J-S16034-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: P.B., NATURAL MOTHER

No. 1798 MDA 2014 

Appeal from the Decree September 23, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Orphans' Court at No(s): A-8207

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 15, 2015

P.B. (“Mother”) appeals the final decree entered September 23, 2014, 

in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, involuntarily terminating her 

parental rights to her daughter, R.M.B. (“Child”). On appeal, Mother argues 

the orphans’ court erred in finding Luzerne County Children and Youth 

Services (“CYS”) met its burden of proving termination of her parental rights 

was warranted pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). For 

the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The facts underlying this appeal are as follows. Child, born in April of 

2012, was placed with a foster family four days after birth. Mother, who has 

cognitive limitations,1 was having difficulty in the hospital responding to the 

____________________________________________

1 Mother was diagnosed with an IQ of 60, which places her in the mild 

mental retardation range. N.T., 9/22/2014, at 72.
J-S16034-15

- 2 -

child’s cues, and had a bug infestation problem in her apartment.2 Over the 

ensuing two and one-half years, Mother consistently participated in 

parenting sessions, but had difficulty understanding and applying the lessons 

in her interactions with Child. A mental health assessment in late 2013 

revealed a decline in her ability to care for Child from a previous assessment 

in June 2012. Mother was also unable to maintain a clean and safe home. 

On April 21, 2014, CYS filed three petitions seeking termination of the 

parental rights of Mother, a presumptive father, and a putative father.3 The 

presumptive father consented to Child’s adoption and voluntarily 

relinquished his parental rights. Following a hearing on August 4, 2014, the 

orphans’ court entered a final decree terminating the parental rights of the 

putative father.4 Thereafter, on September 22, 2014, the court conducted a 

hearing concerning the termination of Mother’s parental rights. The 

following day, the orphans’ court entered a final decree involuntarily 

____________________________________________

2 David Fedorco, the property manager at Interfaith Heights, where Mother 

resides, testified that Mother’s unit was first infested with bedbugs in 

December of 2011. Id. at 10. The problem was not resolved until July or 

August 2012 because Mother refused to thoroughly clean the unit, which 

was required before the pest control company would complete the work. Id.

at 11. Fedorco also described the smell in Mother’s unit as “atrocious” due 

to animal feces “scattered” over the floor. Id. at 19. 

3 No father is listed on Child’s birth certificate. 

4

Putative father has not filed an appeal from that decree.
J-S16034-15

- 3 -

terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to Sections 

2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). This timely appeal followed.5

We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in 

accordance with the following standard:

[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard 

when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for 

termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our 

standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the 

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if 

they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 

9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are 

supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial 

court made an error of law or abused its discretion. Id.; R.I.S.,

[36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been 

often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely 

because the reviewing court might have reached a different 

conclusion. Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors 

America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 

838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be 

reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of 

manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. 

Id.

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

The termination of parental rights involves a bifurcated analysis, 

governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act. 

Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party 

seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory 

grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if 

____________________________________________

5 Mother complied with the dictates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i), and filed, 

with the notice of appeal, a concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal pursuant.
J-S16034-15

- 4 -

the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants 

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

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

determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the 

standard of best interests of the child. 

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.

In the present case, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental 

rights pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b), which provide as 

follows:

(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child 

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

grounds:

. . .

(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect 

or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without 

essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary 

for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions 

and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal 

cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.

. . .

(5) The child has been removed from the care of the 

parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with 

an agency for a period of at least six months, the 

conditions which led to the removal or placement of the 

child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not 

remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of 

time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the 

parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to 

the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable 

period of time and termination of the parental rights would 

best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

. . .

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the 

parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with 
J-S16034-15

- 5 -

an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date 

of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the 

removal or placement of the child continue to exist and 

termination of parental rights would best serve the needs 

and welfare of the child.

. . .

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

of a parent shall give primary consideration to the 

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the 

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

basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, 

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

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

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

consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions 

described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the 

giving of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).

In reviewing a termination decree, “[t]his Court may affirm the trial 

court’s decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to 

any one subsection of section 2511(a).” In re M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1179 

(2014) (en banc) (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). Because we 

agree with the orphans’ court decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights 

pursuant to subsection (a)(8), we need not address the remaining 

subsections of the statute. See In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 100 (Pa. Super. 

2011).

With respect to subsection (a)(8), this Court has explained:

[I]n order to satisfy the requirements of § 2511(a)(8) in the 

case at bar, CYS must produce clear and convincing evidence 

that: (1) [Child] has been removed from Mother for at least 

twelve months; (2) the conditions which led to [Child’s] removal 
J-S16034-15

- 6 -

continue to exist; and (3) involuntary termination of parental 

rights would best serve [Child’s] needs and welfare. “Notably, 

termination under Section 2511(a)(8), does not require an 

evaluation of Mother’s willingness or ability to remedy the 

conditions that led to placement of her children.” 

In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 789 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). “The 

relevant inquiry ... is whether the conditions that led to removal have been 

remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at 

the time of the hearing.” In the Interest of I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340, 345 (Pa. 

Super. 2014) (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). See In re J.F.M., 

71 A.3d 989, 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“By allowing for termination when the 

conditions that led to removal continue to exist after a year, the statute 

implicitly recognizes that a child’s life cannot be held in abeyance while the 

parent is unable to perform the actions necessary to assume parenting 

responsibilities.”) (citation omitted).

Once the grounds for termination are proven under Subsection (a), the 

orphans’ court must consider the “needs and welfare” of the child under 

Subsection (b).6

____________________________________________

6 As noted above, a “needs and welfare” analysis is also required under 

subsection (a)(8):

[W]hile both Section 2511(a)(8) and Section 2511(b) direct us 

to evaluate the “needs and welfare of the child,” we are required 

to resolve the analysis relative to Section 2511(a)(8), prior to 

addressing the “needs and welfare” of [the child], as proscribed 

by Section 2511(b); as such, they are distinct in that we must 

address Section 2511(a) before reaching Section 2511(b). 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S16034-15

- 7 -

Subsection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental 

rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and 

emotional needs and welfare of the child. In In re C.M.S., 884 

A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005), this Court stated, 

“Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are 

involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child.” 

