Tl :;xi _.:: 

/:::: 

("') 7.0 rn CJ) rr~.i :;~-: G) ::r..: r,"'1 rn 

::c c: (!1 

;·u .:] 0 

..... , 

···..i ·-! i"il 

:··.~~ r-=: -.:·., N -,, 

1-·· r .... ' .... 

_r: ,? /· ~< 

c: ., ::.0 

(".) 

.. ~,) c: \.•· 

(·:.: •. 1 ... 

-~·1 

-0 ~ 

l- ~ Chi ::::3 rrt 

-·~ 

-i - ):.• 0 

--< (f) r ;:u 0 r -I w 

"'' 0 Cf) 0 ::0 

:;;,, 0 z ~ 

c:: ~.., N 

::;,: ~- • ~ 

-l 

NO. 3972 

) 

) 

) 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
8. Less than a month later, CYS received yet another referral regarding cJ,\\d 

wondering alone in the streets of Philipsburg where he was found by a Philipsburg State Trooper 

(Trooper Haponski). After being identified as the child of. fclwiex· ~ Y'AO'th,c(by a family 

friend, Trooper Haponski took (lll;\~to the home of his parents who knocked on the door, where 

one answered. 

3. In January, 2012, CYS received yet another referral regarding the family of vt°'i ) d 

for deplorable home conditions, lack of running water and heat in the home, as well as lack of 

adequate food for CXl\\\a and his two sisters (-:! o. .. -r a.net 1:. 'i. · who are not subject to this 

proceeding). 

4. Because the parents refused to allow access into the home, CYS had to obtain a 

court Order on January 5, 2012 to assure the safety of U,.1\d and his siblings in the home. 

5. As a result of this contact with CYS, l:lni lcl and his siblings ended up in the home 

of. f.,. QV'\Q "j. -f, ·, their paternal uncle and aunt in Clinton County, during which time 

the parents visited them sporadically. 

6. On February 14, 2012, °""-~and his siblings were retiuned to their parents, at 

which time, CYS provided them with protective services with the goals of: maintaining a clean 

and healthy and safe home envirorunent for the children, making sure that the children are all 

clean and maintaining regular doctor appointment for U'\;\d who was reported to have known to 

have high levels of lead in his blood. 

7. A little more than 5 month later, CYS received a referral regarding a naked male 

child alone on 3rd St. in Phillipsburg, who then, went onto the porch of his parent's home ( F Q'TY\..t-{'" 

O,i'(\(A O" <J'rrlJ..)( ), entered the house, and when the source of referral knocked on the door no 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
(?>) 

parents continued non-compliance, lack of cooperation with CYS, continued filthy conditions in 

the home; as well as parents failure to take (M\\lto his doctor appointments for his lead issues. 

12. In October of 2012, CYS received, yet, another referral that :Uli\d)s sisters showed 

up at school dirty and smelling like animal discharge. Parents, once again refused services from 

Parenting Plus, as well as not allowing CYS access to the house for additional inspection, and 

even slammed the door shut on Tasha Rishel, CYS's protective case worker at the time. 

13. On October 30, 2012, children were finally removed from home due to their 

conditions. 

10. As a result of continued lack of cooperation, and the parents' steadfast refusal to 

allow access to their home, on August 28, 2014, CYS filed a petition seeking dependency of. th,·,~ 

and his sisters. 

11. On September 7, 2012, after continuing the case once, ~d. and his sisters were 

declared dependent by this Honorable Court, at which time, parents were Ordered to cooperate 

with CYS. After being declared dependent by the court, the Court maintained physical custody of 

all 3 children with their parents conditioned upon their compliance with their court-ordered 

he could hear noises coming from inside the house. After a long while, ~\d's father, l <2 ·\ ·J · 

finally opened the door and said to()'\\' a "you really did it this time, kid". 

9. During this interaction with CYS, the agency found the residence to be in even 

more deplorable conditions than their previous encounter. CYS found the home to be filthy, with 

cat urine and dog feces scattered all over the floors, carpets, bedrooms and all throughout the 

house. CYS also discovered that there was almost no food in the house for(}\,\ d and his siblings 

to eat. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
The parents were, subsequently, referred for Reunification Services through Family Intervention 

Crises Services (FICS). 

14. Although the reunification services began on December 12, 2012, the 

reunification team was unable to get into the home until FebruarylO, 2013, to try to help the 

parents remedy the conditions which led to the removal of the children. 

15. In August of 2013, a home inspection of the home of\J,11' d \5 parents determined 

the house to be practically uninhabitable due to numerous structural problems. 

16. During the first six month of reunification, the parents refused any offer of help 

from the reunification team to clean and organize the house, and limited the reunification 

counselor's access to the home, the same way as they had done previously with CYS case 

workers. 

