J-S06032-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.S.H., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

No. 2491 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court

at No(s):CP-51-AP-0000907-2015

 CP-51-DP-0001979-2012

 FID:51-FN-002936-2012

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.B.-A.R., A 

MINOR

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

No. 2492 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court

at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000908-2015

 CP-51-DP-0001978-2012

 FID: 51-FN-002936-2012

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.D.R., JR., A 

MINOR

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

No. 2493 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court

at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000909-2015

 CP-51-DP-0001977-2012

 FID: 51-FN-002936-2012
J-S06032-17

- 2 -

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.C.R., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

No. 2494 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court

at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000910-2015

 CP-51-DP-0002014-2013

 FID: 51-FN-002936-2012

BEFORE: MOULTON, RANSOM, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2017

W.H. (“Mother”) appeals1from the orders of the Philadelphia Court of 

Common Pleas that terminated her parental rights to her four children, 

C.S.H., C.B.-A.R., C.D.R., Jr., and C.C.R. (collectively, “Children”), and 

changed the permanency goals for Children to adoption. Mother asserts that 

the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. 

2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) and in changing the goal for Children from 

reunification to adoption. We affirm. 

C.D.R., Jr. is a male born in July 2007. C.B.-A.R. is a female born in 

January 2009. C.S.H. (aka C.R.) is a male born in March 2011.2 C.C.R. is a 

male born in May 2013. The trial court has thoroughly summarized the 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The appeals of Childrens’ father, C.R. (“Father”), are listed at J-S06031-17. 

2 The trial court referred to C.S.H. as C.R. We use C.S.H. for the sake of 

consistency. 
J-S06032-17

- 3 -

history of the family’s contacts with the Philadelphia County Department of 

Human Services (“DHS”) as follows:

On September 10, 2012, [DHS] received a General 

Protective Services (GPS) Report alleging that . . . Mother. 

. . and Father . . . failed to provide their three [c]hildren: 

C.D.R., Jr., C.B[.]-A.R., and [C.S.H.], with adequate food 

and safe housing. The Report alleged that Mother and 

Father only fed the Children once a day; that there was a 

limited amount of food in the family’s home; that there 

had been no running water in the home for the last eight 

months; and that the [three c]hildren are unable to 

bath[e] and appeared to be very dirty. The Report further 

alleged that the family’s home was dirty; that the home 

was malodorous due to standing waste in the toilet; that 

Father was employed; that he used drugs and drank 

alcohol excessively; that Mother is unemployed and 

appeared to be depressed. The Report was substantiated.

DHS made numerous attempts to assess the 

[c]hildren’s safety, without success, and subsequently filed 

dependent petitions for the [the three children].

Adjudicatory Hearings for three [c]hildren: C.D.R., Jr., 

C.B[.]-A.R., and [C.S.H.] were held on November 9, 2012 

before Judge Thomas M. Nocella. The Court finds that 

temporary legal custody of the [three c]hildren to be given 

to DHS and placement in Foster Care. Supervised 

visitation for the parents at DHS as arranged by the 

parties. [The three c]hildren referred to Child Link for 

Early Intervention Services. DHS to obtain birth 

certificates. DHS to explore appropriate family members 

as possible placement resource. [The three c]hildren may 

be reunified with parents if appropriate, DHS to do home 

evaluation. ACS may submit administrative order 

discharging commitment and implementing once Children 

are reunified. FSP meeting within 30 days.

On December 21, 2012 a hearing was held and the 

Children were found not to be dependent and any 

temporary legal and physical custody by DHS to be 

discharged. Children reside with parents and are safe as 

of December 20, 2012. 
J-S06032-17

- 4 -

On April 19, 2013, DHS received a GPS Report alleging 

that [C.S.H.] was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis; that 

Mother was first asked to take Child to St. Christopher’s 

Hospital for Children for an evaluation in November 2012; 

that several appointments were made for Mother and 

Father to take the [c]hild for an evaluation; and that the 

[c]hild still has not been evaluated. The Report alleged 

that there was concern regarding the [c]hild’s development 

and the psychological effect that the disease could cause; 

that neurofibromatosis attacks the central nervous tissue; 

and that the [c]hild was developmentally delayed. 

On April 24, 2013, DHS and the DHS visiting nurse 

made a joint visit to the family’s home to investigate the 

allegations of the GPS Report. Mother and Father stated 

that they were not aware of the appointments for [C.S.H.]. 

Father stated that he did not know that the [c]hild’s doctor 

wanted him to take the [c]hild for an evaluation for 

neurofibromatosis and that the doctor did not discuss the 

[c]hild’s condition with him.

DHS subsequently learned that C.B[.]-A.R. was also 

diagnosed as suffering from neurofibromatosis. 

DHS also learned that C.B[.]-A,R. has severe behavioral 

issues and is prescribed medication. Mother stated that 

she does not provide the [c]hild with her medication 

because she believes that it makes her behavior worse. 

On May 29, 2013, Mother gave birth to C.C.R. DHS 

referred the family for Rapid Service Response Initiative 

(RSRI) to assist with scheduling the Children’s 

appointments. 

On July 9, 2013, DHS implemented In-Home Protective 

Services (IHPS) through the Family Support Center.