In addition, we instructed that the trial court must also discern 

the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost 

attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that 

bond. Id. However, in cases where there is no evidence of a 

bond between a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no 

bond exists. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super. 

2008). Accordingly, the extent of the bond-effect analysis 

necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case. 

Id. at 63.

In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010). 

Furthermore, “[w]e observe that an orphans’ court is not required by statute 

or precedent to order a formal bonding evaluation by an expert.” In re 

K.M., supra, 53 A.3d at 791 (citation omitted).

After a careful review of the certified record - including the transcripts 

from both the August 4, 2014, and September 22, 2014, termination 

hearings - the relevant statutory and case law, and the parties’ briefs, we 

find the orphans’ court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of 

Mother’s claims on appeal in its opinion. See Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

11/21/2014, at 4-26. 

With regard to termination under Subsection (a)(8), the court 

concluded (1) Child had been removed from Mother’s care for more than 12 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc)

(citations omitted).
J-S16034-15

- 8 -

months, (2) the conditions that led to Child’s placement continue to exist, 

and (3) termination would best serve Child’s needs and welfare. See id. at 

21-22. In particular, the court found: (1) before and during Child’s 

placement, Mother “struggled with maintaining an adequate and clean 

apartment;”7(2) Mother would have been evicted, but for her involvement 

with CYS to regain custody of Child; (4) Mother’s apartment had an 

“atrocious” smell because of animal feces “scattered all over the floor,” and 

was littered with garbage, including packages of raw chicken stacked several 

feet high;8(5) Mother did not respond to Child’s cues in the hospital after 

birth; (6) between October 2013 and July 2014, Mother completed only 

three of 14 parenting skill lessons with a family development specialist; (7) 

Mother was provided with an “Easy Reader” curriculum due to her cognitive 

limitations, and was still unable to answer questions regarding the material 

or give proper feedback on what she had learned;9(8) although Mother 

____________________________________________

7 Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 4. Brian Steve, the CYS 

supervisor, testified that the only reason Mother’s home passed the yearly 

inspection by the Wilkes-Barre Housing Authority in July of 2013, was 

because Mother’s caseworker, from the Nurse Partnership Program, was 

“directly involved in cleaning the residence.” N.T., 9/22/2104, at 106.

8 Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 6, 7.

9 After Mother’s first psychological evaluation in June 2012, she was 

assigned to a case manager in the “developmental disability unit” and 

provided with materials appropriate for her intellectual level. N.T., 

9/22/2014, at 73-74.

 
J-S16034-15

- 9 -

acted appropriately with Child during the one supervised visit the parenting 

specialist observed, the specialist concluded that “Mother cannot safely 

parent [Child] without the support of agency personnel since Mother cannot 

identify the safety hazards to her child within a given environment[;]”10 (10) 

Mother’s psychological evaluation in June of 2012 revealed that (a) Mother 

had an IQ of 60, which placed her in the mild mental retardation range;11

(b) Mother “had difficulty using the information from the educational part of 

parenting and generalizing it to the day-to-day aspects of rearing a 

child[;]”12 and (c) Mother suffered from dependent personality disorder; (11) 

Mother’s reevaluation in November/December 2013 revealed her physical 

appearance had declined and she was withdrawn and lacked energy, but 

denied having any problems; and (12) significantly, the psychologist, who 

conducted both evaluations, opined “Mother was not able to safely, 

____________________________________________

10 Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 9.

11 Clinical psychologist Lenora Hermann-Finn, who conducted the evaluations 

of Mother, explained that a diagnosis of mental retardation “does not 

preclude someone from being a good parent.” Id. at 74. However, 

generally, a mentally challenged parent requires a good support system, 

which Mother did not have. Id. at 75. Moreover, Dr. Finn was concerned 

because Mother struggled to pay attention during her parenting sessions 

even after the materials had been modified to address her intellectual level. 

Id. at 74.

12 Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 10. 
J-S16034-15

- 10 -

adequately and continuously parent a child in 2012 or 2013.”13 The orphans’ 

court concluded: 

Based on the testimony of various witnesses, ... and based 

on the evidence presented to the Court, the Court finds that 

subsequent to the placement of the child [in April of 2012,] 

Mother was not able to maintain adequate safe housing for the 

child due to her inability to keep her home habitable on a 

continuous basis, in addition to Mother being unable to safely 

parent [Child] despite her participation in all of the aforesaid 

parenting programs. Therefore, the Court finds that Mother has 

not been able to remedy the conditions that gave rise to the 

placement of the child.

Id. at 14. See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 

2003) (concluding orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in terminating 

parental rights of mentally impaired mother; “although the mother was 

willing to remedy the conditions that led to her children's placement, the 

mother was not able to demonstrate an ability to provide the basic need of a 

structured environment for the children[.]”).

With regard the needs and welfare analysis under subsection (a)(8), 

the orphans’ court credited the testimony of Mother’s CYS caseworkers who 

concluded: (1) Mother sometimes appears disinterested in Child; (2) Child 

is fully assimilated in foster family; (3) the foster parents meet Child’s 

____________________________________________

13 Id. at 9-12. See id. at 12-13 (summarizing the services provided to 

Mother during Child’s placement including Nurse Family Partnership 

Program, Volunteers of America, Community Counseling Services, and 

Justice Works).
J-S16034-15

- 11 -

medical and developmental needs; (4) Child has a “strong loving bond” with 

foster parents;14 and (5) the foster parents wish to adopt Child. See

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 17-21. Moreover, we note that 

Child has lived with her foster parents for all but three days of her life. 

Accordingly, we agree with the determination of the orphans’ court that CYS 

demonstrated termination would best serve Child’s needs and welfare under 

subsection (a)(8).

Furthermore, with respect to the effect termination would have on the 

“developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare” of Child under 

subsection (b), the orphans’ court cited the testimony of Mother’s 

caseworker that Mother and Child have a “playmate type of bond and not ... 

a parent child bond.”15 Indeed, Mother’s most recent caseworker testified 

that termination of Mother’s parental rights would have no effect on Child. 

See also N.T., 9/22/2014, at 119. The lack of a beneficial bond between 

Mother and Child, coupled with Mother’s sustained inability to provide a safe, 

structured environment for Child, support the court’s subsection (b) analysis. 

Furthermore, as noted above, Child is strongly bonded to her foster family 

who provide for her physical and emotional well-being. 

