J. S31045/17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., 

MINORS

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: C.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 276 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order, January 24, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000070-2016

IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., 

MINORS

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: C.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 277 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order, January 24, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000070-2016

IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., 

MINORS

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: C.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 278 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order, January 24, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000070-2016
J. S31045/17

- 2 -

IN RE: C.P.W., C.W., G.W., J.W., 

MINORS

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

APPEAL OF: C.C., NATURAL MOTHER : No. 279 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order, January 24, 2017,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Orphans’ Court Division at Nos. CP-02-AP-0000025-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000026-2015, CP-02-AP-0000027-2015,

CP-02-AP-0000070-2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., DUBOW, J. AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. 

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED: MAY 15, 2017

C.C. (“Mother”) appeals from the January 24, 2017 order entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, 

granting the petition of the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and 

Families (“CYF”) and involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her 

dependent children, C.P.W., female child, born in July of 2010 (“C.P.W.”); 

C.W., male child, born in October of 2011 (“C.W.”); G.W., male child, born 

in September of 2012 (“G.W.”), and J.W., male child, born in May of 2014 

(“J.W.”) (collectively, the “Children”), pursuant to the Adoption Act, 

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

1

 After review, we affirm.

 

1

In the same order, the trial court terminated the parental rights of the 

Children’s father, C.W. (“Father”), also pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), 

(8), and (b). Father has filed an appeal at Superior Court Docket No. 241 

WDA 2017.
J. S31045/17

- 3 -

The trial court summarized the relevant procedural and factual history 

as follows:

The family has had a lengthy history of 

involvement with [CYF]. Mother, C.C., has a total of 

eight children ranging in age from 14 to 2 years 

old[Footnote 1]. [CYF] received its first referral in 

2002. Numerous other referrals have been made 

and services have been offered to the family 

throughout the years. Mother gave birth to C.P.W. 

[in July of 2010], C.D.W. [in October of 

2011][Footnote 2], and G.W. [in September of 

2012][Footnote 3]. However, all of the referrals 

were closed and further Court intervention was not 

required.

[Footnote 1] There are three children not 

subject to the termination proceedings, 

Z.L., T.J. and J.R.

[Footnote 2] [CYF] became involved with 

the family briefly after C.D.W.’s birth in 

2011 after Mother testified positive for 

THC.

[Footnote 3] [CYF] became involved 

again with the family after G.W.’s birth in 

2012 after receiving reports about 

Mother’s alleged substance abuse.

[CYF] received its most recent referral in 2013 

and a Petition for Dependency was filed on 

February 7

th, 2013. The bases for alleging 

dependency were Mother’s substance abuse issues, 

truancy concerns for the older children, and concerns 

about the lack of developmental and medical 

services that the younger children were receiving. 

Prior to the Adjudicatory Hearing, [CYF] 

implemented services to work with the family to 

address their concerns. The agency was able to 

ascertain the identity of the Father, C.W. (hereinafter 

Father), of C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. Although 

Father had knowledge of [CYF]’s involvement with 
J. S31045/17

- 4 -

the family, he did not engage with any services prior 

to the Adjudicatory Hearing. After further 

investigation, [CYF] discovered that the parents had 

filed numerous Protection From Abuse Petitions 

(hereinafter PFA Petitions) against one another. 

Domestic violence therapy was added as a goal for 

the family based upon the allegations contained 

within the PFA Petitions. Father had been present in 

Mother’s home a number of times that various 

service providers appeared, which contributed to the 

concerns that the [C]hildren may have witnessed 

incidents of domestic violence.

The parties appeared for an Adjudicatory 

Hearing on February 26th, 2013 and the case was 

continued so that Father could obtain counsel. 

Mother obtained counsel prior to the hearing and the 

Court appointed KidsVoice to represent the 

[C]hildren. Father refused to take a drug test on the 

date of the hearing. The parties next appeared on 

April 2nd, 2013 for an Adjudicatory Hearing but it was 

continued because it conflicted with one of Mother’s 

Criminal Court proceedings[Footnote 4]. The parties 

appeared on May 14th, 2013 and the [C]hildren were 

adjudicated dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 6302(1)[Footnote 5]. The Court ordered that the 

[C]hildren remain in Mother’s care and that she 

attend and cooperate with parenting classes as well 

as comply with all of her other Family Service Plan 

goals. Father did not appear but the Court was 

informed that he had been arrested the month 

before and charged with two counts of Possession. 

The Court ordered that he was to comply with his 

goals and attend to his criminal matters. The Court 

Appointed Special Advocates (hereinafter CASA) 

were appointed by separate order for each of the

[C]hildren on May 14th, 2013.

[Footnote 4] Mother was arrested for 

allegedly selling a brick of heroin out of 

her home and was facing felony drug 

charges.
J. S31045/17

- 5 -

[Footnote 5] Mother stipulated that she 

was in need of assistance in obtaining 

drug and alcohol treatment and with 

childcare.

A Permanency Hearing was held on 

August 28th, 2013. Father was incarcerated at the 

time of this hearing but Mother appeared. It was 

reported that Mother had lost her housing and the 

family was living with a relative. Mother had 

continuously tested positive for THC at her random 

drug screens. Additionally, [CYF] was unable to 

verify that Mother was engaged in mental health 

treatment. The Court allowed the [C]hildren to 

remain in Mother’s care but ordered that In-Home 

Services be increased to “crisis” level to alleviate the 

Court’s concerns. Mother was ordered to ensure that 

all of the [C]hildren’s medical needs were being met 

and that the youngest children, C.D.W. and G.W. be 

enrolled at Matilda Theiss Therapeutic Nursery and 

Preschool. The Court ordered both Mother and 

Father to complete domestic violence treatment as 

part of their Family Service Plan goals. The parent’s 

[sic] compliance and progress were deemed to be 

minimal. The Court found that [CYF] had made 

reasonable efforts to finalize the permanency plan to 

prevent and eliminate removal from the home.