On or about September 11, 2013, DHS learned that the 

family was scheduled to be evicted from their home on 

September 15, 2013. IHPS spoke with Father about the 

family’s planned living arrangements and Father stated 

that the family would be residing with relatives; however, 
J-S06032-17

- 5 -

Father became evasive and failed to provide IHPS with an 

address.

On September 17, 2013, IHPS went to the home. The 

family could be heard inside of the apartment; however, 

no one answered the door.

On September 18, 2013, DHS attempted to visit the 

family, without success. 

On October 15, 2013, a hearing for all the Children was 

held before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Adjudication 

was deferred, DHS to supervise. Mother referred to 

[Behavioral Health Services (BHS)] for 

consultation/evaluation. DHS to re-inspect the home 

within seven days. IHPS through family supports to 

continue. Parents to comply with all services and 

recommendations, cooperate with DHS, Agency and Child 

Advocate. Safety to be provided at next Court date. 

DHS learned that C.C.R. was also diagnosed as 

suffering from neurofibromatosis. 

An Adjudicatory Hearing was held on November 4, 2013 

before Judge Allan L. Tereshko. The [c]ourt adjudicated 

the four Children Dependent and committed them to DHS. 

Physical custody of the Children to remain with the 

parents, subject to the conditions and limitations as the 

Court prescribes, including supervision. DHS to implement 

family finding, and referral to Family School. Mother and 

Father to be referred to and receive a Parenting Capacity 

Evaluation. Mother is referred to [the Clinical Evaluation 

Unit (CEU)] for an assessment, dual diagnosis and a 

forthwith drug screen (to include alcohol). FSP meeting is 

to occur within 30 days.

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on February 7, 

2014 before Judge Allan L. Tereshko, who found that DHS 

shall maintain legal custody of the Children. The Children 

are placed in Foster Care through PCV, (Presbyterian 

Children’s Village). Mother and Father to have weekly 

supervised visits with the Children at Agency. Father 

completed parenting capacity evaluation. Mother to attend 

Family School. Mother and Father re-referred to CEU for 
J-S06032-17

- 6 -

forthwith drug screen (to include alcohol), dual diagnosis 

assessment and monitoring. Mother and Father to attend 

Children’s medical appointments. Mother to attend 

parenting capacity evaluation scheduled for 2/12/2014. 

Father to complete part 2 of parenting capacity evaluation. 

Mother and Father to attend ARC [Achieving Reunification 

Center] program and comply with CEU recommendations. 

DHS to re- evaluate parent’s home. As to C.D.R., Jr., he is 

receiving therapy at PCV and receives intense tutoring at 

school. As to C.B[.]-A.R., she is scheduled to be evaluated 

at Easter Seals. She had an eye evaluation and is in need 

of glasses, and continues to be monitored at St. 

Christopher’s for medical disorder. As to [C.S.H.], he is 

receiving sign language, speech therapy and occupational 

therapy. He has been referred to Center for Autism. As to 

C.C.R., he is receiving WIC services, and will follow up at 

St. Christopher’s regarding genetic disorder on 3/9/2014. 

He is attending daycare. 

On May 2, 2014, CEU submitted a Progress Report as to

Father, which stated that Father failed to comply with the 

Court ordered drug and alcohol assessment in that he was 

a no call/no show for his scheduled appointment on 

3/6/2014. The Report also stated that Father’s drug 

screen on 2/7/2014 was positive for cocaine and 

marijuana. A Permanency Review Hearing was held on 

May 9, 2014 before Judge Kevin M. Dougherty, who found 

that DHS shall maintain legal custody of the Children. The 

Children are placed in Foster Care through PCV. Mother 

and Father to have supervised visits with the Children at 

Agency. Regarding Mother, there has been moderate 

compliance with the permanency plan, in that Mother 

receives services through ARC, mental health services 

through Community Counsel, complied with first part of 

parenting capacity evaluation. Mother receives services 

through Family School. Regarding Father, there has been 

minimal compliance with the permanency plan, in that 

Father was noncompliant with FSP objectives, services and 

recommendations. Father was referred to ARC, and Father 

did not comply with second half of parenting capacity 

evaluation (rescheduled 3 times). Report submitted from 

CEU for Father. As to C.D.R., Jr., the Child is doing well. 

As to C.B[.]-A.R., the Child is doing well and receives 45 

minutes of special instruction in daycare, and medical 
J-S06032-17

- 7 -

treatment through St. Christopher’s Hospital. As to 

[C.S.H.], he is doing well and receiving services through 

Elwyn. As to C.C.R., he is doing well and referred to Child 

Link Early Intervention Services, no services 

recommended. 

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on June 20, 

2014 before Judge Walter Olszewski, who found that DHS 

shall maintain legal custody of the Children. The Children 

shall remain in Foster Care through The Village. Regarding 

Mother, there has been full compliance with the 

permanency plan. Regarding Father, there has been 

minimal compliance with the permanency plan. Father is 

re-referred to CEU for an assessment and forthwith drug 

screen. Father is to complete second portion of parenting

capacity evaluation scheduled for 7/15/2014. DHS to rerefer Father to ARC. Mother is referred to BHS for 

consultation/evaluation, and is to sign releases of 

information. Children are authorized to travel with foster 

parent to South Carolina from 8/16/2014 through 

8/23/2014. All specific information regarding the 

vacation/trip is to be provided to counsel. 