____________________________________________

14 Id. at 18. 

15 Id. at 17.
J-S16034-15

- 12 -

Lastly, the orphans’ court considered the testimony of Child’s Guardian 

ad Litem, who opined that although Mother has made an effort to engage in 

programs designed to address her parenting, mental health and housing 

issues, she has been “unable to show adequate benefit from those 

programs.” Id. at 136. Rather, as the Guardian ad Litem stated, “two years 

into this process, we are still at the same juncture as we were when this 

case had begun.” Id. 

Our review reveals the orphans’ courts factual findings are supported 

by the record. Accordingly, we detect no abuse of discretion on the part of 

the orphans’ court, and affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(8) and (b).

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/15/2015
I 

I I . 

I 

i 

I 

Pa.C.SA. § 2511(a)(2), §2511 (a) (5) and §2511 (a)(8). In entering the termination 

Particularly, Mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to 23 

2014. 

) 

l 

! 

termination of parental rights and the involuntary termination petition of the 

natural mother. This Court issued decrees terminating the parental rights of the 

. ''\ : . . 

natural Father, the putative father, and the natural Mother on Septemberzg, 

pertaining to the natural mother. The hearings addressed the natural father's 

voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, the putative father's involuntary 

hearing held on. September 22, 2014 with testimony and evidence offered 

The first hearing was held on August 4, 2014, with testimony and evidence 

offered pertaining to the natural father and the putative father with a second 

( Children and Youth), filed Petitions for the Involuntary Termination of Parental 

Rights of the natural father (Father), the putative father, and the natural mother 

(Mother) for the minor child, R.M.B. 

On April 21, 2014, Petitioner, Luzerne County Children and Youth Services 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

MEMORANDUM ISSUED PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925(a) 

1798 MDA 2014 

RECORDED 

11/21/201~ 2:5e:52 PM 

JUDICIAL SERVICES~ RfCOROS 

LUZERNE COUNTY 

PENNSYLVANIA 

---------.------------------...;.I.n~s~t NUlil=: . WH5606S' 

A Minor NO.A-8207 

R.M.B. 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON 

PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY 

ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION 

IN THE INTEREST OF 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
decrees, the Court gave primary consideration to the developmental, physical, 

and emotional needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(b). 

On October 22, 2014, Mother, by and through her Court-Appointed 

Counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court and the requisite 

Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Mother's Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal is as follows: 

1. The Trial Court erred in finding that Childrenand Youth Services 

proved the elements of termination with respect to 23 Pa.C.S.A §2511 

(a)(2), 23 P.A.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(5), 23 PA.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(8) and 23 

PAC.S.A. §2511 (b ), through clear and convincing evidence. 

2. There was insufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that 

the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child 

continued to exist and that the termination of parental rights would best 

serve the needs and welfare of the child. 

3. Appellant reserves the right to amend the instant document within 

a reasonable time after receipt of the transcript. 

II. FINDINGS OF FACT 

·. There is one minor child in this case. RM.B. was born on April 1, 2012, 

and she is currently two (2) years old. It is unrebutted that the minor child has 

been in placement in foster care as of four (4) clays after her birth, namely April 5, 

2012. R.M.B. was placed due to parenting, mental health and housing. 

In meeting its requisite burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence 

regarding the termination of parental rights of Mother, Petitioner offered the 

testimony of Mark Werger, caseworker for Children and Youth; Rebecca Willis, 

2 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
3 

(Pa. Super. 2002). 

properly have his or her rights terminated. In Re: J.T. and R.T., 817 A.2d 505 

following the intervention by the State may properly be considered unfit and may 

minimum requirements of care that parents must provide to their children. A 

parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time 

Pennsylvania, 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511, sets forth the certain irreducible 

. . 

The statute permitting involuntary termination of parental rights in 

. IV. DISCUSSION: GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR MOTHER 

. child pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b) . 

minor child, R.M.B., best serves the needs and welfare of the 

(2) Children and Youth has shown by dear and convincing evidence 

the termination of the parental rights of the Mother, to the 

Section 2511 (a)(8). 

2511(a)(2), 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511 (a)(s) and 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 

that the parental rights of the Mother to the minor child, R.M.B., 

(1) Children and Youth has shown by clear and convincing evidence 

more detailed.below, the Court concludes: 

After consideration of the credible evidence as summarized above and 

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

Grace Tavaris, family development specialist at Family Service Association. 

. . . 

and Youth; Dr. Lenora Herrmann-Finn, expert in the field of clinical psychology; 

David Fedorco, property manager at Interfaith Heights in Wilkes-Barre, PA; and 

caseworker for Children and Youth; Brian Steve, case supervisor for Children 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
4 

programs which would enable her to safely parent R.M.B. Unfortunately, Mother 

has delayed cognitive skills which impair her ability to safely parent her child· 

despite the parenting programs in which she participated. In addition, Mother's 

Accordingly, Mother's parental rights to the child, RM.B., can be 

terminated under Section 2511(a)(2) of the statute. Clear and convincing 

evidence at the termination hearing was presented to show that Mother struggled 

with maintaining an adequate and clean apartment for a period of two years, in 

addition to Mother failing to benefit from the instruction in the parenting 

A Court may terminate parental rightsunder Section 2511(a)(2) when: 

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 of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied by the parent. 

Interest of Lillie, 719 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super 1998). 

A. 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511 (a)(2) · 

. . 

upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties to the child's right to have 

proper parenting in fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, healthy, 

safe environment." In Re: J.A.S., Jr., 2003 Pa. Super.' 112, citing In the 

basic constitutional right to custody and rearing of his or her child is converted 

642 (1983). However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated "a parent's 

Santosk.y v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), In Re: T.R., 502 Pa. 165, 465 A.2d 

by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria have been met. 

Therefore, in proceedings terminating parental rights, the Petitioner must prove 

because of the fundamental right of an individual to raise his or her own child. 

Termination of parental rights is an issue of constitutional dimensions 

j 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
5 

resident at Interfaith Heights for approxlmatelythreetg) years. He further 

. . 

Philadelphia through which he manages the apartment complexknows as 

Interfaith Heights in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He testified that Mother has been a· . . . 