In September of 2013, Mother failed to allow 

the In-Home Service workers to enter the home. 

She had completed an intake assessment at Mercy 

Behavioral Health in mid-September of 2013 but it 

was unclear from the record whether Mother actually 

began treatment at the time of the assessment. In 

early October of 2013, [CYF] received reports that 

G.W. had two black eyes and that Mother provided 

conflicting stories about the cause of those injuries. 

As a result of these concerns, [CYF] sought and 

obtained an Emergency Custody Authorization on 

October 3rd, 2013 for all of the [C]hildren. All of the 

[C]hildren were removed with the exception of G.W., 

as he could not be located. A Shelter Hearing was 

held on October 4th, 2013 before Hearing Officer 

Mark Cancilla. Mother appeared but did not bring 
J. S31045/17

- 6 -

G.W..[sic] The Court ordered continued placement 

of the [C]hildren based upon Mother’s lack of 

cooperation with In-Home Services, her lack of 

cooperation in providing verification of mental health 

and drug and alcohol treatment, and because she 

had not enrolled G.W. in therapeutic preschool at 

Matilda Theiss. Mother had also missed a number of 

medical appointments for the [C]hildren. This was of 

particular concern because C.P.W. had been 

diagnosed with a genetic disorder which affected 

both her physical and developmental health. Father 

remained incarcerated at the time of the hearing. 

The parent’s [sic] progress was deemed to be 

minimal. The Court made a finding that reasonable 

efforts were made to prevent removal from the 

home and that allowing the [C]hildren to return to 

the care of Mother would be contrary to their 

welfare. The whereabouts of G.W. were discovered 

and he was removed from his Mother’s care on 

October 5th, 2013. A few days after the hearing, 

Father was transferred to an in-patient drug and 

alcohol facility, Cove Forge, from October 8th, 2013 

until October 23, 2013. Upon his discharge from 

Cove Forge, it was recommended that he participate 

in intensive outpatient therapy. Father did not 

maintain any meaningful contact with [CYF] during 

this time. The Court ordered [CYF] to make a 

referral for the family to participate in individual and 

interactional evaluations. Dr. Terry O’Hara, a Court 

appointed psychologist from Allegheny Forensic 

Associates, was assigned to conduct evaluations of 

the family. He conducted an individual evaluation of 

Mother on November 11, 2013. Mother denied any 

incidents of domestic violence and minimized the 

allegations contained within the numerous Protection 

From Abuse petitions. Dr. O’Hara reported a number 

of concerns as Mother admitted to a history of 

domestic violence and substance abuse. Mother 

displayed a great deal of irritability and frustration 

during the evaluation and did not accept any 

responsibility for her current circumstances. She 

blamed the “system” for her frustration and lack of 

cooperation with service providers. Dr. O’Hara 

recommended that Mother seek mental health, drug 
J. S31045/17

- 7 -

and alcohol and domestic violence therapy. 

Dr. O’Hara opined that Mother needed to attain some 

level of stability through working with services and 

attending anger management counseling before the 

[C]hildren could be returned to her care.

Parties appeared on November 20th, 2013 for a 

Shelter Review Hearing. Mother appeared but Father 

did not. The Court ordered all of the [C]hildren to 

remain in their various foster homes and converted 

them from Shelter Care to regular Foster Care 

placements. The Court further ordered Mother to 

comply with her Family Service Plan goals 

(specifically anger management), to attend visits, 

and comply with enrolling the three youngest 

[C]hildren in Matilda Theiss Preschool. The Court 

made a finding that reasonable efforts were made by 

[CYF] to prevent or eliminate the need for continued 

placement of the [C]hildren. Ultimately, the case 

was continued to another day to obtain reports and 

testimony from Dr. Terry O’Hara.

A continued Shelter hearing was held on 

December 10th, 2013 and the Court took all of the 

testimony under advisement. Father failed to appear 

but Mother did and was represented by counsel. The 

Court issued an order on December 17th, 2013 that 

the [C]hildren were to remain in placement, that 

Mother’s visits were to remain status quo, that she 

was to comply with all of her goals, and that she sign 

releases and provide [CYF] with documentation that 

she was in compliance with her dual diagnosis 

treatment. The Court made a finding that 

reasonable efforts were made by [CYF] to prevent or 

eliminate the need for continued placement of the 

[C]hildren. Mother began treatment at Mercy 

Behavioral Health in December of 2013 and began 

cooperating with services.

The case was assigned to this Court on 

January 13th, 2014. It was reported that Mother had 

threatened the previous caseworker during the 

transition, thus necessitating the need to assign a 

new caseworker. [CYF] assigned caseworker 
J. S31045/17

- 8 -

Renee Taddy to the case. Ms. Taddy began working 

with the family in January of 2014. Initially, 

Caseworker Taddy had a cordial relationship with 

Mother and was able to institute In-Home Services 

for her in the first month that she was assigned to 

the case. It was also discovered that Mother was 

pregnant again. Mother was fairly cooperative 

during this time and as such, the Court granted 

Mother’s request to move visits into her home on 

February 25th, 2014. The parties appeared on 

March 12th, 2014 for a Permanency Review Hearing. 