On June 24, 2014, Mother underwent a [parent capacity 

evaluation (PCE)] conducted at Assessment & Treatment 

Alternatives, Inc., (ATA) by William Russell, Ph.D., and 

Samantha Brenner, M.A. The PCE stated that there are 

several barriers to Mother providing safety and 

permanency to the Children; that those barriers include a 

minimization of the role she played in the situation which 

precipitated DHS involvement and the inability to 

acknowledge her Children’s behavioral problems; that she 

also minimizes Father’s drug use; that Mother neglected to 

take responsibility for her Children not receiving 

appropriate medical treatment; that she projected blame 

on the City for the removal of her Children; and that she 

denied all allegations that her home was unkempt, chaotic, 

and that the Children were not up to date on their 

immunizations. The PCE also stated that Mother was 

diagnosed with persistent depressive disorder and that she 

does not function well in complex situations. The PCE 

recommendations were for Mother to obtain appropriate 

housing with an adequate number of bedrooms for her 

Children; that the home be inspected frequently to assess 
J-S06032-17

- 8 -

for safety hazards and/or the home being unkempt, that 

the home be affordable based on income; that she obtain 

employment; that she participate in available 

programming to help parents continue to develop skills as 

well as receive professional and peer support; that she 

receive psychoeducation on the seriousness of the 

Children’s medical needs and the importance of taking 

them to their medical appointments; and that Mother 

should participate in individual therapy to assess her with 

understanding her depressed mood and increasing her 

ability to anticipate problems.

On July 2, 2014, Mother underwent a Psychological 

Evaluation which was conducted by Stacey A. Summers, 

Psy.D. The Evaluation stated that most of Mother’s 

problems can be directly related to her cognitive deficits; 

that she can become easily overwhelmed and confused, 

which impedes her functioning in daily life; that Mother 

would benefit from case management services geared 

toward individuals with intellectual disabilities; that without 

these support services, Mother would likely have difficulty

securing the resources necessary to have her Children 

return to her care; and that it was recommended that 

Mother participate in individual outpatient therapy in order 

to handle her current life stressors as well as to manage 

her anxious and depressive symptoms.

On[ ] July 15, 2014, Father underwent a PCE at ATA 

conducted by Dr. Russell and Dr. Brenner. The PCE stated 

that Father minimizes the role he played in the situation 

which precipitated DHS involvement; that he failed to 

acknowledge any DHS concerns; he indicated the reason 

his Children were removed was due to false allegations of 

safety hazards in the home; that he failed to recognize any 

behavior problems with the Children; that he glossed over 

any financial problems; and he projected blame on DHS for 

his inability to afford and purchase a suitable home. The 

PCE recommendations were for Father to participate in 

drug and alcohol treatment with random drug screens; 

that he and Mother should attend couples counseling to 

address any past and/or current issues in their 

relationship; that he should obtain suitable and stable 

housing; that the home should have enough bedrooms to 

accommodate the Children; that the home should be 
J-S06032-17

- 9 -

inspected for safety hazards prior to the Children being 

allowed to reside there; and that the home should be 

affordable based on income.

On August 29, 2014, CEU submitted a Report as to 

Father, which referred him to outpatient drug and alcohol 

treatment. 

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on September 

2, 2014 before Judge Kevin M. Dougherty, who found that 

DHS shall maintain legal custody of the Children. The 

Children shall remain in Foster Care through The Village. 

Mother and Father have weekly supervised visits with the 

Children. A referral for therapeutic visits between the 

parents and Children is to be made forthwith. Mother and 

Father completed their Parenting Capacity Evaluations. 

Mother’s Psychological Evaluation from BHS has been 

distributed to all parties. Mother to continue with mental 

health treatment and Father is to continue his through ARC 

program. Father is re-referred to CEU for a forthwith 

screen and assessment with four random drug screens 

prior to the next court date. DHS is to explore D&A 

treatment and mental health options for Father. Mother is 

to be referred for Intellectual Disability Services [(IDS)]. 

Dr. Russell to write up an Addendum after receiving and 

reviewing Mother’s Psychological Evaluation from BHS. As 

to C.D.R., Jr., he is not receiving any special services at 

this time and is doing well. He completed his therapy 

through the Village. As to C.B[.]-A.R., she receives 

medical follow up for her condition through St. 

Christopher’s. She completed an MRI with an ER 

scheduled ultrasound today. Child attends school with a 

current IEP. As to [C.S.H.], he receives occupational, 

speech and special instruction services through DE County 

Intermediate Unit. MRI scheduled for 9/10/2014. As to 

C.C.R., he receives appropriate services through DuPont. 

On December 1, 2014, CEU submitted a Report as to 

Father, which stated that on 10/15/2014 Father reported 

that he was engaged in drug and alcohol treatment at 

Gaudenzia, and that per Guadenzia Outreach staff, Father 

is not now and has never been enrolled in treatment 

through their facility.
J-S06032-17

- 10 -

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on December 

2, 2014 before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, who found 

that DHS shall maintain legal custody of the Children. The 

Children shall remain in Foster Care through The Village. 