David Fedorco testified that he is employed by multifamily management in 

9/22/14 at 6, 120) 

assigned to the case since July 17, ?014, (N.T. 9/22/14 at S, 115) Mr. Werger 

testified that R.M.B. is two (2) years old and that she was placed on April 5, 2012 

with her foster parents, Wade and Diane McRoy. The child was never in the 

· natural mother's physical custody outside of the hospital setting. The child was 

placed due to concerns with parenting, mental health and housing . (N.T. 

Mark Werger, case worker for Luzerne County Children and Youth was 

at zs .. 

infested with cockroaches and she was in the process of being evicted. N.T.8/ 4/14 

There was also concern about Mother's housing in that Mother's residence was 

the baby's cues, such as cries, or even know when the baby needed to be fed. 

was born on April 1, 2012. At the time of her birth, Mother was having difficulty 

caring for R.M.B. while Mother was in the hospital. Mother did not respond to 

inability to maintain adequate and stable housing for the child, Mother is unable 

to provide the proper and essential care for R.M.B. that is necessary for RM.B. 's 

well being. 

Brian Steve, case supervisor for Children and Youth testified that R.M.B. 

child's placement. As a result of Mother's lack of ability to parent R.M.B. and her 

home was inhabitable, filthy and infested with cockroaches and/ or bed bugs 

which was a repeated and continued incapacity throughout the period of the 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
6 

testified that Mother's unit has been infested with bed bugs twice, both in 

December 2011 and in the spring of 2014. According to Mr. Fedorco, Mother was 

given instructions and literature on bow to clean up her apartment in order to 

remove the bed bugs; however, Mother failed to comply. N.T. 09/22/14 at 9-11 

Furt;hermore, in order for apest control company to remove the bed bugs, 

Mother was required to clean up the apartment. Unfortunately, Mother was not 

able to do so for a period of six ( 6) months after being requested. Mr. Fedorco 

testified that Mother's apartment was filthy. Mother had pet cats whose feces 

were scattered all over the floor. She also had other animals such as a 

salamander, iguana and gerbil in the apartment which contributed to the filth in 

the apartment. Mr. Fedorco stated that Mother's apartment was not fit for human 

habitation. According to Mr. Fedorco, Mother's apartment also had an 

"atrocious" smell. Mr. Fedorco also testified that they were getting complaints 

from the residents regarding the smell from Mother' s apartment. Id. at 14, 19. 

In December of 2011, a pest control company was not able to remove the 

bed bugs because Mother's place was too filthy. The Interfaith Apartments had to 

hire another pest control company to attempt to remove the bed bugs from· 

Mother's apartment eventhough the apartment was not clean. Id. at 11, 19. Mr. 

Fedorco testified that the Interfaith apartmentswould have evicted Mother much 

sooner had the court not been involved in this matter. Mr. Fedorco testified that 

they were trying to be patient with the Mother in light of her situationwith the 

court. Id. at 20. Mother was also told many times that she must removethe cats 

from the apartment; however, Mother did not comply. Id. at 19. 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
Mr. Fed.orco testified that he believes that Mother brought the infestation 

to the apartment and because Mother does not keep her place clean, it was too 

difficult to remove the bed bugs. Id. at 23. Mr. Fedorco further testified that there 

was garbage everywhere in Mother's apartment and chicken packages were piled 

up on top of the garbage several feet high. Id. 23, 34. Mr. Fedorco testified that 

while Mother resided at Interfaith apartments for approximately three (3) years, 

she only passed inspection once. All remaining inspection reports indicated that 

Mother's apartment did not pass inspection due to the filth, bed bugs and clutter 

in her apartment. Based upon Mother's history and living conditions at the 

· apartment, Mr. Fedorco believed that Mother cannot adequately maintain the 

apartment on a continuous basis so that it is fit for human habitation for herself 

and her daughter. Id. at 20, 36. 

Grace Tavaris testified that she is employed by Family Service Association 

as a family development specialist. Her job involves providing parenting skills 

and patenting knowledge. to parents through the nurturing parenting curriculum. 

The curriculum is accomplished by providing weekly sessions, conducting a pretest to determine the status of the parent and a post-test upon the completion of 

the curriculum. Id. at 39-41 The parents are expected to complete fourteen (14) 

lessons in the program. Mother only completed-three (3) lessons. Id. at 55-56, 

Ms. Tavaris testified that she worked with Mother between October 2013 

and July 2014. Mother was given the pre-test in October of 2013 which showed 

that Mother needed to work on certain areas such as empathy, child 

development, power and development, child and family roles. Id. at 42. Ms. 

Tavaris testified that Mother had certain limitations. She was given lessons from 

7 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
8 

unable to safely parent R.M.B. without proper supervision. Id. at 48-49 . 

inability to comprehend the material given, Ms. Tavaris concluded that Mother is 

subject child. Although Mother was able to change the child's diaper and read to 

the child, Ms. Tavaris was not able to observe any additional visits to insure that 

Mother can be consistent. Furthermore, Ms. Tav:aris testified that other aides 

were present to help Mother with the child if needed. Based on Ms. Tavaris' 

observation of the visit between Mother and the child and based on Mother's. 

Ms. Tavaris was only able to observe one visit between the Mother and the 

curriculum. 

any additional sessions. Id. at 54, 58. Thus, Mother was not able to complete the 

. . 

Mother gave birth in mid-June to her second child and was not able to complete 

missed the opportunity to receive lessons regarding her prenatal care. Id. at 54. 

was pregnant and neverinformed anyone of her pregnancy. Therefore, Mother 

also cancelled at times and was not able to attend a session. In addition, Mother 

first cleared from the infestation and lice by a physician. Id. at 62-63. Mother 

with Mother out in the community instead of the office because Mother had to be 

Mother had lice. Id. at 43. Ms. Tavaris testified that she was also not able to meet 

. . 

office on a weekly basis because Mother's home was infested with bed bugs and 

Ms. Tavaris testified that she was not able to meet with the Mother at the 

questions from the material she learned or give adequate feedback. Id. at 45-46. 

questions that pose safety issues to R.M.B., nor was Mother able to answer 

with disabilities. According to Ms. Tavaris, Mother was not able to address 

the Easy Reader for the Nurturing Parenting curriculum geared toward parents 

l · Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
9 

associated thinking moved from the concrete to the abstract. According to Dr. 

range of mental retardation. Furthermore, Dr. Finn also found that Mother's 

cognitive functioning, Mother tested with an IQ of 60 which falls in the mild 

verbally administered. Id. at 72. Dr. Finn testified that when assessing Mother's 

Mother had significant reading difficulties; therefore, the reading scales had to be 

. . 

with respect to the first assessment, she met with Mother on June 5, 2012 and 

June 25, 2012. On June 5, 2012, Dr. Finn assessed Mother's levels of cognitive 

functioning. Dr. Finn spent six hours with Mother on June 5, 2012 because 

spanning the months of November and December of 2013. Dr. Finn testified that 

psychology, testified that she conducted two separate assessments on Mother. 