Father failed to appear but Mother did and was 

represented by counsel. The Court ordered that the 

[C]hildren remain in placement and that Mother’s 

visits could be increased at the discretion of [CYF]. 

The Court further ordered Mother to continue to 

work with In-Home Services, sign releases for her 

dual diagnosis treatment, comply with all other 

Family Service Plan goals, and cooperate with [CYF]. 

The Court made a finding that Mother was in 

moderate compliance. Mother’s counsel filed a 

Motion on April 10th, 2014 requesting overnight visits 

with some of the [C]hildren. The Court granted the 

request and ordered that Mother could have one 

overnight visit with three of her older 

children[Footnote 6]. The Court agreed to hear 

argument on whether Mother could have one 

overnight visit on Mother’s Day on May 7th, 2014 

with all of the [C]hildren. At that hearing on May 7th, 

2014, the Court ordered that Mother could have 

extended visits with C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. on a 

Saturday and an additional visit on Mother’s Day. 

However, shortly after leaving the Court hearing, 

Mother went into labor with J.W. and delivered him 

that evening. J.W. was permitted to remain in his 

Mother’s care after his birth. Mother identified the 

father of this child to be C.W., the father of G.W., 

C.D.W., and C.P.W. Almost immediately after his 

birth, [CYF] began to have concerns about Mother’s 

care of the child. Mother discussed with Caseworker 

Taddy the possibility of placing the baby in foster 

care for a few days so that she could take a 

“booze cruise” with her friends. Additionally, the 

child was not in the home during many of the times 
J. S31045/17

- 9 -

that the caseworker attempted to do random safety 

checks throughout the week.

[Footnote 6] Two of these children are 

not part of the TPR proceedings.

Dr. O’Hara conducted an individual evaluation 

of Mother on June 24, 2014. The examiner had 

similar concerns as in the 2013 evaluation. Mother 

continued to engage in a romantic relationship with 

Father, despite ongoing incidents of domestic 

violence and continued emotional and mental 

instability. Mother continued to externalize blame 

for the removal of her [C]hildren. Additionally, she 

reported that she was no longer willing to work with 

services. Dr. O’Hara opined that Mother needed to 

obtain housing and re-engage with In-Home Services 

and anger management in order to provide the 

stability required for reunification.

During this time, Caseworker Taddy received 

reports from Mother’s neighbors that Mother was 

partying frequently and that people were coming in 

and out of the residence numerous times a day. 

Mother confirmed that there was a great deal of foot 

traffic at her house but always had an excuse [as] to 

why this was occurring so frequently. The 

caseworker also had concerns that J.W. was being 

cared for by individuals not known to the agency. 

She continued to have limited access to the child in 

Mother’s home. Additionally, Mother was attending 

medical and educational appointments sporadically 

during this time. Due to the great number of missed 

appointments, many important services for the 

[C]hildren were delayed. Often times [sic], the 

caseworker had to physically deliver releases and 

other documents to Mother or her counsel for 

signature as neither parent made themselves 

available to attend these appointments. Father did 

not attempt to contact Caseworker Taddy until June 

of 2014. When he did make contact with her, he 

advised her that he was not in [a] position to care 

for J.W. or any of his other children. During one of 

the home visits with the [C]hildren in June, Mother 
J. S31045/17

- 10 -

was physically evicted from her residence. Based 

upon her lack of housing and various other concerns, 

the visits were changed back to supervised.

The parties appeared on July 2nd, 2014 for a 

Permanency Hearing. Mother appeared and was 

represented by counsel. Father failed to appear. 

The Court ordered that all of the [C]hildren remain in 

placement, that Mother receive anger management 

therapy, attend a domestic violence support group, 

cooperate with In-Home Services, find appropriate 

housing, and sign treatment releases[Footnote 7]. 

Mother’s compliance was deemed to be minimal at 

this hearing and the agency was found to have 

provided reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate 

the need for continued placement of the [C]hildren. 

The Court found Father to not be in compliance at 

all.

[Footnote 7] With the exception of J.W., 

whom the Court allowed to remain in the 

care of Mother.

During the remaining summer months and 

during early fall, [CYF] received a number of reports 

that Mother was leaving J.W. with individuals not 

known to the agency and that there may not have 

been working utilities in her home. In addition, the 

police had been called to Mother’s home a number of 

times for disputes amongst neighbors. It was also 

reported that Mother had become engaged in a 

physical altercation while she was holding J.W. and 

had handed him off to a bystander so that she could 

engage another woman in a fist fight. Mother had 

not been attending dual diagnosis treatment 

consistently and was not appearing for random drug

screens called in by [CYF]. On October 10th, 2014, 

[CYF] requested and was granted an Emergency 

Custody Authorization order for J.W. based upon 

these concerns. Father advised the caseworker that 

he was unable to care for J.W. at that time but 

offered his Mother as a possible placement option. 

He had little to no contact with the caseworker prior 

to this discussion in October. Father reported living 
J. S31045/17

- 11 -

with his paramour, who was the Mother of his two 

oldest children. However, Father refused to make 

her available to be assessed by Caseworker Taddy. 

Father had been more cooperative in signing 

releases and attending to the [C]hildren’s 

educational and medical needs during this reporting 

period. Caseworker Taddy offered Father In-Home 

Services, a referral for The Coalition for Fathers and 

Families, an Urban League referral, and offered to 

set up supervised visitation. Father declined the 

In-Home Services but did agree to attend the 

Coalition for Fathers and Families.

