J-A20041-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: G.W.-S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: E.M.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 415 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Decree Entered February 11, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Orphans' Court at No(s): 2018-0088a, 

2018-0089a, CP-67-DP-0000306-2017, 

CP-67-DP-0000307-2017

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.M.W.-S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: E.M.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 417 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Decree Entered February 11, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Orphans' Court at No(s): 2018-0088a

IN THE INTEREST OF: G. W.-S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: E.M.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 434 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000306-2017

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.M.W.-S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: E.M.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 436 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
J-A20041-19

- 2 -

Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000307-2017

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019

Appellant, E.M.W. (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees entered in the 

York County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petitions for 

involuntary termination of her parental rights to G.W.-S. (born in March 2016) 

and A.M.W.-S. (born in June 2017) (“Children”)1 and the concurrent orders 

which changed the goals to adoption.2 We affirm. 

The trial court opinions accurately set forth the relevant facts and 

procedural history of this case. Thus, we have no reason to restate them.

Mother raises three issues for our review:

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CHANGING THE

GOAL OF THIS CASE FROM REUNIFICATION WITH A PARENT 

TO PLACEMENT FOR ADOPTION?

____________________________________________

1 The court was not required to appoint separate legal-interests counsel for 

Children due to their young ages. See In re T.S., ___ Pa. ___, 192 A.3d 

1080 (2018), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1187, 203 L.Ed.2d 220 

(2019) (establishing presumption that child three years of age or younger 

cannot form subjective, articulable preference that would necessitate 

appointment of separate legal counsel to advocate during termination

proceeding). 

2 The termination decrees and goal change orders are dated February 7, 2019, 

time stamped February 8, 2019, and entered on the docket on February 11, 

2019. Mother properly filed four separate notices of appeal, one for each child 

regarding the goal change and one for each child regarding the termination of 

parental rights. See Commonwealth v. Walker, ___ Pa. ___, 185 A.3d 969 

(2018) (requiring as of June 1, 2018, separate notices of appeal from single 

orders which resolve issues arising on separate trial court docket numbers). 

This Court subsequently consolidated the appeals.
J-A20041-19

- 3 -

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INVOLUNTARILY

TERMINATING THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THE NATURAL 

MOTHER PURSUANT TO SECTION 2511(A)(1), 2511(A)(2), 

AND 2511(A)(5) OF THE ADOPTION ACT?

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT

AN INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS OF 

THE NATURAL MOTHER WOULD BEST SERVE THE NEEDS 

AND WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN PURSUANT TO SECTION 

2511(B) OF THE ADOPTION ACT?

(Mother’s Brief at 5).

The standard and scope of review applicable in goal change and 

termination of parental rights cases are as follows:

On appeal, goal change decisions are subject to an abuse of 

discretion standard of review. In re N.C., 909 A.2d 818, 

822 (Pa.Super. 2006). 

In order to conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion, we must determine that the court’s 

judgment was “manifestly unreasonable,” that the 

court did not apply the law, or that the court’s action 

was “a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will,” 

as shown by the record. We are bound by the trial 

court’s findings of fact that have support in the record. 

The trial court, not the appellate court, is charged with 

the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the 

witness[es] and resolving any conflicts in the 

testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the 

trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the 

evidence. When the trial court’s findings are 

supported by competent evidence of record, we will 

affirm, “even if the record could also support an 

opposite result.” 

Id. at 822-23 (internal citations omitted).

In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 345 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 

648, 12 A.3d 372 (2010). Additionally:
J-A20041-19

- 4 -

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. 

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). 

Before filing a petition for the termination of a parent’s 

rights, the Commonwealth is required to make reasonable 

efforts to promote reunification between a child and [his] 

parents. The Commonwealth’s obligation in this regard is 

not indefinite, however, because in addition to the parents’

interests the Commonwealth must also respect the child’s 

right to a stable, safe, and healthy environment. When 

reasonable efforts at reunification have failed, then the child 

welfare agency must work towards terminating parental 

rights and placing the child with adoptive parents. As we 
J-A20041-19

- 5 -

have repeatedly acknowledged, [a] child’s life simply cannot 

be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the 

ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting. 

* * *

Under section 2511, the trial court must engage in a 

bifurcated process. The initial 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 

at least one of the...statutory grounds delineated in section 

2511(a). If the trial court determines that the parent’s 

conduct warrants termination under section 2511(a), then 

it must engage in an analysis of the best interests of the 

child...under section 2511(b), taking into primary 

consideration the developmental, physical, and emotional 

needs of the child. 

* * *

[A] best interest of the child analysis under [section] 

2511(b) requires consideration of intangibles such as love, 

comfort, security, and stability. To this end, this Court has 

indicated that the trial court must also discern the nature 

and status of the parent-child bond, paying close attention 

to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond. 

Moreover, in performing a “best interests” analysis[, t]he 

court should also consider the importance of continuity of 

relationships to the child, because severing close parental 

ties is usually extremely painful. 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. 