17. fC\n'\(;f attended 52% and l'tl\Y\l,tr :· attended 48% of their sessions with the 

reunification counselors, and when they attended the sessions they were uncooperative, 

argumentative with the counselors, insisting that there were no problems with their home. During 

one visit (April 2, 2013), the parents kicked the reunification counselors out of the house in the 

middle of a session and telling them "I'll fucking kick your asses and see you at court". 

18. During the visits with their children, Parents often ignored Ch, ,t,\ and left him alone 

to play. Parents allowed (Xl\i, who was only 3 years old, to go to the bathroom by himself: and 

often left alone during the visits to fend for himself.. U(\M'lmother became annoyed when she 

was told by reunification counselors to take Q\,\~ to bathroom, or to spend as much time with him 

as she spends with ()\,\d'~ sisters. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
(5) 

significant progress regarding all the areas mentioned above. 

26. By the time thi\d moved to his permanent foster home , he had made 

practically no dinner table etiquette. 

22 C,M,\c\. was unable to speak and use age appropriate language to ask for things to 

meet his physical, and emotional needs (hunger, hurt, etc.). 

23. CV\\\~ was terrified of being bathed and washed to the point that the foster parents 

could only clean him by giving "sponge bath" only. (,hi \o was also afraid of rain, or getting wet 

altogether. 

24 When first arrived at his first foster home, Ui,,~showed no affection, or reaction 

to others, and took him a while to learn it was Ok to interact with trusted people. When 

interacting with others, . th\\~was unable to differentiate between strangers and people who cared 

about him. 

25. When ()l\J got hurt, or got sick, he did not cry or look to his foster parents for 

comfort and protection. He would simply make some gestures and try to deal with it on his own 

and move on. 

21. When Q\\\~ arrived in his first foster home ; he smelled bad and had 

19. Even during visits which were supervised by the service providers, at times, Gh~ q 

was left unsupervised by his parents. The parents were, often, unable to coordinate some type of 

arrangement to take tum to watch Ch\ \d > and respond to his emotional and physical needs. 

20. Parents often struggled to understand and deal appropriately with Ck, 'i Id \f 

developmental needs, and did not know how to co-parent in order to meet his developmental and 

emotional needs. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the 

Court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of 

at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or 

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. 

may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following ground: 

1. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, the rights of a parent in regard to a child 

SUGGESTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

his current home, for the third time. 

31. Dr. Love opined that remaining in his current foster parents would best serve the 

needs and welfare of O\\,A, and under no circumstances it is in his best interest to be moved from 

the current foster parents meet .~\d~ physical and emotional needs. 

30. Doctor Love supports tMM~ placement with the-K).S.-\'C( family and believes that 

qualifications were not challenged. 

connectedness, focus skills, and language therapy from Dr. Rachael Love, a psychologist whose 

and issues, since he was removed from the care and custody of his parents. 

29 (}i'l \ \(A also receives therapeutic services for his boundary issues, social 

kinship foster mother) both have seen tremendous amount of improvement with .U'I, 1dlbehavior, 

28. former foster mother) and :S . 1" · (C,h\\O!S sibling's 

continue to meet his physical and emotional needs. 

2 7 (}(\', \ 0 '! current foster parents are continuing the work with him and his needs and 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
1247 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. In re: J.L.C., 837 A.2D 

3. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear 

external citations omitted). 

In re: Adoption ofC.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1013-14 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal and 

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 permanency 

severing the bond ... The court must consider whether a natural 

parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether 

termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial 

relationship. Most importantly, adequate consideration must be 

given to the needs and welfare of the child. 

the following guidance: 

2. Relative to Section 2511 (b ), the Pennsylvania Superior Court has provided 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(2), (5), and (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. 

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. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
(6) 

4. The focus of involuntary termination proceedings is on the conduct of the 

parents and whether their conduct justifies termination of parental rights. In re: Child 

M., 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996), appeal denied 546 Pa. 674, 686 A.2d 1307 (1996). 

5. The affirmative duty on the part of a parent to work towards the return of 

his or her child has been determined to require, at a minimum, the parent to "show a 

willingness to cooperate with CYS to obtain the rehabilitative services necessary to 

enable the parent to meet the duties and obligation inherent in parenthood." In re: V.E. 

and J.E., 611 A.2d 1267, 1271 (Pa. Super. 992), citing In re: Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 

883, 889 (Pa. 1986). 

6. "If a parent fails to cooperate or appears incapable of benefiting from the 

reasonable efforts supplied over a realistic period of time, CYS has fulfilled its mandate 

and upon proof of satisfaction of the reasonable good faith effort, the termination petition 

may be granted." In re: A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). 

7. If a parent fails to cooperate or appears incapable of benefitting from the 

reasonable efforts supplied over a realistic period of time, a termination petition may be 

granted. In re: A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

8. "The continued attachment to the natural parents, despite serious parental 

rejection through abuse and neglect, and failure to correct parenting and behavior 

disorders which are harming the children cannot be misconstrued as bonding." In the 

Matter ofK.K.R., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
(9-) 

Ample evidence has demonstrated throughout the entire proceeding that a 

dangerous condition existed in the home of the parents and that the child had to be 

removed for the welfare of the child. After that removal, the parents became very 

uncooperative and bordered on being indignant and obstructionists. Numerous accounts 

were given regarding the inability of caseworkers to even gain entry to the home or to get 

either of the parents on a telephone call. 

The level of indignant response by the parents was most amply demonstrated 

during the hearing by Mother's disgust and outrage that a female CYS worker requested 

that she must witness the collection of a urine sample to verify that Mother was not 

falsifying that urine sample for the detection of drugs. This "indignity" gave rise to an 

open and hostile relationship between CYS and the parents which continued to fester and 

which brought down any efforts by CYS to restore this family to a functioning level that 

would allow for the return of the children. While the Court acknowledges that the act of 

expelling urine from one's own body requires a certain level of privacy, the Court finds 

that it is not unreasonable that workers of the same gender be in the room while the 

sample is collected to assure and verify that tampering is not done. This simple 

verification process takes place daily in every county in this nation and was not a form of 

harassment or "indignities" designed by Centre County Children and Youth Services to 

embarrass or to harass Mother. 

REASONING 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
, are hereby forever terminated in accordance with the Act of October 

and duties of the biological father, and of the biological mother, 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the Petition 

for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights filed by Centre County Children and 

Youth Services in the above-captioned matter, and the evidence and testimony offered at 

the time of hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that all of the parental rights 

Just as important in the Court's mind, and apart from the parents' inability and 

unwillingness to cooperate with CYS, is the stark improvement evidenced by those who 

are around MCT since he has been living with the foster families involved in this case. 

The child has gone from a dialogue of not more than four words, and having abject fear 

of water and bathing to a well-developed and prospering five year old. Those most 

familiar with his care and treatment have seen remarkable and outstanding progress for 

the child while in custody. 

Lastly, the Court is not convinced the attention paid by the child during visits with 

the family represents any meaningful stumbling block or hurtle to the plan to move 

forward with the termination of the parents' parental rights. Familiarity and affection are 

basic human instincts, but they are not sufficient to rescue the foundation of this child's 

family from its ruinous and neglectful origins. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
An adoptee who is at least 18 year of age; 

An adoptive parent of an adoptee who is under 18 years of age, or 

adjudicated incapacitated or deceased; 

A legal guardian of an adoptee who is under 18 years of age or adjudicated 

incapacitated; 

A descendant of a deceased adoptee; 

A birth parent of an adoptee who is at least 21 years of age; 

A birth grandparent of an adoptee who is at least 21 years of age; provided 

the birth parents consents, is incapacitated, or deceased; and 

A birth sibling of an adoptee if both the birth sibling and the adoptee are at 

least 21 years of age; and 

g) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

c) 

You have a continuing right as a parent to voluntarily place on file and update 

social and medical history information, whether or not the medical condition is in 

existence or discoverable at the time of the present adoption. The information you choose 

to provide could be important to the child's present and future medical needs. Requests 

to release the information will be honored if the request is submitted by any of the 

following: 

a) 

b) 

NOTICE TOP ARENTS: 

that of ADOPTION. 

parents has been granted. The Court ORDERS the new permanent placement goal to be 

appropriate and/or NOT feasible, in that termination of parental rights of the biological 

. that of Planned Permanent Living Arrangement/Long-Term Foster Care is NOT 

The Court further finds that the current placement goal of. M · C. '"f · 1 

parents, namely,· 

adoption of this child without further notice to, or the consent of, either of the biological 

Children and Youth Services, and the agency shall have the right to proceed with an 

The custody of l shall remain with Centre County 

Sections 25 l l(a)(2), 251 l(a)(5), and 251 l(a)(8). 

{'{). ~ :-r .. 

15, 1980, P.L. 934, No. 163 (23 Pa.C.S.A, Section 2511), specifically pursuant to 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM
1. Your county's Children and Youth Services Agency; 

2. Any private licensed adoption agency; 

3. Your county Register and Recorder's Office; and 

4. Online at http://www.adoptpakids.org/Forms.aspx. 

Social and medical history information forms may also be obtained locally by 

contacting one of the following agencies: 

Department of Public Welfare 

Pennsylvania Adoption Information Registry 

www .pagov .pair .org 

P.O. Box 4379 

Harrisburg, PA 17111-03 79 

Telephone: 1-800-227-0225 

You may obtain the appropriate form to file social and medical history information 

by contacting the Pennsylvania Adoption Information Registry at the following address 

and/or phone number: 

All information will be maintained and distributed in a manner that fully protects 

your privacy. 

• The birth sibling remained in the custody of the birth parent, 

and the birth parent consents, is deceased, or adjudicated 

incapacitated; 

• Both the birth sibling and the adoptee were adopted out of the 

same birth family; or 

• The birth sibling was not adopted out of the birth family and 

did not remain in the custody of the birth parent. 

Circulated 03/30/2015 11:36 AM