A Shelter Hearing was held on October 14

th

, 

2014. Mother appeared represented and Father 

failed to appear. The Court granted KidsVoice 

temporary Educational/Medical decision making [sic] 

rights until all of the [C]hildren could appear for a 

Permanency Hearing on October 28th, 2014. The 

Court also appointed KidsVoice for J.W. and placed 

him in the care of paternal grandmother, T.W. The 

Court made a finding that [CYF] made reasonable 

efforts to prevent removal of J.W. from the home 

and ordered them to file a Petition for Dependency. 

After the hearing that day, [CYF] filed a petition for 

Dependency for J.W.

The parties returned for a Permanency Hearing 

on October 28th, 2014. Mother appeared 

represented and Father appeared. The Court found 

Mother to be in minimal compliance and Father to 

have not complied at all. While Mother had made 

some initial progress with In-Home Services, her 

participation had gradually decreased throughout the 

year. As such, the Court ordered all In-Home 

Services to cease. The Court ordered that the 

[C]hildren remain in placement. The Court further 

ordered that Mother provide documentation that she 

had been engaging in dual diagnosis for treatment, 

domestic violence therapy, and to provide [CYF] with 

updated contact information. The Court ordered 

Father to contact [CYF]. The Adjudicatory hearing 

for J.W. was continued. The Court found that the 

agency had made reasonable efforts to prevent or 
J. S31045/17

- 12 -

eliminate the need for continued placement of the 

[C]hildren.

An Adjudicatory Hearing was held for J.W. on 

December 17th, 2014. Both Mother and Father 

appeared and were represented by counsel. After 

hearing the evidence, the Court adjudicated J.W. 

dependent under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1) as to both 

Mother and Father. The Court ordered Mother to 

attend random urine screens, attend parenting 

classes through Arsenal[Footnote 8], attend AFA 

evaluations and follow all recommendations, 

cooperate with her goals and attend and participate 

in domestic violence therapy. [CYF] was ordered to 

assist Mother with housing and transportation 

assistance. Father was ordered to undergo a drug 

and alcohol evaluation, submit to random urine 

screens, and attend the AFA evaluations and follow 

the recommendations. CASA was appointed to 

J.W.’s case on October 17th, 2014 by separate order.

[Footnote 8] [CYF] had concerns that 

Mother was not providing adequate 

supervision during visits.

A Permanency/Goal Change hearing was 

scheduled for January 30th, 2015 for all of the 

[C]hildren[Footnote 9]. Mother appeared and was 

represented by counsel. Father did not appear but 

was represented by counsel. The Court ordered that 

the [C]hildren remain in placement, that Mother 

begin the parenting program at Arsenal, attend AFA 

evaluations and follow recommendations, continue 

dual diagnosis treatment and domestic violence 

therapy, and maintain suitable housing. Father[] 

was ordered to continue his involvement with 

Coalition for Fathers, attend dual diagnosis 

treatment, attend AFA evaluations and follow all 

recommendations. The Court found that both 

Mother and Father were in minimal compliance with 

their goals. Petitions for the Involuntary Termination 

of Parental Rights for C.P.W., C.D.W. and G.W., were 

filed on January 30th, 2015.
J. S31045/17

- 13 -

[Footnote 9] J.W.’s case was not 

scheduled for a goal change as he had 

only be[en] adjudicated dependent in 

December of 2014.

[CYF] filed a Motion to Ratify Placement of 

C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. and the Court granted the 

Motion on March 17th, 2015. All three children were 

placed into a new foster home. The Petitions for 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights were 

withdrawn on April 16th, 2015. Dr. O’Hara conducted 

individual and interactional evaluations with Mother 

and some of the [C]hildren in April of 2015. 

Dr. O’Hara had similar concerns as in the prior 

evaluations. Mother admitted to engaging in two 

incidents of domestic violence with Father, one of 

which resulted in her arrest. Dr. O’Hara noted that 

she accepted some responsibility for “letting her kids 

down” and did show some insight into the dynamics 

of the volatile relationship between herself and 

Father. However, Mother still continued to make 

excuses as to her lack of attendance at medical and 

educational appointments for the [C]hildren. She 

blamed the alleged victims in her criminal matters as 

well as the landlords in her eviction matters. Similar 

services were recommended as in the prior 

evaluations. Dr. O’Hara conducted an interactional 

evaluation of Mother and the [C]hildren on May 18th, 

2015. He opined that Mother exhibited positive 

parenting skills throughout the evaluation but that 

she had difficulty in getting the [C]hildren to comply 

with her directives. While Dr. O’Hara did not believe 

that termination of Mother’s parental rights was 

appropriate at that time, he believed that return of 

the [C]hildren would expose them to psychological 

instability, homelessness, and violence. Additionally, 

none of the [C]hildren were in long term placements 

at that time.

Dr. O’Hara conducted an individual and 

interactional evaluation of Father on June 8th, 

2015[Footnote 10], where Father reported to 

Dr. O’Hara that he had suffered multiple “nervous 
J. S31045/17

- 14 -

breakdowns”. [sic] He had admitted to a history of 

mental health issues even prior to meeting Mother. 