In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 9-12 (Pa.Super. 2009) (internal citations and quotation 

marks omitted). 

Section 2511 outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care 

that parents must provide for their children, and a parent who cannot or will 
J-A20041-19

- 6 -

not meet the requirements may properly be considered unfit and have her 

parental rights terminated. In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa.Super. 2001). 

There is no simple or easy definition of parental 

duties. Parental duty is best understood in relation to 

the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, 

guidance, and support. These needs, physical and 

emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest 

in the development of the child. Thus, this [C]ourt 

has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty 

which requires affirmative performance.

* * *

Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with 

good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every 

problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship 

to the best of ...her ability, even in difficult circumstances. 

A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the 

parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable 

firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of 

maintaining the parent-child relationship. 

In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 

718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, “a 

parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of...her child is 

converted, upon the failure to fulfill...her parental duties, to the child’s right to 

have proper parenting and fulfillment of his...potential in a permanent, 

healthy, safe environment.” Id. at 856. “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 rights.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super. 2010) 

(internal citations omitted). 
J-A20041-19

- 7 -

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

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Todd Russell 

Platts, we conclude Mother’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinions

comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. 

(See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, filed April 5, 2019, at 1-2; Adjudication Decision, 

filed February 11, 2019, at 8-22) (examining all aspects of case in light of 

relevant statutes and concluding Agency proved by clear and convincing 

evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights, and goal changes from 

reunification to adoption, are in Children’s best interests).3 Accordingly, we 

affirm on the basis of the trial court opinions.

Decrees and orders affirmed. 

____________________________________________

3 Throughout her brief, Mother complains the court failed to consider and 

essentially sanctioned the Agency’s decision not to increase Mother’s visitation 

with Children after the Agency had filed its petitions for goal change and 

termination. Mother did not specify this complaint in her Rule 1925(a)(2)(i) 

statements, so it is waived. See Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 

(Pa.Super. 2006) (providing issues not raised in Rule 1925 concise statement 

will be deemed waived); In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super. 2007) (applying 

Rule 1925 waiver standards in family law context). Moreover, at the 

conclusion of the November 16, 2018 goal change/termination hearing, the 

court expressly stated it disagreed with the Agency’s decision to deny 

increased visitation solely because the Agency had filed its petitions. The 

court made clear the Agency should move forward consistent with 

reunification until the court changes the goal to adoption. Thus, the record 

belies Mother’s claim.
J-A20041-19

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/25/2019
Circulated 09/10/2019 11:57 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Interest of: 

G.W.S. 

A.W.S. 

Minor Children 

fffCP-67-DP-306-201 i 

No.CP:767:DP:307-2017 

Change of Goal 

) 

*************************************** 

In Re: Adoption of 

·.1 G.W.S. No. 2018-0089 

,.J A.W.S. No. 2018-0088 

.. Minor Child Termination of Parental Rights 

:,. 

) APPEARANCES: ) ... . I 

.. .. 

.. 

a: 

�

Martin Miller, Esquire Sherry Myers, Esq� - "° For Children and Youth Services Counsel for the Mo- i; �

I ;; <,', 

Marc Semke, Esquire David Worley, Esq� 0) i--0{£. . . 

Counsel for the Father Guardian ad litem ,., I �

ft !:l.�

Dorothy Miles ir- U) ·, 

...... 

.. . ... 

Caseworker UJ � .;�. ..I 

ADJUDICATION 

Before this Court is a Petition to Change Court Ordered Goal (hereinafter, "COG") 

and a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental. Rights (hereinafter, "ITPR") filed by 

York County Office of Children, Youth and Families (hereinafter, "Agency") on July 16, 

2018, regarding G.W.S. and A.W.S. (hereinafter.Tthe minor children") whose dates of birth 

are fo ff\Uf0'l 2-J\l.f, and June . , 2017, respectively. 

Evidentiary hearings. were held on Tuesday, October 9, 2018, and Friday, November 

16, 2018, to address testimony· and evidence relating to ! E .vi_, (hereinafter, 

"Mother") and (hereinafter, "Father'} Mother appeared at the 
evidentiary hearings represented by counsel, Attorney Sherry Myers. Father appeared at the 

evidentiaryhearings via telephone and represented by counsel, Attorney Marc Semke. 

The entire Dependency Records for the minor children, docketed at CP-67-DP-306- 

2017 and CP-67-DP-307-2017, were incorporated into the hearing record. A Stipulation of 

Counsel was filed on October 5, 2018, and was signed by counsel for the Agency, the, 

guardian ad litem and legal counsel for the minor children, and counsel for Mother, while 

counsel for Father verbally agreed to it on October 9, 2018. The Agency's exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were admitted into the record. The Court took judicial 

notice 'of all dependency orders entered in this matter. The record for the Petition to Change 

Court Ordered Goal and the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights was held 

open by the Court until January 7, 2019? at which time Counsel for the parties endorsed and 

filed a Supplemental Stipulation of Counsel. Said Supplemental Stipulation incorporated into 

the record, without the need for additional testimony, Dr. Jonathan Gransee's Parenting 

Capacity Assessment of Mother and Ryan Milley's Psychiatric Evaluation of Mother. 