Mother and Father have weekly supervised visits with the 

Children, supervised with Parents Therapeutic through 

ATA. Mother has been in substantial compliance with 

permanency plan, Mother complying with FSP objectives, 

services and recommendations, completed Parenting 

Capacity Evaluation, receives mental health services 

through Community Counsel and attends Family School. 

Father has been in substantial compliance with 

permanency plan, Father was referred to ARC for services, 

receives drug and alcohol counseling through Gaudenzia. 

Father did complete Parenting Capacity Evaluation, 

currently not participating in couples counseling. Father 

complying with all FSP objectives, services and 

recommendations. Mother referred to IDS Services, DHS 

did make referral to ATA for Addendum for PCE for Mother. 

Mother to provide social security card and birth certificate 

to DHS. Father referred back to CEU for monitoring, 

forthwith full drug and alcohol screen and three random 

screens prior to next court date. Parents to sign release of 

information, comply with FSP objectives, services and 

recommendations. As to [C.S.H.], foster parent gave 

notice due to Child’s behaviors. 

On February 4, 2015, DHS held a FSP meeting. The 

permanency goal for the Children was changed to 

“Adoption.”[3] The parental objectives for Mother were to 

maintain all appointments for the Children and comply with 

all treatment recommendations; to make herself available 

to discuss any issues regarding the Children; to call to 

confirm prior visits; to participate in court ordered mental 

health evaluations and sign releases of information; to 

comply with all treatment recommendations including 

therapy and or medication management as prescribed; to 

ensure that the health or safety hazards at the residence 

are corrected, such as exposed wiring, securely covered 

heating system, and a functioning toilet; to ensure that all 

 

3 The dockets reveal that a concurrent plan of adoption was set forth in the 

trial court’s December 2, 2014 and May 18, 2015 permanency orders. 
J-S06032-17

- 11 -

utilities remain operable at all times; to attend Family 

School; and to obtain employment. The parental 

objectives for Father were to attend all appointments for 

the Children and comply with all treatment 

recommendations; to make himself available to discuss 

any issues regarding the Children; to call to confirm prior 

to visits; to participate in family therapy with Mother; to 

participate in drug and alcohol treatment and comply with 

all recommendations; to participate in services through 

ARC; to ensure that the health or safety hazards at the 

residence are corrected, such as exposed wiring, securely 

covered heating system, and a functioning toilet; to ensure 

that all utilities remain operable at all times.

On February 26, 2015, Mother participated in a PCE 

Addendum at ATA conducted by Dr. Russell and Ms. 

Peterson. The PCE Addendum stated that Mother was 

unable to demonstrate any notable progress since her last 

evaluation in developing the capacity to provide for her 

Children; that there remains concerns regarding her 

capacity to provide safety and permanency to her 

Children; that she continues to minimize the role she and 

the Father played in the situation which precipitated DHS 

involvement; that she continues to not acknowledge the 

Children’s behavioral problems/special needs; that she has 

yet to acquire appropriate housing; that she continues to 

be unemployed; that, despite recommendations from two 

separate evaluations, she has yet to enroll in mental 

health treatment; and that, in light of the lack of progress, 

her cognitive limitations, and her difficulty recognizing her 

Children’s needs, an intensive case manager should be 

assigned to her case. The PCE Addendum also stated that 

Mother appeared to be functioning in the borderline range 

in intelligence and a diagnosis of Intellectual Disability, 

Mild should be explored.

On March 2, 2015, CEU submitted a report as to Father, 

which stated that Father failed to provide verification of his 

enrollment in drug and alcohol treatment. 

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on March 3, 

2015 before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, who found 

that DHS shall maintain legal custody of the Children. The 

Children shall remain in Foster Care through The Village. 
J-S06032-17

- 12 -

Mother and Father to have weekly supervised visits with 

the Children at the Agency for one hour. CEU Report as to 

Father is incorporated into the record by reference. Father 

referred to the CEU unit for a forthwith drug screen, 3 

randoms, assessment, and monitoring. 

On May 14, 2015, CEU submitted a progress report as 

to Father, which stated that Father failed to comply with 

the Court ordered drug and alcohol assessment in that he

was a no call/no show for his scheduled appointment on 

4/6/2014. The Report also stated that Father did go to 

CEU on 5/11/2015, but failed to reschedule an 

appointment to be assessed.

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on May 18, 

2015 before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, who found 

that DHS shall remain in legal custody of the Children. 

The placement of the Children shall remain in a PreAdoptive Home through The Village. Mother and Father 

are offered weekly supervised visits with the Children at 

the Agency. As to C.D.R., Jr., he receives Child Guidance 

therapy services, speech therapy and attends school. As 

to C.B[.]-A.R., she receives individual therapy through 

PCV, and is scheduled for an Autism evaluation of 

6/16/[2015]. As to [C.S.H.], he attends Easter Seals and 

receives speech, occupation and special instruction 

services. He has been diagnosed with Autism and will 

receive appropriate wrap around services. As to C.C.R., he 

receives speech therapy. Mother has been referred to IDS 

Services, and referred to BHS for consultations and 

evaluations. Father is re-referred for an updated PCE, and 

is referred to CEU for assessment, forthwith screen and 

three random drug screens prior to next court date.

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on September 

1, 2015 before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, who found 

that DHS shall remain in legal custody of the Children. 