He also admitted to a history of abusing alcohol and 

marijuana and that he had used marijuana a few 

weeks prior to the evaluation. Father reported being 

arrested and jailed on 13 separate occasions based 

upon false allegations made by Mother. Father was 

unwilling to discuss many details about his 

relationship with Mother but alleged numerous 

threats made towards him by her. Additionally, 

Father revealed that Mother allegedly set his 

paramour’s home on fire in 2010. Father showed 

poor insight into Mother’s progress and told 

Dr. O’Hara that he believed that she was doing 

everything that she was supposed to do. At that 

time, Dr. O’Hara recommended that Father 

participate in dual diagnosis intensive outpatient 

treatment, obtain appropriate housing, undergo a 

psychiatric consultation, and attend parenting 

classes. Dr. O’Hara also conducted an interactional 

evaluation with Father and the [C]hildren on the 

same date. Dr. O’Hara noted that Father was 

appropriate and played well with the [C]hildren. 

C.P.W. often overly directed herself towards Father 

while J.W. and G.W. did not, which caused the 

Doctor to opine that the [C]hildren had an insecure 

attachment to Father.

[Footnote 10] Father had previously 

been scheduled to attend AFA 

evaluations five times but failed to 

appear.

The parties appeared on June 12th, 2015 and 

the hearing was continued so that the parties could 

review the aforementioned recommendations made 

by Dr. O’Hara.

In between hearings, a number of important 

medical and educational appointments were 

scheduled for the [C]hildren. A meeting for C.P.W., 

C.D.W., and G.W. was held at Matilda Theiss and 

Mother did not attend. As a result of Mother missing 

the meeting and not completing the paperwork, 
J. S31045/17

- 15 -

C.D.W. did not receive vital services. Father was 

cooperative during this time in signing paperwork for 

the [C]hildren’s educational needs. It was also 

reported to [CYF] during this time frame that Mother 

had come to Father’s place of employment and 

struck him in the head with a glass bottle. Father 

had to be hospitalized due to the seriousness of the 

injury. Mother was criminally charged for this 

assault but the charges were later dismissed because 

Father failed to appear at the Preliminary Hearing. A 

few weeks later, Father was also alleged to have 

threatened Mother with a gun. He was arrested and 

charged as a result of this incident. His charges 

were also dismissed after Mother failed to appear at 

his Preliminary Hearing. Mother was arrested and 

charged with Retail Theft on May 18th and May 22nd, 

2015. A Permanency Planning meeting was held in 

mid-July and Mother did attend. At this meeting, 

Mother threatened caseworker Taddy in front of 

several people. While discussing a goal change for 

the [C]hildren, Mother said “If you try to adopt my 

kids out, you will be sorry”. [sic] Mother alleged that 

the caseworker had informed the [Allegheny County] 

Housing Authority of the pending termination 

proceedings and that they had denied Mother the 

chance to obtain a suitable home for the [C]hildren. 

As a result of this particular incident, Ms. Taddy 

asked to be removed as the caseworker for the 

family. A new caseworker, Richard Mudd[,] was 

assigned to the case[Footnote 11].

[Footnote 11] Ms. Taddy remained on 

the case until October of 2015.

Parties appeared on July 24th, 2015 for a 

Permanency Review Hearing. Mother and Father 

attended and were represented by counsel. Mother’s 

progress was determined to be minimal as she only 

attended 60% or 70% of her scheduled mental 

health treatment appointments and anger 

management treatment. She missed a number of 

random urine screens during this time. She had also 

not been consistent with visits that occurred at the 

Arsenal Parenting Program with J.W..[sic] Mother 
J. S31045/17

- 16 -

attended approximately half of her visits with J.W., 

and as a result, her visits were reduced to once a 

week with him. She was more consistent with the 

visits for C.P.W., C.D.W., and G.W. which occurred 

twice a month. At the time of the hearing, Mother 

was in the process of being evicted again. The Court 

ordered Mother to continue domestic violence 

treatment, anger management classes, trauma 

therapy, mental health treatment, to obtain suitable 

housing, and to take random urine screes.[sic] 

Father was ordered to engage in dual diagnosis 

treatment[Footnote 12], attend parenting classes at 

Arsenal, attend domestic violence therapy, obtain 

housing, and comply with the AFA recommendations. 

Father’s progress was deemed to be minimal as he 

had not attended visits regularly and had not sought 

dual diagnosis treatment. Father was also in need of 

appropriate housing and requested assistance from 

the agency despite refusing to provide [CYF] with a 

current address. [CYF] was ordered to make an 

Urban League referral to assist Father in obtaining 

housing, provide transportation assistance for the 

parents, and to provide Father with notice of all 

upcoming medical appointments for his [C]hildren. 

The Court held that [CYF] made reasonable efforts to 

prevent or eliminate the need for removal or 

continued placement of the [C]hildren. The Court 

ordered that the [C]hildren remain in placement with 

continued permission to place. All of the foster 

parents were given secondary educational and 

medical decision making [sic] rights.

[Footnote 12] Father tested positive for 

THC at his screen on the day of this 

hearing.

The parties appeared on the 9th of October, 

2015 for a Permanency Review Hearing. The new 

[CYF] caseworker, Richard Mudd, began working 

exclusively with the family in October. Mother and 

Father both appeared and were represented by 

counsel. The Court ordered that the [C]hildren 

remain in placement and that all previously ordered 

services remain in effect. Mother and Father were 
J. S31045/17

- 17 -

ordered to continue to comply with their goals. The 

Court determined that Mother made minimal 

progress based upon her poor visitation, missed 

screens, lack of consistency with mental health 

treatment along with another pending eviction. 

During this period, Mother was arrested and charged 

with Retail Theft. Mother was also arrested and 

charged with Defiant Trespass, False Identification to 

Law Enforcement, and Disorderly Conduct. The 

more serious charges were withdrawn and Mother 

pled guilty to two counts [sic] Disorderly Conduct. 