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, as well as the history 

of this case, the Petition to Change Court Ordered Goal and the Petition for Involuntary 

Termination of Mother's and Father's Parental Rights are GRANTED as to G.W.S. and 

I A.W.S. 

2 
. FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. The minor children, G.W.S. and A.W.S., were born fo March 1 2016, and June 17, 

} . 2017, respectively. 

2. The natural Mother of the minor children is · t:., \f'J·" ., whose current address 

is _ . Pennsylvania 

.J 

3. The natural Father of the minor children is 

address is. Maryland - 

:, whose current · 

II 

4. A Petition to Change Court Ordered Goal and a Petition for Involuntary Termination 

of Parental Rights were filed by the Agency on July 16, 2018. 

5. A Certification of Acknowledgement of Paternity for the minor children was filed on 

July 19, 2018, which indicates that there is a claim or Acknowledgement of Paternity 

on file for the minor children. 

6. An Application for Emergency Protective Custody was filed by the Agency on August 

25, 2017. 

7. In an Order for Emergency Protective Custody dated August 25, 2017, sufficient 

evidence was presented that continuation or return of the minor children to the home 

of Mother and Father was not in the best interests of the minor children. Legal and 

physical custody of the minor children were awarded to the Agency. The minor 

children were to be placed in kinship non-relative care. 

3 
) 

.J 

) 

8. In a Shelter Care Order dated August 28, 2017, sufficient evidence was presented to 

prove that continuation or return of the minor children to the home of Mother and 

. Father was not in the best interests of the minor children. Legal and physical custody 

of the �inor children were awarded to the Agency. The minor children were to 

remain in foster (kinship) care. 

9. A Dependency Petition was filed by the Agency on August 30, 2017. The allegations 

contained in the Dependency Petition were consistent with the allegations contained in 

the Application for Emergency Protective Custody. 

10. On September 8, 2017, the minor children were adjudicated dependent. Legal and 

physical custody were awarded to the Agency. The minor children were to remain in 

kinship foster care. The goal initially established was return to a parent or guardian. 

11. The minor children have remained dependent since September 8, 2017, and the minor 

children have not returned to the care and custody of Mother or Father since August 

25, 2017. 

12. Family Service Plans were prepared and dated as follows: 

a. Initial Family Service Plan dated February l � 2017. 

b. Revised Family Service Plan dated August 7, 2017. 

c. Revised Family Service Plan dated November 27, 2017. 

d. Revised Family Service Plan dated February 12, 2018. 

e. Revised Family Service Plan dated August 6, 2018. 

4 
13. In a Permanency Review Order dated February 6, 2018, the Court made certain 

findings and conclusions including, but net limited to: 

a. There had been moderate compliance with the Permanency Plan by Mother 

and there had been minimal compliance with the Permanency Plan by Father. 

· b. Reasonable efforts had been made by the Agency to finalize the Permanency 

Plan. 

c. Mother had made moderate progress toward alleviating the circumstances 

which necessitated the original placement and Father had made minimal 

progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original 

placement. 

d. Legal and physical custody of the minor children were confirmed with the 

Agency . 

e. There continued to be a need for placement of the minor children outside the 

care and custody of Mother and Father. 

14. In a Permanency Review Order dated July 19, 2018, the Court made certain findings 

and conclusions including, but not limited to: 

a. There had been minimal compliance with the Permanency Plan by Mother and 

there had been minimal compliance with the Permanency Plan by Father. 

b. . Reasonable efforts had been made by the Agency to finalize the Permanency 

Plan. 

s 
; . 

c. Mother had made minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances 

which necessitated the original placement and Father had made minimal 

progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original 

placement. 

d. Legal arid physical custody of the minor children were con:finned with the 

Agency. 

e. There continued to be a need for placement of the minor children outside the 

care and custody of Mother and Father. 

15. In a Permanency Review Order dated January 8, 2019, the Court made certain findings 

and conclusions including, but not limited to: 

a. There had been moderate compliance with the Permanency Plan. by Mother 

and there had been minimal compliance with the Permanency Plan by Father. 

. . 

b. Reasonable efforts had been made by the Agency to finalize the Permanency 

Plan. 

c. Mother had made moderate progress toward alleviating the circumstances 

which necessitated the original placement and Father had made minimal 

progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original 

placement. 

· d. . Legal. and physical custody of the minor children were confirmed with the 

Agency. 

6 
e. There continued to be a need for placement of the minor. children. outside the 

care and custody of Mother and Father. 

16. A Catholic Charities Intensive Family Service Team 'opened for services with Mother 

on October 13, 2017, and closed unsuccessfully on June 8, 2018. The team closed out 

with services due to a lack of progress and consistency as well as non-compliance by 

Mother. 

17. Mother was admitted to the Roxbury Treatment Center on August 18, 2017, and was 

discharged on August 25, 2017. At the time of discharge, Mother had been diagnosed 

with major depressive disorder, recurrent severe without psychotic features; sedative 

! 

use disorder; alcohol use disorder; opioid use disorder; r/o borderline intellectual 

functioning. 

18. Mother is currently under supervision by Adams County Adult Probation and Parole. 

19. The first Interstate Compact was performed on Father but was denied. 

20. The minor child, G. W.S., initially participated in physical therapy but no longer 

receives such therapy. The minor child, A.W.S., currently participates in physical 

therapy. 

21. A pre-adoptive resource has been identified for the minor children. 

7 
DISCUSSION 

I. . Petition for Change of Goal 

Before the Court can change the goal for a child in a juvenile dependency action, jhe 

Agency must prove by cl ear and convincing evidence that the change of goal would be in the 

child's best interest. In re Interest of M.B., 674 A.2d 702 (Pa. Super. 1996). In making a 

disposition, the Court should consider what is best suited to the protection and physical, 

mental, and moral welfare of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A §6351; In re Davis, 502 Pa. 110, 121, 465 

A.2d 614, 619 (1983) . In rendering a disposition "best suited to the protection and physical, 

mental, and moral welfare of the child," the hearing court must take into account "any and all 

factors which bear upon the child's welfare and which can aid the court's necessarily 

imprecise prediction about that child's future well-being." l_n_re Davis, 502 Pa. 110, 122, 465 

A.2d 614, 620 (1983). 

The purpose of the Juvenile Act is to preserve famiiy unity and to provide for the care, 

protection, safety and wholesome mental and physical development of the child. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

630U�Xl)-(l.i). The Juvenile Act was not intended to place children in a more perfect 

home; instead, the Act gives a court the authority to "intervene to ensure that parents meet 

certain legislatively determined irreducible minimum standards in executing their parental 

rights." In re J.W., 578 A.2d 952, 958 (Pa. Super. 1990) (emphasis added). 

When a child is placed in foster care, the parents have an affirmative duty to make the 

changes in their lives that would allow them to become appropriate parents. In re Diaz, 669 
) 

") 

A.2d 372, 377 (Pa. Super. 1995). A family service plan is created to help give the parents 

some guidelines as to the various areas that need to be improved .. In the Interest of M.B., 565 

A.2d 804, 806 (Pa. Super. 1989), app. Denied, 589 J\.2d 692 (Pa. 1990). By assessing the 

parents' compliance and success with this family service plan, the Court can determine if the 

parents have fulfilled their affirmative duty. In re J.S.W .• 651 A.2d 167, 170 (Pa. Super. 

1994). 

Under Section 6351 of the Adoption Act, the Agency has the burden to show a goal 

change would serve the child's best interests and the "safety, permanency, and well-being of 

the child must take precedence over all other considerations." In re D.Pu 972 A.2d 1221, 1227 

(Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 973 A.2d 1007 (Pa. 2009). Thus, even where the parent 

makes earnest efforts, the "court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child's need 

for permanence and stability to a parent's claims of progress and hope for the future." Jn re 

Adoption ofR.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006). 

In the present matter, the Agency has proven by clear and convincing evidence that it 

is in the minor children's best interests to change the goal to placement for adoption. From 

September· 8, 2017, when the minor children were adjudicated dependent, until the Agency's 

filing of the Petition for ITPR on July 16, 2018, approximately ten (10) months later, Mother 

and Father had made only minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which 

necessitated the minor children's placement. 

9 
The Agency initially became involved with the family in December 2016, due to 

concerns regarding Mother's mental health and environmental conditions of the home. A 

Justice Works Team opened for services with Mother on January 11, 2017, to ensure that the 

family's residence was stable and would not put the minor child, G.W.S., at risk. Mother 

made moderate progress in maintaining an appropriate living environment for the minor child 

but failed to change litter boxes. which caused the cats to urinate and defecate on the carpets 

and floors. Mother also experienced a brief period of time during Justice Work's involvement 

where her residence's electricity was turned off due to non-payment. The Justice Works 

Team closed unsuccessfully due to Mother's noncompliance and inconsistency with 

appointments and visits. 

A Catholic Charities Intensive Family Services Team opened for services with Mother 

on October 13, 2017, but closed unsuccessfully on June 8, 2018, due to a lack of progress and 

consistency as well as non-compliance by Mother. A Pressley" Ridge Team opened for 

services with Mother on July 26, 2018, and was providing services to Mother at the time of 

the hearings on the Petitions for COG and ITPR. Despite receiving services over 

approximately twenty-five (25) months, including for approximately eight (8) months prior to 

the Depe�dency Petition being filed, Mother never progressed to unsupervised visitation with 

theminor children during the course of the adjudication of dependency. 