Dr. Finn conducted her first assessment in June of 2012 and the second 

Dr. Lenora Hermann Finn, qualified as an expert in 'the field of clinical 

Mother cannot safely parent R.M.B. without the support of agency personnel 

since Mother cannot identify the safety hazards to her child within a given 

environment. Id. at 63-64 

according to Ms. Tavaris, in working with Mother, Ms. Tavaris believes that 

the lessons. and giving feedback in those lessons, Id. at 56-61. In conclusion, 

to relate the material to R.M.B. Id. at 53. According to Ms .. Tavaris, although 

Mother had completed three (3) lessons, she had a difficult time understanding· 

her child, she had difficulty understanding the parenting material and was unable 

52. Although Mother was able to express love for her child and show concern for 

recommendation of the community resource specialist and senior community 

resource specialist as a result of Mother's lack of progress in parenting. Id. at 47, 

In July 2014, Mother's parenting instruction was closed upon the 

" 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
10 

· Finn, that poses a problem in Mother benefitting from the parent education 

programs. Dr. Finn testified that Mother had difficulty using the information 

from the educational part of parenting and generalizing it to the day-to-day 

aspects ofrearing a child. Dr. Finn further indicated that Mother's verbal-social 

judgment and applied-social judgment were deficient. Thus, Mother was given a 

case manager in the development disability unit of the county mental health 

services department. Id. at 72-73. 

Dr. Finn testified that she did not administer tools assessing parenting in 

2012 as Mother was having structured contact with her child. Upon speaking 

with parenting education providers, Dr. Finn was told that Mother could parent 

· as long as someone was helping her: Also, the providers struggled with Mother's 

attention span. Although, Mother was ·being provided with material geared to her · 

intellectual level, Mother had a difficult time focusing on the material. Id. at 74 

Dr. Finn testified that Mother also minimized the conditions of her home 

at the time RM.B. was placed. Dr. Finn indicated that a parent that is mentally 

challenged can parent if they have a good support system. However, according to 

Dr. Finn, Mother does not have a good family support system. According to Dr. 

Finn, the maternal grandmother is challenged with cognitive delays and medical 

issues. Id. at 75. Dr. Finn found that Mother was-exhibiting a dependent 

personality disorder in which other people guided her behavior. Dr. Finn 

testified that in 2012, Mother denied all clinical symptoms, denied anxiety and 

depression and denied anything that was impacting on her functioning. Id. at 76. 

Therefore, in 2012, Dr. Finn diagnosed Mother with having dependant 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
11 

as being a problem at all. Dr. Finn stated that Mother was told that R.M.B. had 

April 5, 2012, Mother did not view the removal of the child from the foster home 

Dr. Finn further stated since RM.B. had been in the foster home since 

. . 

follow her task Dr. Finn stated that Mother's lack of energy was problematic. 

Id. at 78, 81: 

presentation from 2012. Dr. Finn further described Mother's level of energy in 

2013 as much lower than in 2012. Mother had to\be directed more in order to 

2012. Dr. Finn was concerned that she saw a decline in Mother's overall 

avoidance. Dr. Finn described Mother's behavior as being very different than in 

. Mother would not maintain eye contact and her body language displayed 

as poor. Mother was withdrawn and kept her winter coat on while indoors . 

. physical demeanor had changed. Dr. Finn described Mother's personal hygiene 

Dr. Finn further stated that when she saw Mother in 2013, her entire 

Id. at 79. 

R.B.M. fluctuating up and down which affected her relationship with the child. 

R.M.B. as having a difficult time with changes. Mother saw her relationship with 

Mother did not identify anything in herself that needed to be changed. She saw 

Mother viewed herself as unable to manage RM.B. According to Dr. Finn, 

washaving more intensive contact with the child. One of the parenting tools 

determined how much reward a parent receives from the child. Dr. Finn testified 

and December 16, 2013, administered a structured parenting tool since Mother 

Dr. Finn in her second assessment of the Mother ori November 18, 2013 

mental health counselor. Id. at 76-77. 

personality disorder and recommended that Mother continue working with her 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
Therefore, based on a- reasonable degree of certainty in her profession, Dr. 

Finn opined that Mother was not able to safely, adequately and continuously 

'parent a child in 2012 or 2013. Furthermore, Dr. Finn testified that from 2012 to 

2013, Mother actually declined in her ability to adequately care for the child. Id. 

at 82-83. Dr. Finn further recommended that any contact between Mother and 

R.M.B. must be supervised. Id. at 95. \ 

Brian Steve testified that he has been the supervisor for Mother's case 

since June 2012. Mr. Steve summarized for the court the types of services that 

were offered to Mother. Mother was first involved with a Nurse Family 

Partnership Program which is a parenting program for first-time mothers. 

Mother was involved in the program until the child reached two (2) years old. 

12 

autism but Mother could not understand what that meant. Dr. Finn testified that 

· someone needed to explain to Mother the developmental issues that R.M.B. 

might have so that Mother can better meet the needs of the child. Id. at 81-82. 

In 2613, Mother was denying that there were any problems. Mother was 

defensive and she was dealing with stress by avoiding the existence of any 

problems. Dr. Finn testified that in 2013, Mother still had individual issues, 

relationship issues and parenting issues which negatively impacted Mother's 

ability to safely parent the child. 

·. Dr. Finn further emphasized since Mother has cognitive delays, it is 

essential that there is a good family support network as well as agencies to help 

her parent the child. According to Dr. Finn, Mother did riot have. a good family 

support network and there was not enough agency support to help Mother. Id. 

at 88. 