The Court deemed Father’s progress to be minimal 

as he consistently failed to appear for drug screens 

and had not engaged in dual diagnosis 

treatment[Footnote 13]. Father had not been in 

contact with the caseworker during this reporting 

period but had been attending visits with the older 

children more regularly. Father was residing with his 

grandmother at the time of the hearing and was 

unable to care for the [C]hildren in that home. The 

Court found that [CYF] made reasonable efforts to 

prevent or eliminate the need for removal or 

continued placement of the [C]hildren. C.P.W., 

C.D.W., and G.W. were moved to a pre-adoptive 

foster home and their caregivers were given 

secondary Educational and Medical Decision-Making 

Rights. The CASA worker assigned to the case 

resigned, and the Program Supervisor, 

Danielle Morrison, assumed the case at the end of 

2015[Footnote 14].

[Footnote 13] Father reported that he 

continued to smoke marijuana.

[Footnote 14] CASA’s recommendations 

for the family remained fairly the same 

throughout the history of the case. 

Namely that parents comply with their 

goals and ensure that the [C]hildren’s 

medical and educational needs were 

being met.

A Permanency/Goal Change Hearing was held 

on January 5th, 2016. Mother and Father appeared 
J. S31045/17

- 18 -

and were represented by counsel. The Court 

ordered that all [C]hildren remain in their current 

placements. Mother was ordered to continue mental 

health treatment, obtain suitable housing, attend 

regular urine screens, attend visits, sign releases, 

finish parenting classes, and maintain contact with 

the domestic violence therapist. Father was ordered 

to undergo dual diagnosis treatment, obtain 

appropriate housing, and attend regular drug 

screens. Visits were to remain status quo. [CYF] 

was ordered to investigate Mother’s new residence. 

Both Mother and Father were deemed to be in 

minimal compliance. The Court found that [CYF] 

made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the 

need for removal or continued placement of the 

[C]hildren. The Goal Change Hearing was continued 

to coincide with the Termination Hearing. 

A Permanency Hearing was held on April 6th, 

2016. Mother and Father both attended and were 

represented by counsel. Mother’s health insurance 

lapsed in January of 2016 and she did not rectify the 

situation until shortly before this hearing. As such, 

she did not engage in mental health treatment

during this period. At the time of the hearing, it was 

reported to the Court that the younger children, 

particularly C.D.W. and G.W., were acting out 

sexually. The Court ordered that foster parents seek 

out an appropriate mental health service to address 

these concerns. The Court ordered that the 

[C]hildren remain in placement. Mother was ordered 

to maintain stable housing, undergo a POWER 

evaluation and follow any of their recommendations, 

continue treatment at Mercy, sign medical releases, 

and attend the [C]hildren’s medical appointments 

and AFA evaluations. Father was ordered to undergo 

a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow all 

recommendations, attend regular urine screens, sign 

releases, and attend the [C]hildren’s medical 

appointments. There was an ongoing need for both 

Mother and Father to receive sign language 

training[Footnote15]. The Court found both parents 

to be minimally complaint [sic] with their goals and 

that [CYF] had made reasonable efforts to prevent or 
J. S31045/17

- 19 -

eliminate the need for removal or continued 

placement of the [C]hildren.

[Footnote 15] C.P.W. was largely 

non-verbal at the time of the hearing. 

Foster parents had received training and 

were able to effectively communicate 

with her by using American Sign 

Language.

Petitions for Involuntary Termination of 

Parental Rights were again filed on behalf of C.P.W., 

C.D.W., G.W., and J.W. on April 13th, 2016.

Dr. O’Hara conducted his final individual 

evaluation of both Mother and Father in June of 2016 

as well as interactional evaluations with the parents 

and [C]hildren. Dr. O’Hara noted that Father 

externalized responsibility for the [C]hildren 

remaining in care. Dr. O’Hara was unable to 

evaluate Father’s paramour and had no information 

that Father’s household could appropriately meet the 

needs of the [C]hildren. Dr. O’Hara continued to 

have significant concerns about Father’s history of 

drug and alcohol abuse coupled with significant 

mental health concerns which had previously 

warranted a psychiatric hospitalization. In both 

evaluations, Father reported using marijuana when 

he felt overwhelmed. Dr. O’Hara reported that 

Father blamed his use on [CYF] and stated that “CYF 

was not doing what they were supposed to be 

doing....lt was so overwhelming...They want to 

overwhelm me”. [sic] It was his opinion that even if 

Father and his paramour had a safe and stable home 

with no history of domestic violence, he still could 

not recommend placing four young children into their 

care. It was Dr. O’Hara’s opinion that he could not 

recommend returning the [C]hildren to Father’s care 

as he had no evidence to demonstrate that Father 

would be able to handle such a huge commitment. 

Dr. O’Hara supported his claim by referencing 

Father’s lack of follow through with dual diagnosis 

treatment along with his paramour’s lack of 

participation in an evaluation. It was Dr. O’Hara’s 
J. S31045/17

- 20 -

belief that any parent caring for four young children, 

3 with special needs, would feel overwhelmed at 

times. More specifically, a parent who suffered from 

mental health issues would certainly be more 

inclined to feel overwhelmed.