Mother received' a Parenting Capacity Assessment (hereinafter, "the Assessment") by 

Dr. Jonathan· Gransee, dated October 10, 2018, to provide information regarding her 

IO 
psychological functioning and to determine her capacity _to parent the minor children. Dr. 

Gransee indicated in the Assessment that Mother 'gave birth to the youngest of the minor 

children, A.W.S., 1·;,. June . 2017, and five (5) days later, overdosed as a result of taking too 

many pills. The Agency was advised o� August 16, 2017, that Mother had again overdosed 

on pills, was hospitalized, and in a coma. Mother overdosed a third time immediately prior to 

a Permanency Review Hearing before this Court on May 3, 2018. 

Dr. Gransee stated in the Assessment that Mother self-reported a history of depression 

as well as various symptoms that are related to a trauma disorder. He stated that Mother 

comes from an abusive background and seems to have emotional. and behavioral issues 

stemming from a chaotic home environment during her childhood. Dr. Gransee stated that 

Mother "seems to have grown into an adult with anger management issues, violent tendencies, 

and pervasive problems in relationships." Mother has also been both a perpetrator and victim 

of domestic violence on several occasions. 

Mother has been arrested three (3) times since the adjudication of dependency and was 

incarcerated in March 2018 for a conviction of harassment where her mother (hereinafter, 

"Maternal Grandmother") was the victim. At the time of the hearings on the Agency's 

Petition for ITPR, Mother insisted that Maternal Grandmother and she no longer Jive in the 

same residence; however, the caseworker, Dorothy Miles, (hereinafter, "the Caseworker") 

reported to Dr. Gransee and testified at the hearings that she believes Mother and Maternal 

Grandmother are in fact living together, 

11 
) 

) 

Dr. Gransee stated in the Assessment that "at this point ... [Mother) does not have 

the cap2city to manage herself, let alone another living being, ·and as such, her capacity 

to parent a child is impaired." He suggested that Mother get herself stable by addressing 

her emotional issues and issues with her employment, finances . and housing. He further 

recommended that Mother attend therapy to address her emotional and behavioral ·issues at 

least once per week and to participate in a domestic violence program, which would involve 

treating Mother for being both a perpetrator and a victim. At the final day of the hearing on 

the ITPR Petition, Mother had not yet scheduled her participation in such a program. 

Since the adjudication of dependency, Mother has not performed any parental duties 

on behalf of the minor children other than what has occurred during supervised visits. Mother 

has not sent the minor children any birthday gifts or cards throughout the course of 

dependency, and the Caseworker stated that Mother "never calls to check on the kids." When 

Mother was notified that she had gifted the wrong size of clothing for the children, she fa:iled 

to replace those items with proper fitting clothes. The youngest of the minor children has 

been out of Mother's custody since shortly after the child's birth, while the older of the minor 

children was placed with the kinship mother when he was approximately sixteen (16) months 

old. At this time, the oldest child, G.W.S., has lived more than half of his life with kinship 

mother and the youngest child, A.W.S., has lived almost the entirety of her life with kinship 

mother. 

12 
J 

Since the adjudication of dependency, Father has made .minimal progress toward 

alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the minor children's placement.·. From the 

beginning of the Agency's involvement with this family, Father stated that he was_ not a 

resource for the minor children. When the first Interstate Compact on the Placement of 

Children (hereinafter, "ICPC") referral was made, Father reiterated his unwillingness to be a 

resource and the first ICPC was denied at Father's request. A second ICPC referral was made 

but was never completed due to non-cooperation by Father. 

Father has been hospitalized for mental health reasons two (2) times since the 

adjudication of dependency and has not been fully compliant with providing documentation to 

the Agency regarding his mental health treatment. Furthermore..Father has not visited with 

the minor children since September 2018, and he only visited with the minor children a total 

of seven (7) times between October 2017 and September 2018. 'Since the adjudication of 

dependency, Father has not performed any parental duties on behalf of the minor children and 

has not attended any of the minor children's medical appointments. Father does not have any 

type of bond with the minor children. 

Lastly, Father chose not to attend the two (2) days of testimony on the Petition for 

ITPR in person but rather participated by phone. Father failed to offer any testimony in 

opposition of his parental rights to the minor children being terminated. While participating 

by phone on the first day of testimony, Father was in a department store and was clearly 

distracted by his shopping instead of attentively participating in the hearing. 

13 
Overall, Mother has made minimal to moderate progress towards alleviating the 

circumstances which caused the minor children to be placed and Father has made minimal 

progress towards alleviating the circumstances which. caused the minor children to be placed.· 

Neither Mother nor Father have assumed any major parental duties for the minor children 

since approximately August 2017, approximately eighteen (18) months ago. The minor 

children have been in placement for approximately eighteen ( 18) months and adjudicated 

dependent for approximately seventeen (17) months. The minor children need a permanent, 

safe and stable environment. As such, the Court finds that the minor children's best interests 

demand that the goal be changed from reunification with a parent to placement for adoption. 

II. Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights 

The Agency argues that Mother's and Father's parental rights to the minor children 

should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §25ll(a)(l), (2), and (5) of the Adoption Act. 

The Agency has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that statutory 

grounds exist to justify the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re. Child M., 681 

A.2d 793, 797 (Pa. Super. 1996). The clear and convincing standard means that the evidence 

presented by the·Agency is so "clear, direct, weighty, and convincing" that one can "come to 

a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Matter of 

,S_vlvester, 555 A.2d 1202, 1202-04 (Pa. 1989). The Agency must also present evidence 

proving that the termination of parental rights will serve the child's best interests. In the 

Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. 11, 708 A.2d 88, 92-3 (Pa. 1998). To determine 

14 
) . 

) 

) 

· whether termination is within the best interest of the minor children, the court must examine 

the possible effect the termination would have on the children's needs and general welfare. In 

re. Adoption of Godzak, 719 A.2d 365, 368 (1998). 

THE AGENCY HAS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT 

PARENTAL RIGHTS TO THE MINOR CHILDMUST:BE TERMINATED 

PURSU�NT TO '.23·Pa.C.S. §2Sll(a)(l) 

To terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §251 l(a)(l) of the Adoption Act, the 

Agency must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has either 

demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to the child or has failed to 

perform parental duties. In the Maue,r of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. III, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 

1998). Once one (1) of the two (2) factors has been proven, the Court must examine the 

following factors: 

1. Parent's explanation for the conduct; 

2. Post-abandonment contact between parent and child; and 

3. Effect of termination on child. Id. 

The Agency has proven by clear and convincing evidence that both Mother and Father 

· have · failed to take responsibility for the circumstances which necessitated the minor 

children's placement. Since the minor children's placement in August 2017, Father has 

consistently stated his unwillingness to be a resource for the children, and Mother remained 

uncooperative with the services deployed up until approximately July 2018, at which time the 

Agency filed its Petition to Change Court Ordered Goal and its Petition for ITPR. 

15 
While the Court noted in its January 8, 2019 Permanency Review Hearing Order that 

Mother had made moderate progress, such progress was since the filing of the Petition for 

ITPR, and the Court cannot statutorily take such progress into consideration under 23 Pa.C.S. 

§251 l(a)(l). Even with such progress, Mother is not in a position to resume custody of the 

minor children at this time, and it is unknown as to when Mother would be in such a position 

to regain custody of the minor children. 

The Agency has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father have 

failed to perform any significant parental duties for the minor children since approximately 

August 2017. · Since that time, they have neither attended any school functions or 

doctor/dental appointments for the minor children nor have they sent the minor children any 

gifts, cards or letters. 

The Agency has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of 

Mother's and Father's parental rights will have a positive effect on the minor children. The 

minor children are strongly bonded with the kinship mother and look to the kinship mother as 

a positive and loving parental figure. The Caseworker stated that the minor children call the 

kinship mother "Mom" and appear safe and loved in the kinship mother's care. 

Overall, the Court finds that the termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights 

will provide a benefit to the minor children in that the children will achieve stability, safety 

and permanency in a loving and nurturing home. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, 

16 
) 

) 

') 

.. 

) 

J 

Jo 

0 

j 

.. J 

the Agency has proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights to 

the minor children is justified pursuant to Section 251 l(a)(l) of the Adoption Act. 

THE AGENCY HAS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT 

PARENTAL RIGHTS TO THE MINOR CHILD MUST BE TERMINATED 

. PURSUANT TO 23 Pa.C.S. §2Sll(a)(2�5)1 ), 

The Agency has aiso proven by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights 

to the mi-nor children should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §2511 (a)(2) and (5) of the 

Adoption Act. The mandates of these sections are as follows: 

(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 or her physical or mental wellbeing 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 (6) 

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 

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. 

The Court finds that the conditions which led to the minor children's placement 

outside the care and custody of Mother and Father continue to exist. The minor children have 

been in placement for approximately eighteen (18) months and adjudicated dependent for 

. approximately seventeen {17) months. The minor children are safe, loved, and well-bonded 

to the kinship mother. 

17 
>. 

Father has consistently stated his unwillingness to be a resource for the minor 

children throughout the entirety of the Agency's involvement with the family. Father has not 

performed any parental duties or obligations 011 behalf of the minor children since the 

adjudication of dependency, and he has not made any progress in alleviating the 

circumstances which necessitated the original placement of the minor children. 

Subsequent to the filing of the Petition for ITPR on July 16, 2018, Mother became 

more cooperative with the Agency and, as her attorney stated to Dr. Gransee, Mother began 

working "very diligently" on the Permanency Plan. The Court acknowledges that, in 

working with the current Pressley Ridge Team, Mother has been more dutiful in attending 

visits and required appointments, and has begun fanning a bond with the minor children. At 

this time, Mother appears to have a stable housing situation, although the Caseworker. 

provided testimony that directly conflicts with Mother's testimony, namely that the 

Caseworker believes that Mother is still residing with Maternal Grandmother. Mother 

provided testimony regarding her finances; however, it remained unclear to the Court how 

much income Mother receives and the total amount she owes towards bills and other 

exp�nditures each month. The Court finds that Mother's moderate level of progress in 

recent months is due largely to an exceptional effort by her Pressley Ridge team and will not 

be able to be independently sustained by Mother going forward. 

While Mother cooperated in the psychiatric evaluation and the Parenting Capacity 

Assessment on October 10, 2018, she was not fully compliant with following the 
recommendations of such evaluations. Furthermore, the Caseworker expressed continued 

concerns regarding Mother's potential dependence on prescription medications and her 

mental health as it relates to her past overdoses. 

Overall, Mother and Father have failed to remediate the conditions which led to the, 

minor children's placement and have failed to provide substantial parental duties on behalf of 

the minor children. In consideration of this testimony, the Court finds that the Agency clearly 

and convincingly established that termination of parental rights is justified pursuant to 

Sections 251 l(a)(2) and (S) of the Adoption Act. 

INCONSIDERATION OF §2Sll(b), TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS 

WOULD BEST SERVE THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE MINOR CHILD 

Having established the statutory grounds for the involuntary termination of the 

parental rights of Mother and Father, the Court's final consideration is whether termination of 

parental rights will best serve the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of 

the children. 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(b). 

[T]he Court must carefully consider the tangible dimension, as well as the intangible 

dimension - the love, comfort, security, and closeness - entailed in a parent-child 

relationship. ( citations omitted). The court must consider whether a bond exists 

between the child and [parents], and whether termination would destroy an existing 

beneficial relationship. In re: B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004). 

The Court has thoroughly evaluated the minor children's relationships in this matter. 

The Court finds that the minor children do not have a parental relationship with Mother or 

: Father. The youngest.of the minor children, A.W.S., has never lived with Mother, while the 

oldest, G.W.S., has now lived more than half of his life with the kinship mother. The Court 

19 
finds that the minor children have a much stronger parental bond with the kinship mother and 

that the minor children look to the kinship mother for safety and comfort, Additionally, it is 

the kinship mother who provides for the minor children's daily needs as well as any 

specialized developmental, education, and medical needs. 

The Court also finds that the bond between the minor children and kinship mother Is 

strong and healthy. Testimony established that the children are happy and feel comfortable in 

the kinship mother's care. The bond that the minor children have with the kinship mother can 

provide safety, security and permanency for the children. Termination of Mother's and 

Father's parental rights will best meet the needs of the minor children and permit the children 

to achieve the stability they deserve. 

CQNCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The current placement of 0.W.S. and A.W.S. continues to be necessary and 

appropriate. 42 Pa.C.S. §635l(t)(l). 

2. Mother and Father have not been able to fully meet the goals set forth in the family 

service plans. 42 Pa.C.S. §635l(t)(2). 

3. The circumstances which necessitated the children's original placement have not been 

alleviated. 42 Pa.C.S. §6351(f)(3). 

4. The current goal for the children of reunification with a parent is no longer feasible 

and appropriate because Mother and Father have failed to meet the irreducible 

minimum requirements necessary to parent the children. 42 Pa.C.S. §635l(t)(4). 

20 
') 

5. The minor children's best interests demand that the current goal of reunification with a 

parent be changed to placement for adoption. 

6. Mother and Father have failed to perform parental duties for a period well in excess of 

six (6) months. 23 t>a.C.S. §251 l(a)(l). 

°) 

..J 7. 

:... 

) 

) 

The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that the inability and 

refusal of Mother and Father have caused the children to be without parental care, 

control or subsistence necessary for their physical or mental well-being and the 

conditions cannot be remedied by Mother or Father. 23 Pa.C.S. §251 l(a)(2). 

8. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions 

which led to the children's removal from Mother's and Father's care continue to exist, 

and Mother and Father cannot remedy these conditions within a reasonable time. 23 

Pa.C.S. §2511 (a)(5). 

SUMMARY 

In conclusion, the Court. believes that the termination of Mother's and Father's 

parental rights is clearly in the best interests of the minor children to promote their welfare 

and allow them to achieve permanency. The Court is therefore executing a Decree 

terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights with respect to G.W.S. and A.W.S., and an 

Order directing· that the current goal of reunification with parent or guardian for G. W.S. and 

21 
A.W.S. is changed to placement for adoption. Said Order also establishes the concurrent goal 

for G.W.S. and A.W.S. to be placement with a legal custodian (non-relative). 

) 

) 

J 

Dated: February 7, 2019 

22 

BY THE COURT, 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, JUDGE 
Circulated 09/10/2019 11:57 AM V) 

,., 

o:, 

_.,. 

-··· 

U'l 

c:;) 

u·, 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

STATEMENT OF LOWER COURT PURSUANT TO 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925( a )f 2)(ii) 

Minor Child 

Minor Children 

(J) 

No. cp:61-o?.,�·06-2011 

No.CP-67-DP-307-2017 

Change of Goal 

I"-,;> 

,::::, 

C"":, -- 

r'" -..o 

t

.�. · r.. 

·: �:::a 

No. 2018·0089 ·;-.· /.Ji r: �.-: · 

No. 2018-0088 �'. -e �.: 

.• _·:_.

1 

.• 

:::: 

Termination of Parental Ri�� :: i�'.\�-o-i. 

.. , ... : ::0 

-···I O 

s: 

*************************************** 

In the Interest of: 

G.W.S. 

A.W.S. 

In Re: Adoption of 

G.W.S. 

A.W.S. 

�- .. :, 

.... , .. 1 

·�•. J 

···,,I 

l)"] 

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2019, this Court is in receipt of notice that appeals 

have been filed by E' • w , (hereinafter, "Mother") and · To �L t (hereinafter, 

"Father") in the above matters. While the undersigned delineated substantive reasons for the 

February 7, 2019 Adjudication subject to appeal, this Court shall offer the following additional 

insights and reasoning for said Adjudication. 

From approximately August 2017, when G.W.S. and A.W.S. (hereinafter, "the minor 

children") were placed into the care and custody of the York County Office of Children, 

Youth, and Families, (hereinafter, "the Agency") until July 2018 when the Agency . . filed its 

petitions for Change of Court-Ordered Goal (hereinafter, "COG") and Involuntary 

Terminationof Parental Rights (hereinafter, "ITPR"), both Mother and Father had made only 

minimal progress in alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the minor children's 

placement. In July 201�, the oldest of the minor children had been out of Mother's and 

rt 11 ' 
(.,') 

�I 

u··, 

t-.,:, 

(:) 

..... :�

c.[) 

...... :., 

()) 

'•,,J 

·� •.. \ 

.... ,,,J 

(i) 

,:n 

Father's care for more than half of his life while the younger of the minor children had never 

lived with Mother or Father. 

Subsequent to the filing of the Petitions for COG and ITPR on July 16, 2018, Mother 

began making progress towards the goals enumerated in the Permanency Plan, The Court 

acknowledged that, in working with her Pressley Ridge Team, Mother made progress in 

attending visits and required appointments, creating stability for herself, and forming a bond 

with the minor children. However, the Court found that Mother's moderate level of progress 

in those recent months was largely due to an exceptional effort by her Pressley Ridge team 

and Mother would not he able to independently sustain such efforts by herself going forward. 

On October 10, 2018, Mother received a Parenting Capacity Assessment (hereinafter, 

"the Assessment") by Dr. Jonathan Gransee to provide information regarding her 

psychological functioning and to determine her capacity to parent the minor children. In his 

!Assessment, Dr. Gransee reported that, "at this point ... [Mother] does not have the capacity 

to manage herself, let alone another living being, and as such, her capacity to parent a 

child is impaired." Similarly, this Court found that, despite Mother's progress in recent 

months, she was not prepared to regain custody of the minor children at the time testimony 

was taken on the Agency's Petitions for COG and ITPR, approximately eighteen (18) months 

IBer the minor children were originally placed in the Agency's care and custody. The Court 

was unable to determine when Mother would be physically, mentally, and financially prepared 

b regain custody of the minor children. 

Since the adjudication of dependency, Father had made only minimal progress toward 

lleviating the circumstances which necessitated the minor children's placement. From the 
·(·· -··· 

V'l 

(.:;) 

l)'l 

(:) 

(..1,) 

(.1,) 

�.• J 

·· ... , 

'J) 

'•,.J 

beginning of the Agency's involvement with this family, Father stated that he was not a 

resource for the minor children. When the first Interstate Compact on the Placement of 

Children (hereinafter, "ICPC") referral was made, Father reiterated his unwillingness to be a 

resource and the first ICPC was denied at Father's request. A second ICPC referral was made 

but was never completed due to non-cooperation by Father. 

Furthermore, Father chose not to attend the two (2) days of testimony on the Petitions 

for COG and ITPR in person but rather participated by phone. Father failed to offer any 

testimony in opposition of his parental rights to the minor children being terminated. While 

participating by phone on the first day of testimony, Father was in a department store and was 

clearly distracted by his shopping instead of attentively participating in the hearing. 

Any further basis for the termination of parental rights for Mother and Father can be 

found in the Court's Adjudication dated February 7, 2019, regarding said matter. 

BY THE COURT, 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, JUDGE