The placement of the Children shall remain in Foster Care 

through The Village. Mother and Father are offered weekly 

supervised visits with the Children at the Agency for one 

hour. Father is to report for his PCE Addendum on 

10/15/2015. DHS is to forward copy of PCE to all parties. 

Family School is discharged. 
J-S06032-17

- 13 -

C.B[.]-A.R., [C.S.H.], and C.C.R. are diagnosed as 

suffering from neurofibromatosis, which is a geneticallyinherited disorder in which the nerve tissue grows tumors 

(neurofibromas) that may be benign and may cause 

serious damage by compressing nerves and other tissues. 

The disorder affects all neural crest cells (Schwann cells, 

melanocytes, and endoneurial fibroblasts). Cellular 

elements from these cell types proliferate excessively 

through the body, forming tumors; melanocytes also 

function abnormally in this disease, resulting in disordered 

skin pigmentation and café au lait spots. The tumors may 

cause bumps under the skin, colored spots, skeletal 

problems, pressure on spinal nerve roots, and other 

neurological problems. Neurofibromatosis is an autosomal 

dominant disorder, which means only one copy of the 

affected gene is needed for the disorder to develop. 

Therefore, if only one parent has neurofibromatosis, his or 

her children have a 50 percent chance of developing the 

condition as well.

Father is diagnosed as suffering from 

neurofibromatosis. 

Mother is diagnosed with persistent depressive disorder.

Trial Ct. Op., 10/11/16, at 3-17 (record citations omitted).

On December 22, 2015, DHS filed the petitions to terminate Mother’s 

and Father’s parental rights to Children under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), 

(5), (8), and (b). That same day, DHS filed petitions for a goal change to 

adoption. 

The trial court held hearings on April 20, 2016, and July 12, 2016. On 

July 12, 2016, the court entered the orders terminating Mother’s parental 
J-S06032-17

- 14 -

rights to Children and changing the goal to adoption. These timely appeals 

followed.4

Mother presents the following questions for review:

1. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse 

of discretion by involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental 

rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(1), where the evidence 

showed that Mother substantially complied with the Family 

Service Plan goals established by the [DHS]?

2. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse 

of discretion by involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental 

rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(2), (5), and (8) where 

[DHS] failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence 

that Mother’s conduct warranted involuntary termination?

3. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse 

of discretion by involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental 

rights without fully considering the impact of termination 

on the emotional needs and welfare of the Children, as 

required under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?

4. Did the trial court commit an error of law and abuse 

of discretion by changing the goal for all four Children from 

reunification to adoption when DHS failed to present clear 

and convincing evidence that such a goal change was in 

the Children’s best interests?

Mother’s Brief at 2-3. 

We first address Mother’s first two questions, in which she challenges 

the trial court’s determination that termination of her parental rights was 

warranted under Section 2511(a). She asserts, in relevant part, that DHS 

 

4 Mother submitted a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement contemporaneously with 

his notice of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court prepared a 

responsive opinion. 
J-S06032-17

- 15 -

failed to establish that “the conditions that contributed to Children’s 

placement continue to exist.” Id. at 12. She asserts that those conditions 

“have been substantially rectified.” Id. Specifically, Mother contends:

Mother’s Family Service Plan objectives included that 

she obtain safe housing, attend a BHS evaluation and 

Parenting Capacity Evaluation and comply with treatment 

recommendations, attend medical appointments for the 

Children, and visit with the Children.

Mother eliminated the exposed wiring in her home and 

fixed the utility issues. Mother’s home was cleared as safe 

and appropriate. Mother completed the Healthy Relations, 

Mental Health, and Parent Education courses at the 

Achieving Reunification Center (ARC). Mother attended 

individual therapy through Community Counsel 

consistently from March until December of 2014. Mother 

completed a psychological evaluation and a parenting 

capacity evaluation. Mother attended at least some 

medical appointments for her Children, and expressed a 

basic understanding of the health concerns with each child 

in her testimony. 

Mother also substantially complied with visitation. The 

record shows that Mother successfully completed the 

program at Family School with [C.S.H.] and C.C.R. 

Further, Family School reports indicated that Mother was 

an active participant understood what she was learning 

there. Mother also consistently attended weekly visits with 

her children, including therapeutic visits. 

Id. at 13-14 (record citations omitted). 

Additionally, Mother notes the her “IQ was determined to be 66” and 

that “‘most of [her] problems can be directly related to her cognitive 

deficits.’” Id. at 14 (citations omitted). She contends:

Because [she] is cognitively limited, she may require 

additional assistance to fully grasp the nature of her 

Children’s various conditions. Mother’s parenting capacity 
J-S06032-17

- 16 -

evaluation indicated that Mother would benefit from 

psychoeducation surrounding [Children]’s medical needs, 

or even intensive case management services to assist 

Mother in meeting the Children’s medical needs. No such 

psychoeducation was ever provided for Mother, and 

although Mother was referred to IDS for case management 

services, her worker did not attempt to assist Mother with 

following up on the referral. Ms. John testified that she 

obtained the necessary documentation from Mother and 

provided it to IDS, but “they just never followed through.” 

Id. (record citations omitted). We are constrained to conclude that no relief 

is due. 

Our standards for reviewing an appeal from an order terminating 

parental rights are well settled. 

[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., [ ] 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.

. . . [E]ven where the facts could support an opposite 

result, as is often the case in dependency and termination 

cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second 

guess the trial court and impose its own credibility 

determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to 
J-S06032-17

- 17 -

the trial judges so long as the factual findings are 

supported by the record and the court’s legal conclusions 

are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of 

discretion. In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 

1066 (Pa. 1994).

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012).

The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental 

rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). “The 

standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so 

‘clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to 

a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in 

issue.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

Section 2511 of the Adoption Act governs the termination of parental 

rights and requires a bifurcated analysis. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 

(Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted).

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 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.

Id. This Court may affirm the trial court’s determination under Section 

2511(a) with regard to any one subsection. See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 

380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). 
J-S06032-17

- 18 -

Section 2511(a)(8) provides: 

(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:

* * *

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

parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement 

with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from 

the date of removal or placement, the conditions which 

led to the removal or placement of the child continue to 

exist and termination of parental rights would best 

serve the needs and welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8). 

This Court has stated: 

Section (a)(8) sets a 12–month time frame for a parent to 

remedy the conditions that led to the children’s removal by 

the court. Once the 12–month period has been 

established, the court must next determine whether the 

conditions that led to the child[ren]’s removal continue to 

exist, despite the reasonable good faith efforts of DHS 

supplied over a realistic time period. Termination under 

Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate 

a parent’s current willingness or ability to remedy the 

conditions that initially caused placement or the availability 

or efficacy of DHS services.

In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). 

Additionally, 

Section 2511(a)(8) explicitly requires an evaluation of the 

“needs and welfare of the child” prior to proceeding to 

Section 2511(b), which focuses on the “developmental, 

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 

Thus, the analysis under Section 2511(a)(8) accounts for 

the needs of the child in addition to the behavior of the 

parent.
J-S06032-17

- 19 -

In re D.A.T., 91 A.3d 197, 205 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). 

First, Children were adjudicated dependent on November 4, 2013, and 

DHS filed the termination petitions on December 22, 2015, more than two 

years later. Therefore, the record establishes that DHS satisfied the first 

requirement under Subsection (a)(8), namely, the twelve–month time frame 

for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the children’s removal by 

the court.

Second, Children were removed from parent’s care due to inadequate 

housing, dangerous conditions in the home, and Mother’s and Father’s 

inability to provide for the Children’s medical and behavioral needs. With 

respect to Mother, the trial court heard the following testimony from Dr. 

William Russell, who conducted the PCEs with Mother:

Q [by DHS’s counsel]. And were there barriers to 

reunification at this time based on your evaluation?

A. The most critical barriers centered around [Mother’s] 

inability to understand the reasons [C]hildren came into 

care. Whereas, she just did not know why. She did not 

see that there were any problems with [Children]. . . . 

* * *

[C]hildren were removed and you look at the reasons that 

they were removed, and you can see this in the DHS 

summaries, that the household was chaotic, unkempt. 

There were difficulties managing [C]hildren. . . . 

And when we got to 2015 it had been in the interviewing 

[sic] time supervised therapeutic visits provided to both 

parents and [C]hildren, where the same difficulty arose, 

difficulty managing [C]hildren, difficulty controlling 
J-S06032-17

- 20 -

[C]hildren, difficulty acting appropriately with [C]hildren in 

a very confined environment. 

And then my evaluation, again, [Mother] present [sic] 

depressed, very flat affect. Still did not see any issues or 

problems. She described to me how her discipline 

practices worked very well with [C]hildren. 

N.T., 7/12/16, at 10-12. 

Additionally, there were ten supervised therapeutic visitations with 

parents. Id. at 12-13. The visits were conducted by Dr. Dougal, whom Dr. 

Russell supervised. Id. at 13. Dr. Russell noted:

Supervised therapeutic visits are structured to provide 

parent or parents an opportunity to interact with the child 

or children in a very structured therapeutic setting. It’s a 

very confined physical space. It is supervised by a 

therapist or psychologist. And the timeframe is usually 

very limited. Subsequent to the actual visitation and 

interaction with parent and children there’s a feedback 

session where the therapist or psychologist will sit down 

with the parent or parents and provide them with 

information regarding the strengths and weaknesses and 

make suggestions for upcoming visits. 

Id. Based on the outcome of the supervised therapeutic visitations, Dr. 

Russell opined that

the parents demonstrated difficulty managing [C]hildren 

during the visits. They could do very well with one on one, 

but then that would leave one parent with three children to 

manage. When it was even two and two they had difficulty 

enforcing rules, cleanup. They just had a great deal of 

difficulty getting [C]hildren to respond positively to their 

direction. 

Id. at 14. 
J-S06032-17

- 21 -

On further examination by the Child Advocate, Dr. Russell asserted 

that “in the case of [C]hildren, you have children with hyperactivity, children 

with autism. Clearly these are children with behavioral difficulties as both 

record reflected and as our evaluation reflected.” Id. at 16. When asked 

whether Mother “seem[ed] to understand the significance of [C]hildren’s 

diagnoses[,]” Dr. Russell answered “No, she did not.” Id. 

Dr. Russell’s testimony was corroborated by Ashley John, a DHS social 

worker, who testified that reunification was ruled out “due to [M]other not 

being able to comprehend the medical and mental health needs of 

[C]hildren.” N.T., 4/20/16, at 18. Ms. John continued: “All [C]hildren 

exhibit both medical and mental health needs that the parents need to focus 

on. And [Mother] was not able to comprehend the needs and age 

appropriate developmental tests for each child.” Id. Ms. John further noted 

that Mother and Father “felt like [Children’s] needs were being met and 

that’s what they were doing from the beginning and that DHS, there was no 

need for DHS involvement.” Id. at 33. 

Thus, it is apparent Mother had taken steps to remedy the conditions 

that led to the removal of Children, including the harmful condition in the 

family residence and complying with the FSP goals initially set for her. 

Nevertheless, after approximately two years, Mother made little progress in 

her ability to manage Children and tend to their medical, mental health, and 
J-S06032-17

- 22 -

developmental needs. Accordingly, the conditions leading to Children’s 

removal continued to exist. 

Third, in addition to the testimony that Mother did not comprehend the 

medical, mental health, and developmental needs of Children, the trial court 

heard testimony regarding the bonds between Mother and Children. Brenda 

Hodges, a case manager at The Village, testified that she observed bonding 

among the family, but the bond was more “like friends getting together.” 

N.T., 4/20/16 at 57. She noted that during the weekly visits, “[t]he family 

gets together for a meal in a controlled setting they do well, but as soon as 

the meal is over [Father] sits on the sofa and [Mother] basically attempts to 

engage with [C]hildren, but they each come and go in their own direction. 

They’re not really interacting.” Id. at 56-57. 

Janaya Davis, a case supervisor at The Village, testified that Mother

did try to interact with each one of the children 

individually, but at times it would be difficult for her 

because she was focused more on [C.S.H.] She would 

take [C.S.H.] and [C.C.R.] to get their diapers changed. 

She would ask [C.B.-A.R.], “How’s school?” And [C.D.R, 

Jr.] and [C.B.-A.R.] how school was but that was pretty 

much the extent of it.

Id. at 53. Ms. Davis noted that there was “[n]ot really” physical interaction 

with Children, but acknowledged they would hug when they said goodbye. 

Id. Ms. Davis further asserted that Children—in particular, C.B.-A.R. and 

C.S.H., whom she supervised—did not ask when they would be able to 

return home with Mother. Id. 
J-S06032-17

- 23 -

Therefore, the record contains sufficient evidence to conclude that 

termination would best serve the needs and welfare of Children under 

Section 2511(a)(8).

To the extent Mother raises the lack of services for her intellectual 

disability, we are constrained to reiterate that reasonable efforts toward 

reunification are not required before the filing of a petition to terminate 

parental rights. See In re D.C.D., 105 A.2d 662, 675 (Pa. 2014) (holding 

“nothing in the language or the purpose of Section 6351(f)(9) [of the 

Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6301-6375] forbids the granting of a petition to 

terminate parental rights, under Section 2511, as a consequence of the 

agency’s failure to provide reasonable efforts to a parent”). In any event, 

Ms. John testified that she assisted Mother in the registration process for 

social security and IDS. N.T., 4/20/16, at 35. However, Ms. John 

maintained that “from there [Mother] had to follow up with appointments . . 

. .” Id. Mother, in turn, testified as follows:

Q [by Child Advocate]. At one point it was recommended 

that you apply for IDS Intellectual Disability Services. Did 

you ever apply for that?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you receiving IDS?

A. Not yet. I didn’t hear nothing back from them yet. 

Q. Okay when did you contact them?

A. I didn’t contact them yet but I thought they were 

supposed to send me something out in the mail. 
J-S06032-17

- 24 -

N.T., 7/12/16, at 41-42. Thus, the record belies Mother’s suggestion that 

DHS failed to undertake reasonable efforts to carry out her appointments 

with IDS.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that there was sufficient 

evidence that termination would be in the best interests of the needs and 

welfare of Children under Section 2511(a)(8). Accordingly, we discern no 

error in the trial court’s determination that DHS presented clear and 

convincing evidence for termination under Section 2511(a). 

Mother next argues that the trial court erred in finding termination of 

her parental rights was warranted under Section 2511(b). She contends the 

court (1) “erroneously concluded that ‘there’s no evidence that [the loss of] 

that bond could not be remedied with the appropriate therapy[ ]’” and (2) 

improperly “cited the bond between the Children and their respective 

caretakers in support of the conclusion that the Children would not suffer 

irreparable harm if the bond with their Mother was permanently severed.” 

Mother’s Brief at 16. No relief is due. 

Section 2511(b) states:

(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. 
J-S06032-17

- 25 -

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (b).

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

in the inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child.” In re C.M.S., 884 

A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Further, 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. (citation omitted). 

While a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child is a major 

aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is 

nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the 

court when determining what is in the best interest of the child. 

The mere existence of an emotional bond does not preclude the 

termination of parental rights. Rather, the orphans’ court must 

examine the status of the bond to determine whether its 

termination “would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial 

relationship.” As we explained in In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 483 

(Pa. Super. 2010),

[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can 

equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and 

should also consider the intangibles, such as the love, 

comfort, security, and stability the child might have with 

the foster parent. Additionally, this Court stated that the 

trial court should consider the importance of continuity of 

relationships and whether any existing parent-child bond 

can be severed without detrimental effects on the child.

In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011) (some citations omitted). 

Moreover, our Supreme Court stated that “[c]ommon sense dictates 

that courts considering termination must also consider whether the children 

are in a pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster 

parents.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). 
J-S06032-17

- 26 -

The T.S.M. Court directed that in weighing the bond considerations pursuant 

to Section 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking clock of childhood ever in 

mind.” Id. at 269. The Court observed that, “[c]hildren are young for a 

scant number of years, and we have an obligation to see to their healthy 

development quickly. When courts fail . . . the result, all too often, is 

catastrophically maladjusted children.” Id.

As noted above, the trial court heard evidence that although there was 

a bond between Mother and Children, the bonding appeared minimal. 

Moreover, the trial court also heard ample evidence that Children were in 

pre-adoptive foster homes, were having their needs and welfare met, and 

were bonding with their respective foster parents. For example, Ms. John 

asserted:

[C.D.R., Jr. is] able to know who his biological parents are 

and foster parents. DHS has had several conversations 

with him. The child is willing and wants to remain in the 

care of his foster parent. He does have a close bond. 

They do may [sic] activities. His mental health, his needs 

overall is being met by the foster parent and the child 

enjoys the relationship he has with the foster parent and 

her other children in the home. 

Id. at 20-21. Ms. John testified that C.C.R. has been in foster parent’s care 

since “he was a couple months old[,] he considers [foster parent] his mom 

and he has a deep connection and a bond with [her] and considers her to be 

his mother.” Id. at 21. 

Similarly, Ms. Davis noted that C.B.-A.R. and C.S.H. have been with 

their foster parent for one and a half years. N.T., 4/20/16, at 49. She 
J-S06032-17

- 27 -

noted that their foster parent worked to correct some of the behavioral 

issues with Children, including C.B.-A.R.’s past tendency to grab items, such 

as candy, from the floor, as well as C.S.H.’s potty-training. Id. at 49-50. 

Ms. John testified that C.B.-A.R. called her foster mother “mom.” Id. at 23. 

Contrary to Mother’s suggestion, such factors are germane to the trial 

court’s assessment of the needs and welfare of Children under Section 

2511(b). See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268. Moreover, the trial court heard 

testimony that adoption would be in the best interests of Children, that 

although a bond existed between Mother and Children, Children’s bonds with 

their parents was not appropriate, and that the effects of the termination of 

those bonds could be managed with therapy. See N.T., 4/20/16, at 18-20, 

50-51, 58. In light of the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s determination 

to terminate Mother’s parental rights under Section 2511(b). 

Mother lastly contends that the trial court erred in changing the 

family’s goal from reunification to adoption. According to Mother, the goal 

change to adoption is not “best suited” to the needs and welfare of Children. 

Mother claims that adoption would sever the bonds between Children and 

Mother, as well as the sibling relationships among C.B.-A.R. and C.S.H., on 

the one hand, and C.D.R., Jr. and C.C.R., on the other. We discern no basis 

to disturb the trial court’s decision to change the goal to adoption. 

Our standard of review is as follows:

When reviewing an order that changes the placement goal 

of a dependent child from reunification to termination of 
J-S06032-17

- 28 -

parental rights and adoption pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 

our standard of review is abuse of discretion. . . . 

When reviewing such a decision we are bound by the 

facts as found by the trial court unless they are not 

supported in the record. Furthermore, in a change 

of goal proceeding, the trial court must focus on the 

child and determine the goal in accordance with the 

child's best interests and not those of his or her 

parents.

In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d 967, 973 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). 

Section 6351 requires the trial court to determine, inter alia, “[i]f and 

when the child will be placed for adoption, and the county agency will file for 

termination of parental rights in cases where return to the child's parent, 

guardian or custodian is not best suited to the safety, protection and 

physical, mental and moral welfare of the child.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f.1)(2).

[T]he focus of all dependency proceedings, including 

change of goal proceedings, must be on the safety, 

permanency, and well-being of the child. The best 

interests of the child take precedence over all other 

considerations, including the conduct and the rights of the 

parent. . . . [W]hile parental progress toward completion 

of a permanency plan is an important factor, it is not to be 

elevated to determinative status, to the exclusion of all 

other factors.

In re M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1175 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). 

Although the trial court did not address this issue in its Rule 1925(a) 

opinion, we discern no merit to Mother’s argument that the trial court erred 

in granting a goal change from reunification to adoption. As noted above, 

the trial court appropriately considered the needs and welfare of Children, its 

findings were supported by the record, and its balance between Children’s 
J-S06032-17

- 29 -

bonds with parents, their bonds with their respective foster parents, and 

Children’s interests in safety, permanency, and well-being evince no abuse 

of discretion or error of law. See In re G.P.-R., 851 A.2d at 973. 

Moreover, we note that “the general rule disfavoring separation of siblings . . 

. is not controlling.” In re R.P., 956 A.2d 449, 458 (Pa. Super. 2008.). 

Thus, we conclude Mother’s argument warrants no relief. 

Orders affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/24/2017