In his evaluation of Mother, Dr. O’Hara 

reported that Mother appeared uncharacteristically 

lethargic. Mother denied being under the influence 

but her behavior was concerning enough that it was 

noted in Dr. O’Hara’s report. During the evaluation, 

Mother continued to externalized [sic] responsibility 

for the circumstances that caused the [C]hildren’s 

continued placement. Dr. O’Hara opined that return 

of the [C]hildren to Mother would place them at risk 

for exposure to substantial anger issues, criminal 

activity, homelessness, substance abuse, and 

aggression based upon her lack of progress in 

addressing her mental health and drug and alcohol 

goals.

Dr. O’Hara also conducted interactional and 

individual evaluations of the foster parents of C.P.W, 

C.D.W., and G.W. in which he concluded that they 

exhibited several positive parenting skills. The 

[C]hildren displayed several components of a secure 

attachment with their foster parents. Specifically, 

they “showed autonomy, spontaneously and 

frequently directed themselves to the [foster 

parents.”] These individual evaluations were 

conducted based upon concerns expressed by CASA 

Supervisor Danielle Morrison regarding the care of 

the [C]hildren. However, Dr. O’Hara had no 

concerns about the foster parent’s [sic] care of the 

[C]hildren. Additionally, he noted that “virtually all 

of the collateral resources that have worked with the 

[foster parents] have had no concerns about [their] 

care of the [C]hildren.”

Dr. O’Hara conducted an individual and 

interactional evaluation of J.W.’s foster Mother and 

observed her to display a number of positive 

parenting skills. J.W. displayed several components 

of secure attachment with his foster Mother as well.
J. S31045/17

- 21 -

Trial court opinion, 2/17/17 at 4-20 (some brackets in original).

On January 24, 2017, the trial court entered an order that involuntarily 

terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children. On February 7, 2017, 

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal to this court and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal, which she amended 

on February 16, 2017. On February 17, 2017, the trial court filed its 

Rule 1925(a) opinion.

On appeal, Mother raises the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a 

matter of law in concluding that termination of 

[Mother’s] parental rights would serve the needs and 

welfare of the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] 

§ 2511(b)?

Mother’s brief at 11.

In matters involving involuntary termination of parental rights, our 

standard of review is as follows:

The standard of review in termination of parental 

rights cases requires appellate courts “to accept the 

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the 

trial court if they are supported by the record.” 

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

2012). “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. 

“[A] decision may be reversed for an abuse of 

discretion only upon demonstration of manifest 

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or 

ill-will.” Id. The trial court’s decision, however, 

should not be reversed merely because the record 

would support a different result. Id. at 827. We 

have previously emphasized our deference to trial 
J. S31045/17

- 22 -

courts that often have first-hand observations of the 

parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re 

R.J.T., 9 A.3d [1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)].

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). “The trial court is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to 

make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence.” 

In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa.Super. 2004) (citation omitted). “[I]f 

competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if 

the record could also support the opposite result.” In re Adoption of 

T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

The termination of parental rights is guided by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated 

analysis of the grounds for termination followed by the needs and welfare of 

the child.

Our case law has made clear that under 

Section 2511, the court must engage in a bifurcated 

process prior to terminating parental rights. 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. One major aspect of the 

needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and 

status of the emotional bond between parent and 

child, with close attention paid to the effect on the 

child of permanently severing any such bond. 
J. S31045/17

- 23 -

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citations omitted). We 

have defined clear and convincing evidence as that which 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.” 

In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc), quoting 

Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998).

In this case, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8), as well as (b). We 

have long held that, in order to affirm a termination of parental rights, we 

need only agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of 

Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b). In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 

384 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc). As Mother does not raise a challenge to 

the trial court’s finding of grounds for termination under Section 2511(a) in 

the statement of questions involved section of her brief, Mother waives the 

issue on appeal. Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776, 797 

(Pa.Super. 2006) (reiterating that a failure to preserve issues by raising 

them both in the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and 

statement of questions involved portion of the brief on appeal results in a 

waiver of those issues). We, therefore, analyze the court’s termination 

pursuant to Section 2511(b) only, which provides as follows: 

(b) Other considerations.--The court in 

terminating the rights of a parent shall give 

primary consideration to the developmental, 
J. S31045/17

- 24 -

physical and emotional needs and welfare of 

the child. The rights of a parent shall not be 

terminated solely on the basis of 

environmental factors such as inadequate 

housing, furnishings, income, clothing and 

medical care if found to be beyond the control 

of the parent. With respect to any petition 

filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), 

the court shall not consider any efforts by the 

parent to remedy the conditions described 

therein which are first initiated subsequent to 

the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

With regard to Section 2511(b), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has 

stated as follows:

[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) 

are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to 

the developmental, physical and emotional needs 

and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 2511(b). 

The emotional needs and welfare of the child have 

been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles 

such as love, comfort, security, and stability.” In re 

K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa.Super. 2012). In In re 

E.M., 620 A.2d [481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], this Court 

held that the determination of the child’s “needs and 

welfare” requires consideration of the emotional 

bonds between the parent and child. The “utmost 

attention” should be paid to discerning the effect on 

the child of permanently severing the parental bond. 

In re K.M., 53 A.3d at 791. However, as discussed 

below, evaluation of a child’s bonds is not always an 

easy task.

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[I]n cases where there is no evidence of a 

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

exists. Accordingly, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily 

depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re Adoption of 
J. S31045/17

- 25 -

J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citations omitted). Additionally, 

when evaluating a parental bond, “the court is not required to use expert 

testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. 

Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation.” 

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super. 2010), citing In re K.K.R.-S., 

958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citations omitted).