.. 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
13 

Prior to R.M.B.'s birth, Mother. was involved in a parenting support program 

through Volunteers of America. Mother was involved in that program until 

December of 2012 when the parenting instructor found the first bedbug 

infestation in Mother's unit. Then Mother was referred to Time Limited Family 

Reunification Program, a parenting provider, until Mother's case was closed. 

Mother was also involved with Community Counseling Services for her mental 

health treatment. Id. at 100-103. 

There was also a Nurse Family Partnership program which was an inhome service in which visits were made to Mother's home every two (2) weeks. 

The program provided parenting skills. Mother worked on changing diapers, 

feeding schedules, routine safety measures in the home and cleanliness in the 

home. According to Mr. Steve, Ms. Smallcomb, the worker from the Nurse Family 

Partnership Program who assisted Mother in cleaning the home, stated that 

Mother did not successfullycomplete the program since R.M.B. was already-two 

(2) years old and Mother still could not keep her apartment clean and benefit 

from the program. 

Also, Justice Works was another program which provided supervised visits 

either at the parents' home or in the community. Mr. Steve testified that Dr. Finn 

was made aware of all those services. Id. at 102~05. 

Mr. Steve also testified that the agency provided Mother with a dumpster. 

service at her prior residence prior to moving into Interfaith apartments. Mother 

received help to move into her new residence at Interfaith apartments. Mother 

was given instructions on how to maintain the new residence arid keep the 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
14 

residence clean; however, despite these instructions, Mother was still not able to 

keep her new residence at Interfaith apartmentsclean Id. at 108~109. 

Based on the testimony of various witnesses, summarized above, and 

based on the evidence presented to theCourt, the Court finds that subsequent to 

the placement of the child on April 5, 2012, Mother was not able to maintain 

adequate safe·housing for the child due to her inability to keep her home 

habitable on a continuous basis, in addition to Mother being unable to safely 

parent R.M.B. despite her participation in all of the aforesaid parenting 

programs. Therefore, the Court finds that Mother has not been able to remedy 

the conditions that gave rise to the placement ofthe child. 

Unlike 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), subsection (a)(2) does not emphasize a 

parent's refusal or failure to perform parental duties, but instead emphasizes the 

child's present and future need for essential parental care, control or subsistence 

necessary for his physical or mental well-being. Therefore, the language in 

subsection (a)(2) should not be read to compel courts to ignore a child's need for 

a stable home and ... this is particularlv so where disruption of the family has 

already occurred and there is no reasonable ptospectfor reuniting it." (our 

emphasis added) In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super 2008). 

Given the overwhelming evidence and testimony, it is clear that Mother 

has received and/ or has been offered extensive services over the years and she 

has failed to complete and/or benefit from the services. 

At this juncture, the child's right to have proper parenting in fulfillment of 

her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment outweighs Mother's 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
15 

The child was originally placed on April 5, 2012 due to an emergency 

shelter care Order issued by the Court. Therefore, the child has been removed 

from her Mother for at least SIX ( 6) months. It is also clear, through the 

testimony outlined above, that the natural Mother has been unable to resolve the 

issues that gave rise to the placement of the minor child, R.M.B., i.e. inability to 

(1) CHILD REMOVED BY THE COURT FOR A PERlOD OF A LEAST SIX 

MONTHS AND CONDITIONS CONTINUING TO EXIST 

child. 

Termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the 

least six months; (2) The conditions giving rise to placement continue to exist, (3) 

Those conditions will notbe remedied in a reasonable period of time, and (4) 

the Statute. Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(5), the agency must show: (1) the 

child has been removed from the care of the parent.by the Court for a period of at 

Mother's parental rights may also be terminated under this provision of 

A Court may terminate the pare~tal rights under Section 2511(a)(5) when: 

The child has been removed from the·care of the parent by the Court or 

under voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six 

months, the conditions of which led to the removal or placement of the 

child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those 

conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance 

reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions 

which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable 

period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the 

needs and welfare of the child. · 

A. 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511 (a)(5) 

· Lillie, 719 A2d 327 (Pa. Super 1998); 

V. DISCUSSION: GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR MOTHER 

interest. In Re: ·.1.A.s.; Jr., 2003 Pa. Super. 112, citing In the Interest of 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
16 

closeness. In re Matsock, 416 Pa. Super. 520, 611 A.2d 737, 747 (1992). There 

The term "needs and welfare.of a child refers to both tangible and intangible 

needs. The intangible needs of a child include love, comfort, security and 

(3) NEEDS AND v\TELF ARE OF THE CHILD 

period. \ 

· inhabitable. This Court finds that Mother has been and is unable to remedy the 

conditions that gave rise to placement of the minor child within a reasonable time 

progress. The court recognizes that Mother has delayed cognitive skills that 

impair her ability to parent R.M.B. and/ or to benefit from the parenting 

. programs offered to her. In addition, Mother's home was found to be 

rise to placement, yet the evidence shows that she has been unable to make any 

Mother has had over two (2) years to remedy the conditions which gave 

(2)REMEDY OF CONDITIONS IN REAS.QNABLE TIME 

R.M.B. 

remedy the conditions that originally gave rise to placement of his minor child, 

applies this same reasoning in concluding that the natural Mother failed to 

already been discussed extensively in this memorandum. Furthermore, the Court 

. . . 

2511(a)(2) and finds the same considerations apply for 2511 (a)(5) that have 

The Court has recognized this issue above in its analysis of Section 

parenting programs. 

. remedied by Mother even after participating in mental health treatment and 

safely and adequately parent the child and inability to maintain safe and stable 

housing. The overwhelming evidence shows that all of these issues have yet to be 

.1 J 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
17 

described the bond as a playmate type of bond and not as a parent child bond. Id. 

at 115. Mr.Werger testified that when the foster parents drop off the child at the 

many times, played by herself with toys in the corner. The natural mother 

engaged the child at times, but also appeared disinterested with the child. He 

testified that. the child and the natural mother have a bond; however, he 

agency twice per week. During the visits, Mr. ~rger testified that the child,' 

. . 

some visits between the child and the natural mother at the Children and Youth 

Mr. Werger, case worker for Children and Youth, testified that he observed 

L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A2d 1228 (1978). 

has an affirmative duty to work toward the return of the child. In Re: William 

maintain communication and association with the child. In re Adoption of 

McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975). Moreover, a parent with a child in foster care 

must demonstrate a continuing interest in the child and make a genuine effort to 

In re Adoption ofM.J.H., 348 Pa. Super. 65, 501 A.2d 648 (1985) . .A parent 

achild when a child has been placed in foster care. A non-custodial parent has a 

duty to exert himself to take and maintain a place of importancein the child's life. 

