J-S35033-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: R.G.D., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 926 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 31, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-31-OC-01-2023

IN RE: B.C.D., A MINOR 

APPEAL OF J.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 927 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 31, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-31-OC-02-2023

IN RE: G.A.L.D., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 928 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered May 31, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-31-OC-03-2023
J-S35033-23

- 2 -

IN RE: R.W.D., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.G., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 929 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 31, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-31-OC-04-2023

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 20, 2023

J.G. (“Mother”) appeals from the May 31, 2023 decrees of the orphans’

court terminating her parental rights to her children, R.G.D., born in 2008,

B.C.D., born in 2011, G.A.L.D., born in 2015, and R.W.D., born in 2017

(collectively, “Children”). After careful review, we affirm the termination of 

Mother’s parental rights to Children.

Children first came to the attention of the Huntingdon County Children 

and Youth Services Agency (“Agency”) in March 2020 based upon concerns of 

drug use by Mother and Children’s father, R.W.D. II (“Father”), Mother and 

Father’s parenting abilities, and the general well-being of Children. The 

Agency also developed concerns related to domestic violence perpetrated by 

Mother against Father. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S35033-23

- 3 -

On July 12, 2021, the Agency filed applications for emergency protective 

custody of Children citing Father’s report that Mother drove under the 

influence of alcohol with Father and three of the Children in the vehicle and 

that Mother also punched Father in the face.1 The applications were denied, 

but the orphans’ court ordered Mother to be removed from the family home. 

On August 4, 2021, the Agency filed further applications for emergency 

protective custody after witnessing Mother’s vehicle parked in the driveway of 

the family home. Additionally, in early August 2021, Father threatened an 

Agency employee regarding the potential removal of Children from the home

and he was found to be in possession of drugs upon his arrest for the threats. 

The applications for emergency protective custody were granted on 

August 4, 2021. Children entered foster care on that date, and they were 

placed in their current foster home in December 2021. On August 13, 2021, 

Children were adjudicated as dependent. As part of the adjudication orders, 

Mother was ordered to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, with failure 

to submit a sample being considered a positive result, complete drug and 

alcohol counseling, and complete an Agency approved parenting program. 

Adjudication Orders, 8/13/21, at 3-4. The permanency plans established by 

the Agency required, inter alia, Mother to complete couples counseling with 

Father. See, e.g., Permanency Plan (CP-31-DP-0000028-2021), 7/26/23, at 

____________________________________________

1 The records in the dependency matters were incorporated into the records 

in the instant termination proceedings. N.T., 4/6/23, at 2.
J-S35033-23

- 4 -

16. The orphans’ court also ordered Mother to participate in an “approved 

parenting assessment.” Permanency Review Orders, 8/26/22, at 6.

The Agency filed the petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s 

parental rights on January 4, 2023.2 A hearing on the termination petitions 

was held on April 6, 2023, at which the Agency presented its case in full. After 

the hearing, Mother initially agreed to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights 

to Children; however, she revoked her relinquishment several days later in a 

letter sent to the orphans’ court.3 See Letter, filed 4/27/23. Thereafter, the 

case proceeded to a second hearing on May 3, 2023, at which Mother testified. 

On May 31, 2023, the orphans’ court issued decrees involuntarily terminating 

Mother’s parental rights to Children pursuant to Section 2511(a)(8) and (b) of 

the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b). Mother filed timely notices of 

appeal of the decrees at each lower court docket.

4

 The appeals were then 

consolidated by this Court sua sponte. 

____________________________________________

2 The orphans’ court appointed legal interests counsel, as well as a separate

guardian ad litem, to represent Children in the termination proceedings. See 

In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1235 (Pa. 2020) (holding that 

appellate courts should engage in sua sponte review to determine if orphans’

court appointed legal interest counsel to represent children in contested 

termination proceedings).

3 On April 11, 2023, after a separate hearing, Father filed petitions to 

voluntarily relinquish his parental rights to Children, which the orphans’ court 

approved in decrees entered the following day. 

4 Mother filed concise statements of errors complained of on appeal 

contemporaneously with her notices of appeal, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a)(2)(i). On July 10, 2023, the orphans’ court issued a statement 

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), indicating that it was relying on its earlier May 

31, 2023 opinion.
J-S35033-23

- 5 -

On appeal, Mother argues that the Agency did not prove that the 

conditions which led to Children’s removal and placement in foster care 

continued to exist, as required by Section 2511(a)(8). Mother argues that, 

while she has an extensive history of drug abuse that led to Children’s 

removal, her last positive drug test was on May 2, 2022. Mother asserts that

she completed drug treatment in June 2022 and her only positive tests after 

that date were for buprenorphine and benzodiazepine, which she was 

prescribed. Mother contends that the orphans’ court overlooked her 

completion of drug treatment and sobriety, which “show[s that] she is able to 

remedy the conditions which led to the initial placement of [C]hildren and that 

this drug use issue no longer exists.” Mother’s Brief at 14-15. 

Mother maintains that, contrary to the concerns raised by the 

caseworker at the hearing, she has retained stability since completing the drug 

treatment program as she is now not using drugs and is living with her 

grandmother. She also observes that the pending criminal charges that were 

discussed at the hearing5 all pertain to events that occurred prior to the 

removal of Children and thus predate her recent efforts to address the factors 

that led to the removal. Mother further notes that she completed one of the 

____________________________________________

5

In November 2022, Mother was charged with endangering the welfare of 

children, corruption of minors, recklessly endangering another person, and 

furnishing drug-free urine related to events that occurred between May 1, 

2018 and August 3, 2021. N.T., 4/6/23, at 37, 41-42. Children are the victims 

of at least the endangering the welfare of children charges. Id. at 42. Mother

was briefly incarcerated following her arrest. Id. at 31; N.T., 5/3/23, at 6.
J-S35033-23

- 6 -

programs required of her by the Agency and she was not afforded an 

opportunity to restart other programs, including a parenting program, after 

she obtained sobriety.

We conclude that Mother has waived her sole appellate issue as a result 

of her failure to include the issue in her Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925 

concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement . . . are waived.”); In 

re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 466 (Pa. Super. 2017) (noting, in the context 

of appeal from the termination of parental rights, that waiver for failure to 

include an issue in a concise statement “is mandatory, and this Court may not 

craft ad hoc exceptions or engage in selective enforcement”). Mother’s 

concise statements, which were filed at each lower court docket, state as their 

sole issue: “Did the trial court abuse its discretion and fail to consider the best 

interests of the child by terminating the parental rights of the Mother?” 

Concise Statements, 6/30/23, ¶1. Mother does not mention in her concise

statements the question of whether the Agency met its burden of proof to 

show that the “conditions which led to the removal or placement of 

[C]hild[ren] continue to exist,” the issue she challenges on appeal. 23 Pa.C.S. 

§ 2511(a)(8). Instead, the issue Mother preserved in her concise statements 

relating to the orphans’ court’s consideration of the “best interests” of Children 

relates to the separate consideration under Section 2511(a)(8) of whether

“termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the 

child,” id., and the required analysis under Section 2511(b) of whether 
J-S35033-23

- 7 -

termination serves the “developmental, physical and emotional needs and 

welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Mother does not present a “needs 

and welfare” argument in her brief.6 As the sole issue that Mother argues in 

her brief was not included in her concise statements, her issue is waived on 

appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d at 466.

Nevertheless, we find that, even if Mother had preserved her appellate 

challenge to the issue of whether the conditions which led to the removal or 

placement of Children continued to exist as of the date of filing of the 

termination petition, this issue lacks merit. Our review is governed by the

following precepts:

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. If the factual findings are supported, appellate 

courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law 

or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse 

of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest 

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial 

court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because 

the record would support a different result. We have previously 

emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand 

observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.

____________________________________________

6 The statement of questions portion of Mother’s brief also only indicates that 

she challenges the orphans’ court failure to consider whether termination 

served the “best interests” of Children. Mother’s Brief at 5. While an issue 

not set forth in the statement of questions is generally deemed waived, 

Mother’s brief otherwise clearly indicates the issue she in fact sought to raise, 

and therefore we do not find waiver on this ground. Werner v. Werner, 149 

A.3d 338, 341 (Pa. Super. 2016).
J-S35033-23

- 8 -

In re J.R.R., 229 A.3d 8, 11 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quoting In re T.S.M., 71 

A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013)). The petitioner bears the burden of proving 

grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, 

which 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.” In re L.W., 267 A.3d 517, 522 (Pa. 

Super. 2021) (citation omitted).

Pursuant to Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, the orphans’ court must 

find that petitioner established grounds for termination of parental rights 

under one of the eleven enumerated grounds set forth in subsection (a) and 

the court must then proceed to assess the petition under subsection (b), which 

focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 

343, 359 (Pa. 2021). Here, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental 

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

follows:

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

be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following 

grounds:

* * *

(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.

* * *
J-S35033-23

- 9 -

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

of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, 

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights 

of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of 

environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, 

income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the 

control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant 

to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any 

efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein 

which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the 

filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b).

In order to satisfy Section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner must prove that: 

(1) the child has been removed from the parent’s care for at least 12 months; 

(2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement still exist; and (3) 

that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of 

the child.7 In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 943 (Pa. Super. 2018). 

Termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(8) does not require an evaluation of 

a parent’s willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the 

removal or placement of the child. Id.; In re Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d 

434, 446 (Pa. Super. 2017). Rather, the relevant inquiry is focused upon 

whether the at-issue conditions have been “remedied” such that “reunification 

of parent and child is imminent at the time of the hearing.” In re I.J., 972 

____________________________________________

7 There is no dispute that the Agency satisfied the first element of Section 

2511(a)(8), that Children were removed from Mother’s care for more than 12 

months as of the date of the filing of the termination petition. 23 Pa.C.S. § 

2511(a)(8). As discussed infra, we conclude that the Agency met its burden 

of proof as to the third element of subsection (a)(8) and under subsection (b). 

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b). 
J-S35033-23

- 10 -

A.2d 5, 11 (Pa. Super. 2009). The lower court may not give any consideration 

to efforts to remedy the conditions that gave rise to removal or placement 

that were initiated after the filing of the termination petition. 23 Pa.C.S. § 

2511(b).

This Court has acknowledged:

[T]he application of Section (a)(8) may seem harsh when the 

parent has begun to make progress toward resolving the problems 

that had led to removal of her children. By allowing for 

termination when the conditions that led to removal continue to 

exist after a year, the statute implicitly recognizes that a child’s 

life cannot be held in abeyance while the parent is unable to 

perform the actions necessary to assume parenting 

responsibilities. This Court cannot and will not subordinate 

indefinitely a child’s need for permanence and stability to a 

parent’s claims of progress and hope for the future. Indeed, we 

work under statutory and case law that contemplates only a short 

period of time, to wit eighteen months, in which to complete the 

process of either reunification or adoption for a child who has been 

placed in foster care.

I.J., 972 A.2d at 11-12 (emphasis and internal citations omitted).

Christi Shawley, an Agency caseworker, testified at the April 6, 2023 

hearing regarding the Agency’s concerns with Mother dating back to the

Agency’s first involvement with the family in March 2020, as well as the goals 

and services that were required of Mother for reunification with Children after 

their removal in August 2021. Shawley stated that the Agency’s concerns for

Mother were her “[d]rug use, lack of completion and cooperation with courtordered services[,] and lack of stability.” N.T., 4/6/23, at 25. With respect 

to Mother’s drug use, Shawley stated that there were 33 completed or 

attempted drug tests of Mother, with 9 positive tests for illegal substances, 16 
J-S35033-23

- 11 -

positive tests for only prescription drugs, 1 negative test, and 7 attempted

tests when Mother was not home. Id. at 25-26. The 9 positive tests for illegal 

substances stretched from March 2021 to June 2022, and included such 

substances as alcohol, methamphetamines, fentanyl, and ecstasy. Id. at 26-

30, 43. Mother also tested positive for buprenorphine and benzodiazepine, 

which she claimed to have been prescribed, although the Agency never 

received confirmation of her prescriptions. Id. at 29-31. 

Shawley next testified as to Mother’s failure to complete court-ordered 

services. Mother was scheduled for biweekly, supervised visits with Children, 

although her participation was inconsistent due to periods of incarceration and 

Mother’s use of unprescribed drugs, with a positive result resulting in the 

cancelation of visits. Id. at 34-35. Mother also canceled on several occasions 

based upon lack of transportation, despite the fact that the Agency always 

provides transportation if sufficient notice is given. Id. at 35-36. Shawley 

described rule violations by Mother “at almost every single visit,” including 

Mother inviting unannounced guests, talking to Children about the foster 

home, and whispering to Children during visits. Id. at 36. Mother was never 

able to proceed to unsupervised visits, and visitation was finally suspended in 

August 2022 at the request of Children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) due to 

emotional distress and other behavioral concerns around the time of the visits. 

Id. at 35, 47. Children’s issues related to the visits included over or under 

eating, clingy behavior, anxiety, R.G.D. shutting herself in her room and 

refusing to attend the visits, and B.C.D. having nightmares. Id. at 48. At the 
J-S35033-23

- 12 -

visits, Mother “struggled” to control Children, while R.G.D. was “very 

parentified” and would take over the role of disciplining the younger Children 

in place of Mother. Id. at 48-49.

Shawley testified that Mother failed to complete the required drug and 

alcohol assessment; she completed an initial intake but was then discharged 

on March 11, 2022. Id. at 31-32. Shawley stated that Mother completed a 

second intake on June 8, 2022 and a closing notice was then sent on 

November 23, 2022 due to lack of participation. Id. According to Shawley, 

Mother told her that “she didn’t need” drug and alcohol counseling. Id. at 47; 

see also N.T., 5/3/23, at 11 (Mother confirming that she refused to 

participate in drug and alcohol counseling when requested to do so in August 

2022). Shawley explained that Mother also failed to complete the required 

Proud to be a Parent program8 and Mother and Father also failed to engage in 

couples counseling that was recommended based on their history of domestic 

violence. N.T., 4/6/23, at 31, 46. Shawley stated that Mother also failed to 

fulfill the Agency’s reunification goal that she complete an attachment and 

bonding assessment, despite Shawley reminding Mother about this goal and 

providing Mother with the counselor’s contact information on several 

____________________________________________

8 Tammy Lucas, an educator with the Proud to be a Parent program, testified 

that it was “very difficult” to schedule Mother to attend sessions despite 

multiple voicemail messages that were left for her. N.T., 4/6/23, at 19-20. 

Mother eventually began the program in January 2022, completing 8 of 13 

scheduled sessions, with 4 cancellations by Mother. Id. at 20-22. Ultimately, 

after Mother did not respond to an interest letter Lucas sent, Lucas closed 

Mother out of the Proud to be a Parent program on April 12, 2022. Id.
J-S35033-23

- 13 -

occasions.9 Id. at 32-33. Mother did, however, complete the Hope parenting 

program in September 2022 after a “struggle” with attendance. Id. at 31. 

Upon careful review of the record, it is clear that there was competent 

evidence before the trial court to show, under the heightened standard of 

proof applicable in termination of parental rights cases, that the conditions 

which led to the removal of Children and their placement into foster care still 

existed as of the date of the filing of the termination petition. While Mother

did attain sobriety by June 2022, this does not compensate for her numerous 

other failings to address the conditions that led to Children’s removal. Mother 

did not submit to court-ordered drug and alcohol counseling—even though she 

was provided an opportunity to do so after becoming sober—as she felt she 

“didn’t need” the program. Id. at 47. Mother also failed to engage in couples 

counseling, participate in the attachment and bonding assessment, or

____________________________________________

9 Maddie Sell, the counselor who was retained to complete the attachment and 

bonding assessment, testified that she had to reach out multiple times to 

Mother in August and September of 2022 to schedule an appointment for the

assessment and eventually was able to schedule a session for September 30, 

2022. N.T., 4/6/23, at 2-4. However, on the morning of the assessment, 

Mother decided not to attend the appointment when Sell did not immediately 

respond to Mother’s voicemail. Id. at 4. Sell made three additional attempts 

to reschedule with Mother, without success. Id. at 4, 16-17. Ultimately, after 

the termination petition was filed on January 4, 2023, Sell reached back out 

to Mother “as a courtesy,” and Mother then agreed to two meetings with Sell. 

Id. at 4-5; see also N.T., 5/3/23, at 9 (Mother agreeing that she did not meet 

with Sell until January 2023). However, Sell could not fully complete the 

assessment of Mother because Mother did not submit to an adult attachment 

interview. N.T., 4/6/23, at 5-6.
J-S35033-23

- 14 -

complete both of the required parenting programs.

10

 Mother further struggled 

with visitation of Children as she missed many visits due to unprescribed drug 

use, she failed to follow the rules on multiple occasions, and the visits were 

ultimately suspended due to emotional distress of Children. We additionally 

note that, while Mother argues on appeal that she has achieved stability in 

her home life, this was contradicted by testimony of the caseworker that she 

did not have a consistent home over the 15 months between the removal of 

Children and the termination hearings “because it was back and forth between 

staying with [Father] and staying with” Mother’s grandmother. Id. at 46-47. 

Accordingly, we conclude that Mother’s challenge to the orphans’ court 

finding that the Agency met its burden under Section 2511(a)(8) warrants no 

relief. Although we acknowledge the commendable progress Mother by 

achieving the goal of sobriety, the orphans’ court was not required to hold 

Children’s lives “in abeyance” and sacrifice their “need for permanence and 

stability” while waiting for Mother to alleviate all the conditions that led to 

Children’s removal and placement in foster care. I.J., 972 A.2d at 11-12 

(citations omitted).

Finally, we note that, although Mother does not raise a challenge to this 

issue in her brief, the Agency met its burden under Section 2511(a)(8) and 

____________________________________________

10 While the record demonstrates that Mother took steps to participate in the 

attachment and bonding assessment and to engage in drug and alcohol 

counseling after the termination petition was filed, the Adoption Act forecloses 

our consideration of such efforts. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).
J-S35033-23

- 15 -

Section 2511(b) by presenting clear and convincing evidence that termination 

of Mother’s parental rights best served the needs and welfare of Children. 23 

Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b); see also In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 

1009 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (addressing lower court’s needs and welfare 

analysis finding even where not expressly challenged by parent). Pursuant to 

Section 2511(a)(8), the orphans’ court must find that “termination of parental 

rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 

2511(a)(8). As we have explained, 

while both Section 2511(a)(8) and Section 2511(b) direct us to 

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

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

addressing the “needs and welfare” of [the child], as pr[e]scribed 

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

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

C.L.G., 956 A.2d at 1009. 

Under Section 2511(b), the orphans’ court must “give primary 

consideration to the development, physical and emotional needs and welfare 

of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). “The emotional needs and welfare of the 

child have been properly interpreted to include intangibles such as love, 

comfort, security, and stability.” T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); see also In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 

1106 (Pa. 2023). The Section 2511(b) analysis is focused on the needs and 

welfare of the child over the concerns of the parent, and each child’s particular 

developmental, physical, and emotional needs must be assessed on a caseby-case basis. K.T., 296 A.3d at 1105; In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 
J-S35033-23

- 16 -

580, 593 (Pa. 2021). The lower court must consider “the emotional bonds 

between the parent and child,” with the threshold for the bond inquiry being

whether termination will sever a “necessary and beneficial relationship,” such 

that the child could suffer “extreme emotional consequences” or “significant, 

irreparable harm.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1109-10 (citation omitted); T.S.M., 71 

A.3d at 267. A court engaging in a Subsection 2511(b) inquiry must also 

consider, as appropriate, the child’s need for permanency and length of time 

in foster care; the child’s placement in a pre-adoptive home and whether there 

is a bond with the foster parents; and whether the foster home meets the 

child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs. K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113. 

The testimony presented by the Agency at the April 6, 2023 hearing 

demonstrated that Children had little, if any, bond with Mother; that any harm 

caused by severance of what bond exists between Mother and Children would 

be offset by the strong bond that Children had with the foster parents who 

supported their developmental, physical, and emotional needs; and that 

Children expressed a preference to not be returned to Mother’s care. Maddie 

Sell, a counselor who was accepted by the lower court as an expert in child 

attachment and bonding, testified that there was “chronic and severe 

attachment disruption” between Mother and Children based upon Mother’s 

avoidant attachment parenting style as well as her drug use and that “the 

parents have disengaged from [C]hildren . . . and then in turn [C]hildren have 

disengaged from them.” N.T., 4/6/23, at 7-8. When asked whether there 

was a bond between Mother and Children, Sell responded that she did not 
J-S35033-23

- 17 -

believe a bond existed. Id. at 8. She stated that severing what little bond 

does exist would “certainly” have an “impact” because Children have 

experienced “a significant level of traumatic stress” from their upbringing but 

that impact would be “mitigated if [Children] were in an . . . environment that 

fostered [a] healthy secure attachment.” Id. 

Sell, who observed Children with the foster family, believed that 

Children’s relationship with their foster parents was healthy and secure. Id.

at 9-10. She noted that Children were “very excited to tell [her]” about the 

activities they were engaged in at their foster home. Id. at 10. Sell stated 

that all of the Children were aware that the attachment with their natural 

parents had been “severed.” Id. at 8-9. R.G.D., the eldest, stated that she 

thinks termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights is “a good thing” and 

that the foster parents were able to provide Children with the stability and 

structure that their natural parents could not. Id. at 15-16. The next eldest, 

B.C.D., also expressed to Sell a preference to stay with the foster parents. 

Id. at 16.

Shawley, the Agency caseworker, testified that she observes Children in 

the foster home at least once per month and that they have “natural” and 

“positive” relationships with their foster parents. Id. at 37-39, 45. The foster 

parents are attentive to Children’s emotional needs and involve Children in 

various activities, such as wrestling, T-ball, cheerleading, and Boy Scouts. Id.

at 39-40. Shawley has spoken with each of the four Children and confirmed 

that they “wish to stay where they’re at” and that their relationship with the 
J-S35033-23

- 18 -

foster parents is safe and stable. Id. at 39, 45, 49. According to Shawley, 

R.G.D. enjoys having freedom from acting in a parental role towards her 

younger siblings, as well as the opportunity to have a part-time job at a pizza 

parlor. Id. at 40, 49.

R.G.D. and B.C.D. expressed to Shawley that “the things that they were 

going through prior to placement were not okay and they did not feel safe and 

they don’t ever want to live through that again.” Id. at 45. Shawley further 

stated that Children have not expressed a desire to have contact with either 

Mother or Father, they do not miss their natural parents, and “even when they 

were first placed with the [foster parents], [Children] only ever asked about” 

Father. Id. at 45-46. R.G.D. stated to Shawley that “she’s never had any

type of relationship with” Mother. Id. at 46.

Children’s GAL informed the orphans’ court at the May 3, 2023 hearing

that Children are flourishing in their foster home, highlighting the 

improvement of Children in that home, including that G.A.L.D. no longer 

requires an individualized education program. N.T., 5/3/23, at 13. The GAL 

stated that Children have a bond with their current foster family, and they do 

not want to return to living with their natural parents. Id. The GAL opined 

that it is in the best interest of Children that Mother’s parental rights be 

terminated. Id. Children’s legal counsel indicated to the court that he spoke 

with each of the four Children and that “their desire [is] to stay where they 

are, to not be reunited with” Mother. Id. at 14. Counsel further stated that 

Children are “well bonded with the foster parents.” Id.
J-S35033-23

- 19 -

Therefore, the evidence additionally supports the orphans’ court’s 

finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children best served 

their needs and welfare under Section 2511(a)(8) and (b). As Mother has 

demonstrated no basis for overturning the appealed-from termination, we 

affirm the orphans’ court’s May 31, 2023 decrees. 

Decrees affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/20/2023