Here, Mother contends that the trial court terminated her parental 

rights based on a faults-based analysis and that the trial court failed to 

sufficiently consider the negative effect termination could have on the 

Children. Mother offers only five sentences to support her contentions, as 

follows:

In defense of its termination orders, the trial 

court relied on [Mother’s] failure to meet her FSP 

and court ordered goals. The trial court noted “[t]he 

evidence presented demonstrates that the parents 

would not address their personal goals, let alone the 

needs of their children.” Further, citing the 

observations of Dr. O’Hara, the trial court discussed 

the differences in ability of the Children’s foster 

parents and [Mother]. Neither Dr. O’Hara nor the 

trial court addressed what effect termination of 

parental rights would have on the Children other 

than to suggest any potential negative effect would 

be outweighed by the benefits of their eventual 

adoptions. The trial court discounted Dr. O’Hara’s 

testimony that termination of [Mother’s] parental 

rights could have a negative effect on the Children as 

well as his opinion that maintaining the parent-child 

relationships through an open adoption arrangement 

was indicated. 
J. S31045/17

- 26 -

Mother’s brief at 19 (citations to trial court opinion and notes of testimony 

omitted).

Contrary to Mother’s contentions, in examining Section 2511(b) and 

finding sufficient grounds for termination, the trial court concluded:

When examining the bonds in this case, the 

interactional evaluations conducted by Dr. O’Hara 

were particularly telling. The [C]hildren were well 

behaved and played appropriately during the 

evaluations with their foster parents. The [C]hildren 

all sought out their foster parents throughout the 

evaluation and displayed several signs of a secure 

attachment with their respective foster parents. 

However, the children’s behaviors were markedly 

different in the evaluations with their biological 

parents. . . . During Mother’s interactional 

evaluation, an older child had to redirect G.W. and 

C.D.W. on numerous occasions. None of the 

children, C.D.W., G.W., or J.W., approached 

[M]other during the first half of the evaluation. The 

[C]hildren rarely responded to Mother’s directives. 

Dr. O’Hara attributed the [C]hildren’s behavior to the 

parent’s [sic] lack of consistency and contact with 

the [C]hildren through visitation. Additionally, 

Dr. O’Hara explained that these behaviors were likely 

caused by the [C]hildren’s feelings of anger and 

rejection towards their parents.

With respect to [Section] 2511(b), this Court 

has ample evidence to conclude that termination 

best suits the needs and welfare of these [C]hildren. 

Dr. O’Hara opined that the [C]hildren were in need of 

structure, stability and permanency and that he did 

not have sufficient evidence that Mother or Father 

were in a position to appropriately care for the 

[C]hildren. This Court finds that the benefits of 

adoption outweigh any potential detriment that 

accompanies termination of these parent’s [sic] 

rights. This Court concludes that the bonds between 

these children and their parents is not significant 

enough to disrupt the permanency that these 
J. S31045/17

- 27 -

[C]hildren have achieved in their respective foster 

homes. There is no doubt that these parents love 

and care for their [C]hildren but that alone is not 

enough to prevent the termination of parental rights. 

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 512 (Pa.Super. 2007). All 

four children are in homes that provide them with 

security, stability and safety. It is the opinion of this 

Court that [CYF] has proven by clear and convincing 

evidence that grounds for termination exist pursuant 

to [Section] 2511(a)(2)(5)(8) [sic] and that 

termination best suits the needs and welfare of these 

four [C]hildren.

Trial court opinion, 1/24/17 at 26-28.

The record supports the trial court’s factual findings, and the trial 

court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of 

discretion. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order with regard to 

Subsection (b).

As a final matter, Mother, in her reply brief, cites to our supreme 

court’s recent decision in In re L.B.M., 2017 Pa. LEXIS 680 (Pa. March 28, 

2017), wherein the court held that 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2313(a) requires the trial 

court to appoint counsel for a child in a TPR case and the failure to do so is 

structural and can never be harmless. In her reply brief, Mother posits that 

the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) in this case, Attorney Andrea Spurr from 

KidsVoice, at all times represented the children as GAL and not as appointed 

counsel. The only form of relief requested by Mother appears to be that the 

record should be made clear on this point. (Mother’s reply brief at 1.) In 

response to Mother’s reply brief, Attorney Spurr filed an Application for 
J. S31045/17

- 28 -

Correction requesting that we accept and insert her corrected cover sheet 

indicating that she represents the Children as GAL and not as legal counsel.

As a point of information, Justice Wecht’s opinion in L.B.M states that 

the trial court is required to appoint a separate, independent attorney to 

represent a child’s legal interests even when the child’s GAL, who is 

appointed to represent the child’s best interests, is an attorney. 

Justice Wecht would hold that the interests are distinct and require separate 

representation. While Justice Wecht, joined by Justices Donohue and 

Dougherty, sought to so hold, four members of the court, Chief Justice 

Saylor and Justices Baer, Todd, and Mundy disagreed in different concurring 

and dissenting opinions with that part of the lead opinion’s holding. 

Specifically, while the other justices agreed that the appointment of counsel 

for the child is required in all TPR cases and that the failure to do so by the 

trial court is a structural error, they did not join that part of Justice Wecht’s 

opinion which sought to hold that the GAL may never serve as counsel for 

the child. Rather, such separate representation would be required only if the 

best interests and legal interests were somehow in conflict.

In any event, Attorney Spurr’s request to correct her brief is denied. 

As our decision discusses, the Children’s best interests and legal interests 

were unquestionably well represented by Attorney Spurr in this case and 

such interests were never in conflict. 

Order affirmed. Application to correct denied.
J. S31045/17

- 29 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/15/2017