A parent is not relieved of his or her responsibility relating to the needs of 

801, 802 (1987). 

requires affirmative performance .. In re Shives, 363 Pa. Super. 225, 525 A..2d 

the development of the child. Meeting a child's needs is a positive duty that 

needs, both physical and emotional, cannot be met by a mere .passive interest in 

Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. These 

providing a safe, secure enviromnent for the minor child. 

~ nothing in the record that shows that the natural Mother is presently capable of 

" ' 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
agency for a visit the child is reluctant to leave them. When the foster parents 

return to pick her up, the child runs to them smiling calling them "mommy" and 

"daddy" and not wanting to leave their side. Id. at 117. Mr. Werger further 

testified that the natural mother was introduced to the child as her "mother"; 

however, the child only refers to her foster mother as "mommy" and no one else. 

Id. at 124-25. 

Mr. Werger also testified that he observed the interactions between the 

child and the foster family on a monthly basis. He testified that the visits 

consisted of approximately one half-hour. The foster family consists of the child's 

brother, the foster mother, the foster father, and their two (2) sons. Id. at 115. 

Mr .. Vv erger testified that the child has assimilated into the family. She attends 

family functions, birthday parties, celebrates the holidays and goes on day trips 

with the family; ta. at 129. During the visits with the foster family, according to 

Mr. Werger, the child does not ask about the natural mother. Id. at 115. 

Mr. Werger testified that the foster parents meet the child's physical needs 

as well as her medical needs. They take the child for medical check ups regularly. 

They also meet the child's developmental needs. They have the child enrolled in 

· an early intervention program. Mr. Werger testified that there is a strong loving 

bond between the child and the foster parents; the foster parents tell the child 

that they love her. They hold and hug the child. Id. at 126. 

Mr. Werger also explained to the foster parents that by terminating the 

natural parents' parental rights, the natural parents would no longer have any 

. type of.obligations to the child or be financially responsible. If the foster parents 

adopt the child, the rights, duties and obligation would he on the foster parents 

18 

. . 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
19 

In the case sub judice the Mother has failed to correct her behavior in her 

inability to safely parent R.M.B. as wellas her inability to maintain safe and 

· stable housing for the child. The overwhelming evidence shows that all of these 

· issues have yet to be remedied by Mother. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 

"A child's feelings toward a parent are relevant to the section 2511 (b) 

analysis. Nonetheless, concluding a child has a beneficial bond with a parent 

simply because the child harbors affection for the parent it not only dangerous, it 

is logically unsound. If a child's feelings were the dispositive factor .in the 

bonding analysis, the analysis would be reduced to an exercise in semantics as it 

is the rare child who, after being subject to neglect and abuse, is able to sift 

through the emotional "Wreckage and completely disavow a parent. "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 cannotbe misconstrued as bonding". 

S., 958 A.2nd 529, 535 (Pa. Super 2008). 

child, the Court notes the following language of the Superior Court in Re: K.K.R.- 

Matsoeie, sup_ra. 

Even if the Court were to consider the bonding between Mother and her 

· for the court to consider the bond between the parent and the child because 

severance of a strong parental bond can have a detrimental impact on the child. 

When considering the needs and welfare of the child, it is also important 

127. 

parental rights are terminated, the termination would not have a negative effect 

· on the child since the child already believes she is with her parents. Id. at 118, 

would have permanency. Mr. Werger further testified that if the natural parents' 

for the child. Mr. "\'\! erg er testified that the foster parents understood and were 

willing to take on that responsibility. Id. at 127..,28. Mr. Werger believed that the 

child would benefit from the foster parents adopting the child since the child 

.. ' 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
20 

the foster parents since birth. The foster parents also hold out the child as their 

and a positive attachment between them especially since the child has been with 

Ms. Willis testified that there is a close bond between the foster parents 

included with other children her age. In addition, the foster parents are also 

having the child receive early intervention services to help the child with her 

speech. The foster parents also meet the child's'emotional needs. When the child 

. is sick, tired or crying, they pick up the child and comfort her. The child responds 

to their comfort. Id. at 41-4.3. 

the child's developmental needs. They provide the child with age-appropriate 

toys and games. They take the child to church functions and have the child 

doctor visits when needed. Ms. Willis testified that the foster parents also meet 

by providing shelter, food and clothing for the child. They also take the child to 

Ms. Willis testified that the foster parents meet the child's physical needs 

According to Ms. Willis, the child is included in all family functions, vacations 

and church events: Ms. Willis testified that there are individual pictures of her on 

the wall as well as family pictures. N.T .. 10/04/2013 at 39-40. 

Ms. Willis also testified that the child has assimilated into the familv. 

. J 

approximately one hour. 

approximately on a monthly basis. She testified that each visit was 

. is familiar with the foster parents. Ms. Willis testified that in 2014, she observed 

visits between the child and the foster parents, Diane and Wayne McRoy, 

Rebecca Willis, caseworker for Children and Youth, also testified that she 

the child. 

termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of 

. . 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
21 

removal of minor child from Mother has elapsed so as to com ply with this section 

of 2511(8). 

child's placement. Thus, the requisite minimum of at least 12 months from 

well in excess of the statutorily required twelve (12) months since the date of the 

· It is undisputed that minor child, RM.i:;-.:μas been removed from the 

custody of Mother, since April 5, 201.2. Accordingly, this removal has persisted 

(1) TIME PERIOD OF REMOVAL OF CHILD 

serve the needs and welfare of the child. 

placement continue to exist, and (3) Termination of parental rights would best 

. 

been removed for at ]east twelve (12) months, (2) The conditions that gave rise to 

Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(8), the agency must show: (1) The child has 

Parental rights may be terminated under this provision of the Statute. 

A Court may terminate the parental rights under Section 2511{a)(8) when: 

The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the Court or 

under Voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve (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 would best 

serve the needs and welfare of the child. · · · 

A. 23 Pa. c.s.s, Section 2511 (a)(8) 

VI. DISCUSSION: GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FORMOTHER. 

welfare of the child. 

that the termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the needs and 

. . . 

adopt the child. Ms. Willis believes that the adoption would have a positive effect 

because the child would have permanency through adoption. Id. at 43. 

Based upon the testimony of Mr. Werger and Ms. Willis, the court finds 

own to the community. Ms. Willis testified that it is the foster parents' intent to 

~ f • L 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
22 

(2) CONDITIONS CONTINUING TO EXIST 

The conditions that led to the child's removal from Mother's care and into· 

placement were Mother's inability to safely parent RM.B. and her inability to 

provide and maintain safe, stable and adequate housing. The Court has · 

performed the above extensive analysis in taking testimony and finding credible 

evidence in concluding that Mother failed to derive any benefit from the services. 

Therefore, the conditions that gave rise to placement continue to exist. 

In discussing and finding that Mother's conditions continue to exist, the 

Court incorporates its reasoning and the testimony of all witnesses already 

discussed in this Memorandum found in the section addressing 23 PA. C.S. 

Section 2511 (a)(2). 

(3) NEEDS AND 'WELFARE OF THE CHILD 

Once the Court has found that involuntary termination of parental rights is 

warranted under the Act, the court must then "give primary consideration to the 

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." 

The Court has done this and finds the same considerations apply that have 

already been discussed extensively in this memorandum. Furthermore, the Court 

applies the same reasoning for concluding that these needs will be served by the 

termination of Mother's parental rights. \ 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
23 

applies the same reasoning for concluding that these needs will be served by the 

termination of Mother's parental rights. 

already been discussed extensively in this memorandum. Furthermore, the Court · 

The Court has done this and finds the same considerations apply that have 

must do so again. In. re Matsock, 611 A.2d 738 (1992). 

\ 

and the welfare of the child under one of the grounds of termination, the court 

be a separate inquiry and even where the court has already considered the needs 

warranted under the Act, the court must then "give primary consideration to the 

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." This is to 

Once the Court has found that involuntary termination of parental rights is 

B. · NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE CHILD 

not apply and will not be addressed. 

independent factors utilized in the placement of R.M.B., this consideration does 

As "environmental factors beyond the control of Mother" was not the 

linchpin in the placement of the minor child and because of the presence of other, 

be beyond the control of the parent." 

inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing, and medical care if found to 

the parental rights "solely on the basis of environmental factors such as 

Title 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b) specifies that a court may not terminate 

A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ! 

FOR MOTHER 

VI~. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDER 23 P .A.C.S.A. 

SECTION 25u(b) 

,. .... 1 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
24 

child, R.M.B. The child has been in placement since April S, 201, for 

approximately two and a half years. Accordingly, a reasonable time of 18 months 

These ASFA-related policies are applicable in the present case of minor 

Id. at 1125-26. 

"ASFA-related policies now demand reasonable efforts within a reasonable 

time to remedy parental incapacity; Z.P. has already been in foster care for the 

first two years of his life, and his need for permanency should not be suspended, 

where there is little rational prospect of timely reunification." 

rights, the Superior Courtheld: 

In reversing the trial court and terminating the natural parent's parental 

rights." Id. at 1121 (internal citations omitted). 

The Court also provided-that "above all else adequate consideration 

must be given to the needs and welfare of the child A parent's own feelings of · 

love and affection for a child, alone, do not prevent termination of parental 

2004) 

Id. at 1119-1120 citing In re G.P., 851 A.2d 967, 975-976 (Pa. Super. 

. Succinctly, this means that when a child is placed in foster care, after 

reasonable efforts have been made to reestablish the biological relationship, the 

needs and welfare of the child require CYS and foster care institutions to work 

toward termination of parental rights, placing the child with adoptive parents. It 

is contemplated this process realistically should be completed within 18 months. 

goal of ASFA was described as follows: 

Safe Families Act (ASFA) in In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010). The 

Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court relied upon the Adoption and 

VIII. ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMIL:U:ESACT (ASFA) 

CONSIDERATIONS 

J r, ' ~ 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
25 

terminate the rights of the Mother. Clearly it is in the child's best interest to do 

permanent home with loving capable parents. The only way to provide this is to 

In stark contrast, the foster parents have amply demonetrated they meet the . 

physical, developmental and emotional needs of the minor child, R.M.B. and she 

has thrived under their care.' The child needs consistency and deserves a 

has been given ample time to address and remedy her problems, but has failed to 

successfully do so. The Court finds that she is not able to meet her child's needs. 

needs that her child requires and should have throughout her future life. Mother 

. . 

with her and be independently parented by Mother. N.T. 09/22/14 at 135-136. 

This court agrees with the Guardian Ad Litem's position and finds that the· 

Mother cannot offer to her ·child the basic physical, developmental and emotional 

Ad Litem, Mother did not show enough progress for R.M.B. to safely go home 

able to show an adequate benefit from the programs. According to the Guardian 

minor child's best interest to be free for adoption. The Guardian Ad Litem 

emphasized that eventhough Mother showed a desire to participate in the 

programs and services offered to her, Mother, after two (2) years still was not 

evidence and that the parental rights of Mother be terminated as it is in the 

record, after having been present for all the testimony and evidence, her belief 

· that the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proofby cleat and convincing 

Finally, the Court notes that the Guardian Ad Litem expressed on the 

IX. CONCLUSION 

has long expired to remedy parental incapacity and there is little rational. 

prospect of the timely reunification of RM.B. to her .Mother. 

' J' I 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
26 

-, 

\ 

Paul Delaney, Esquire 

P.O. Box 4315 

Wyoming, PA 18644 

Anthony Lumbis, Esquire 

Luzerne County Children and Youth 

110 N. Penna Blvd. 

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 

Louis J. Mattioli III, Esquire 

4285 Hollywood Boulevard 

Hazle Township, PA 18202 

Danielle Aregood-Shonfeld, Esquire· 

1218 South Main Street 

Hanover Township, PA 18706 

COPIES TO: 

\ ~ 

\ \ \ 

rr-; · i c/_, 

DATE: dl j 

-··'-·- --1:---='----+----"---+--- ' - 

Respectfully submitted, 

so. 

-" • t'I n 

Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM