J-A29038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: G.M., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: R.M., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 775 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County

Orphans’ Court at No. OC 63-22-1368

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: January 4, 2024

R.M. (Father) appeals from the order granting the petition of the 

Washington County Office of Children & Youth (the Agency), and terminating 

Father’s parental rights to G.M. (Child).1 We affirm.2

CASE HISTORY

Child was born in January 2021. The orphans’ court explained:

While [the Agency had] previous contact and involvement 

with [Mother and Father (Parents)], the actions relevant to the 

present [termination] petition were initiated by the Agency when 

Mother gave birth to [Child] .... At the time of [Child’s] birth, 

Mother and [Child] tested positive for Buprenorphine, 

Amphetamines, Methamphetamines and Cocaine.

____________________________________________

1 The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of A.S. (Mother). 

Mother’s appeals are before this panel at 772 & 773 WDA 2023.

2 We note with displeasure that neither Father’s counsel nor Child’s guardian 

ad litem appeared before this Court for oral argument. 
J-A29038-23

- 2 -

On February 6, 2021, [Child] was discharged to the care of 

Mother and Father. Thereafter, the Agency attempted to contact 

Parents and access the home from February 6, 2021, through June 

22, 2021. During this time, the Agency received additional 

information alleging parental substance abuse .... The Agency 

asserts that [it] attempted to make contact ... nineteen (19) times 

through home visits, telephone calls and text messages. In 

addition, the Agency alleges that after a multitude of failed 

attempts to reach the family, the Agency hired a private 

investigator. The Agency further asserts that on June 21, 2021, 

they learned ... [Child] had not been seen by a pediatrician since 

February 23, 2021 ... and the family was non-compliant with 

services through Pressley Ridge and Southwestern Pennsylvania 

Human Services, Inc. (SPHS). On the same date, Mother and 

Father were determined to be in their home and refusing entry by 

police, [Agency] representatives, and SPHS housing 

representatives for several hours. As a result and in response to 

Parents’ continued substance abuse, medical neglect of [Child], 

and lack of cooperation, the Agency sought and received a verbal 

shelter order.

A shelter hearing was held on June 25, 2021, and ... the 

Hearing Officer [] ordered [Child] returned to the home .... The 

family was referred for services through Justice Works Youth Care 

(JWYC) and STOPP services were implemented on the same date.

[T]hrough July 1, 2021, the Agency made seven (7) 

unsuccessful attempts to “contact and engage” the Parents. On 

July 2, 2021, an adjudication hearing was held and [Child was]

adjudicated dependent and removed from the home of Parents. 

The [court] found safety concerns in the home as a result of 

parents’ continued refusal of services and grounded the finding of 

dependency on Child [] being without “proper care or control, 

subsistence, education, as required by law, or other care or 

control necessary for [his] physical, mental, or emotional health, 

or morals.”

The Adjudication Order granted Mother and Father 

supervised visitation three (3) times a week for two (2) hours per 

visit and placed Child[] in Kinship Foster Placement.

***

As to Father, the Order of Adjudication required Father:
J-A29038-23

- 3 -

• Complete a drug and alcohol assessment and 

follow all recommendations;

• Submit to random drug and alcohol testing a 

minimum of twice per month and at the discretion 

of the Agency;

• Complete a psychological and interactional 

evaluation, and follow treatment

recommendations;

• Complete parenting education and follow all 

recommendations, including a curriculum 

involving substance abuse on parenting and 

protective capacity;

• Live a clean and sober lifestyle;

• Obtain and maintain sobriety; and

• Maintain safe and stable housing appropriate for 

reunification.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/4/23, at 2-4 (footnote omitted).

A permanency review hearing was scheduled for November 23, 2021, 

but postponed after Mother was injured in a car accident. Id. at 5. The 

dependency court held the review hearing on January 11, 2022. The court 

found Father had “minimal compliance and no progress with the [c]ourtordered permanency plan.” Id. at 5. The court conducted another review 

hearing on May 17, 2022, when Father “was incarcerated, following a domestic 

violence incident with Mother[,] and [Father’s] progress and compliance were 

found not applicable.” Id. at 7.
J-A29038-23

- 4 -

The Agency’s forensic psychologist, Dr. Neil Rosenblum, initially 

evaluated Father, Mother, and Child in August 2021. Dr. Rosenblum 

conducted a second evaluation in August 2022, which included Child’s foster 

parents. Shortly thereafter, on September 8, 2022, the Agency petitioned to 

terminate Father’s parental rights. A previously scheduled dependency review 

hearing was held five days later, on September 13, 2022, when Father “was 

deemed to have no compliance and no progress.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

8/4/23, at 7.

Termination Action

The orphans’ court conducted four days of hearing on December 8, 

2022, and January 11, January 25, and March 3, 2023. The court heard 

testimony from more than 10 witnesses, including Dr. Rosenblum; three 

Agency caseworkers; three family service providers; a police officer; Father; 

Mother; maternal grandmother; and Child’s foster mother.

On June 1, 2023, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights. 

Father filed a timely notice of appeal and Pa.R.A.P. 1925 concise statement.

ISSUES

Father presents four questions for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in terminating [Father’s] parental 

rights?

2. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing Father’s counsel 

the latitude to question Mother while taking her testimony?

3. Whether the trial court erred in not giving the appropriate 

weight to the fact that the [Agency] did not offer the appropriate 
J-A29038-23

- 5 -

services necessary for reunification (domestic violence 

counseling)?

4. Whether the trial court erred in its analysis of the bond between 

[Father] and [C]hild pursuant to § 2511(b)?

Father’s Brief at 2.

3

DISCUSSION

We consider Father’s issues mindful that this Court’s review

is limited to a determination of whether the decree of the 

termination court is supported by competent evidence. When 

applying this standard, the appellate court must accept the 

orphans’ court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations if 

they are supported by the record. Where the orphans’ court’s 

factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court 

may not disturb the orphans’ court’s ruling unless it has discerned 

an error of law or abuse of discretion.

An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the 

reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the 

facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court 

may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration 

of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or illwill. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial 

courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple 

hearings.

In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, the orphans’ 

court must balance the parent’s fundamental right to make 

decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her 

child with the child’s essential needs for a parent’s care, 

protection, and support. Termination of parental rights has 

significant and permanent consequences for both the parent and 

child. As such, the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving 

party to establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing 

evidence, which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and 

____________________________________________

3 Although Father and Mother have appealed separately with separate counsel, 

they raise identical issues.
J-A29038-23

- 6 -

convincing as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, 

without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 829-30 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted).

Termination of parental rights is governed the Adoption Act, which 

provides for a bifurcated analysis. First, the orphans’ court “must focus on 

the parent’s conduct” relative to the “eleven enumerated grounds” for 

termination set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)-(11). Id. at 830. If the 

court finds grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it must assess the 

evidence relative to the child’s needs and welfare under Section 2511(b), 

“giving primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional 

needs and welfare of the child.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). 

This Court need only agree with the orphans’ court as to “any one subsection 

of [Section] 2511(a), in addition to [Section] 2511(b), in order to affirm the 

termination of parental rights.” Id.

Father’s Argument

Father describes his issues as “general,” and states that three of his 

issues “pertain to § 2511(a), and one ... pertains to § 2511(b).” Father’s Brief 

at 10. Father’s argument does not comply with Rule 2119(a), which requires 

the argument “be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be 

argued; and shall have at the head of each part — in distinctive type or in 

type distinctively displayed — the particular point to be treated therein[.]” 

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see Father’s Brief at 16-25 (dividing argument into eight 
J-A29038-23

- 7 -

distinctive alphabetical sections, A - H, in excess of the four numbered issues

presented in his statement of questions). We address Father’s issues as

presented in his statement of questions.

1. Whether the trial court erred in terminating [Father’s] parental 

rights?

This issue concerns Agency caseworker, Jennifer Mengle. Ms. Mengle 

testified at the first day of hearing, but did not complete her testimony. Father

claims the orphans’ court impermissibly shifted the burden to Parents to 

subpoena Ms. Mengle to complete her testimony. Father’s Brief at 16.

Ms. Mengle was the family’s caseworker. N.T., 12/8/22, at 61. She

testified that Child was two years old. Id. at 63. Ms. Mengle stated that Child 

did not have “special medical conditions,” although he “received occupational 

and physical therapy services ... because he was walking on his toes.” Id.

Ms. Mengle confirmed that Child was adjudicated dependent on July 2, 2021, 

and placed in his current foster home in November 2021. Id. at 64-65. At 

this point, the orphans’ court stopped Ms. Mengle’s testimony because the 

court learned Ms. Mengle was not feeling well.4 Id. at 65.

In January 2023, Ms. Mengle was no longer working at the Agency. The 

orphans’ court later explained, “Inasmuch as Caseworker Jennifer Mengle was 

no longer employed with [the Agency], her Casework Manager[, Kristin 

____________________________________________

4 The orphans’ court stated, “I’m sorry. Unfortunately, a lot of people are 

feeling really ill today. She’s not the only one.” N.T., 12/8/22, at 66.
J-A29038-23

- 8 -

Young,] provided testimony for the Agency.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/4/23, 

at 17.

Father argues,

[w]ithout Caseworker Mengle’s testimony, the trial court was not 

able to give appropriate consideration and weight to Ms. Mengle’s 

alleged bias against [Father] and any implications for reasonable 

efforts made (or not made) towards reunification.

Father’s Brief at 18.

The record belies Father’s argument. Our review reveals no error, 

particularly in the context of the record as a whole. The orphans’ court held 

four days of hearing and heard testimony from numerous witnesses. In 

explaining its decision to terminate Father’s parental rights, the orphans’ court 

recounted each witness’s testimony and concluded that the Agency presented 

clear and convincing evidence in support of termination. See, e.g., Orphans’ 

Court Opinion, 8/4/23, at 29-37 (finding grounds for termination under 23 Pa. 

C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (8)5); see also id. at 9-28 (detailing witness 

testimony).

The court specified:

Child has been out of care near[ly] his entire life, since five (5) 

months of age. During this time, the various needs of the Child[]

were met by [] caregivers, not [Father]. ... Father profess[es]

taking extraordinary steps for Child, however the history of the 

compliance and progress of [Father] paints a different story. 

While at the time of the [termination] hearing, ... Father []

completed a significant portion of services, by [his] own 

____________________________________________

5 We reiterate that this Court need only agree with the orphans’ court as to 

any one subsection of Section 2511(a). In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. 
J-A29038-23

- 9 -

testimony, [he] waited until Child[ was] in placement for thirteen 

(13) months before initiating any [c]ourt-ordered services, most 

of which were initiated after the filing of the [termination petition] 

and after Child[] had spent significant time in care developing 

strong, consistent and reliable bonds with the Foster Family. 

While [Father] waited to participate in services, succumbed to 

barriers for completion, engaged in criminal activity and delayed 

steps to achieve positive mental health and sobriety, Child[ was]

being cared for by others. ... [A]t the time of the filing of the 

Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, it is unrefuted that 

[Father] failed to engage in the most essential [c]ourt-ordered 

services.

***

... [Father’s] participation occurred upon his release from 

incarceration and probation/parole. ... Accordingly, in considering 

whether [] Father took every action necessary to maintain a place 

of importance in the life of [Child], this [c]ourt is of the opinion 

that [he] did not. ... [T]his [c]ourt is also of the opinion that

[Father] cannot remedy the conditions and causes of incapacity 

that have caused [Child] to be without parental care, control or 

subsistence necessary for [Child’s] physical and mental wellbeing. 

[Father’s] progress [has been] minimal. Dr. Rosenblum opined 

that [Father has] a long road ahead ....

Id. at 32-33. 

The orphans’ court did not shift the Agency’s evidentiary burden. The 

orphans’ court accurately referenced the Agency’s evidence to support the 

court’s finding of grounds for terminating Father’s parental rights. We discern 

no error or abuse discretion regarding the court’s consideration of Jennifer 

Mengle’s testimony.

2. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing Father’s counsel 

the latitude to question Mother while taking her testimony?

Father argues the orphans’ court impeded his counsel’s crossexamination of Mother “without justification.” Father’s Brief at 19. Father 
J-A29038-23

- 10 -

claims his counsel “was successfully bringing out in his line of questioning the 

fact that Mother had initiated services prior to the [termination] filing date of 

September 8, 2022.” Id. This claim is baseless. Father cites no legal 

authority or otherwise explains how Mother’s testimony about initiating

services relates to termination of Father’s parental rights. See Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a) (requiring that appellate argument include “discussion and citation 

of authorities as are deemed pertinent”).

We have reviewed Mother’s testimony on cross-examination by Father’s 

counsel. See N.T., 1/25/23, at 219-26. Father’s counsel initially questioned 

Mother about Father. Id. at 219-22. Mother described Father as “a great 

father” and “amazing.” Id. at 220. Counsel’s questioning continued:

Q. And you stated coping with addiction is a long-term process?

A. Yeah. It is. It is a long-term process. I mean if you want 

it –

[Agency’s Counsel]: Your Honor, I’m going to object again to 

the line of questioning.

[6] Again, [Father’s counsel] is not 

representing Mother. I mean, he’s directing virtually all of his 

questions about Mother’s services rather than his client.

[Father’s Counsel]: Can I ask what Rule of Evidence that says 

that I cannot ask Mother questions? Cite what Rule of Evidence 

that is.

THE COURT: Okay. So we are going over areas that 

we’ve gone over before –

[Father’s Counsel]: It’s a foundation –

____________________________________________

6 The Agency’s counsel withdrew a prior objection. See N.T., 1/25/23, at 221.
J-A29038-23

- 11 -

THE COURT: Pardon me?

[Father’s Counsel]: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Your 

Honor. I’m sorry. I’m trying to lay a foundation for further 

questions as well.

THE COURT: Okay. So let’s move on at this point.

BY [Father’s Counsel]:

Q. So since [Father] has been incarcerated, has he 

been sober?

A. Yes.

Q. And has a caseworker ever met with you or

[Father] to discuss the services that were 

ordered at the adjudication?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what a child permanency plan is?

A. No.

Q. And so the caseworker never set up [a] meeting

to discuss that with you?

A. No.

Q. And you heard testimony in regard to the

domestic violence, correct?

A . Yes.

Q. Has a caseworker ever presented that in a child 

permanency plan or any court order or

recommended that service to you or [Father]

during the pendency of this case?

[Children’s Counsel]: Objection. Asked and answered many

times throughout the course of this

proceeding.
J-A29038-23

- 12 -

THE COURT: I don’t know that this witness was asked 

that question. So I’m going to overrule the 

objection and let her respond.

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. But you and [Father] took it upon yourselves to 

engage in domestic violence counseling correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you believe [Father] should also be given a 

chance to parent [Child]?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you discuss how [Child] would be 

impacted if parental rights were terminated 

[and Child] is unable to see [Father]?

A. I think it would be a severe issue, ... [Child]

loves [Father] ...

[Agency’s Counsel]: I’m going to object, Your Honor. This is 

outside the scope of this witness’s ability 

to speculate as to what kind of conditions 

this may cause or issues this may cause a

child.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

[Father’s Counsel]: Thank you, [Mother], that’s all the 

questions I have.

Id. at 223-26 (footnote and emphasis added).

As indicated above, the record refutes Father’s claim that the orphans’ 

court improperly limited his counsel’s cross-examination of Mother. Thus, the 

issue does not merit relief.
J-A29038-23

- 13 -

3. Whether the trial court erred in not giving the appropriate 

weight to the fact that the [Agency] did not offer the appropriate 

services necessary for reunification (domestic violence 

counseling)?

Father continues to include Mother in his advocacy, arguing that the

orphans’ court “did not consider the fact that the Agency failed in providing 

the [P]arents reasonable efforts to reunify.” Father’s Brief at 19 (emphasis 

added). Father stresses, “the Agency did not recommend or offer Mother nor 

Father domestic violence counseling, the Agency’s forensic psychologist[, Dr. 

Rosenblum,] did not recommend same, nor was Mother or Father ever courtordered to engage in same.” Id. at 20. According to Father, the “lapse in 

providing domestic violence counseling raises the issue of whether the Agency 

provided services necessary for reunification and the reasonableness of its 

efforts.” Id. Father’s argument is not persuasive.

It is the responsibility of the orphans’ court, as fact-finder, to “assign 

the evidence the appropriate weight to which it is entitled in reaching its 

factual and legal conclusions.” Int. of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1124 (Pa. 

2021). Here, the orphans’ court noted “concerns about domestic violence 

were discussed” at the January 11, 2022, review hearing. Orphans’ Court 

Opinion, 8/4/23, at 6 (stating that service provider’s report “indicat[ed]

Mother had shown [the provider] bruises reportedly caused by Father.”). 

However, the dependency court did not add domestic violence counseling to 

the family service plan. Id. (citing Permanency Review Order, 1/11/22).
J-A29038-23

- 14 -

Approximately three months later, in April 2022, police were called to a 

“domestic disturbance involving” Father and Mother. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

8/4/23, at 14. As a result of the incident, Father was incarcerated during the 

May 2022 review hearing. The orphans’ court stated that Father “declined 

visitation ... at this review hearing because of his incarceration, although he 

requested resumption of visitation upon his release. Services for [Father]

remained the same at the hearing.” Id. at 7. Father remained incarcerated 

at the time of the September 13, 2022 review hearing, and “was deemed to 

have no compliance and no progress.” Id. On November 2, 2022, Father was 

released from jail; he participated in an evaluation with Dr. Rosenblum on 

November 15, 2022. Id. at 11. In finding grounds for terminating Father’s 

parental rights, the orphans’ court relied, inter alia, on Dr. Rosenblum’s 

testimony. See, e.g., id. at 33.

Dr. Rosenblum initially evaluated Father on August 26, 2021. Dr. 

Rosenblum testified:

In August of 2021, I diagnosed [Father] with an adjustment 

disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct, cannabis use 

disorder, antisocial personality traits, history of adult antisocial 

behavior, relationship distress with spouse or intimate partner,

and parent/child relational problems.

N.T., 12/8/22, at 25. Dr. Rosenblum “recommended both outpatient mental 

health treatment and outpatient drug and alcohol treatment.” Id. at 26.

After evaluating Father again on November 15, 2022, Dr. Rosenblum 

concluded:
J-A29038-23

- 15 -

There was the same minimization of any difficulties with poor 

judgment, impulse control, conflict with others, or antisocial 

behavior. ...

... I would say [Father’s] insight into his problems is minimal. And 

I think that’s a major issue[, that Father has] not only a history of 

impulse control and some substance abuse problems, but, again, 

the denial that [his problems have] really impacted him or affected 

[Child].

Id. at 28.

Dr. Rosenblum explained that Father “very much knew that he was 

facing a possibility of a termination of parental rights proceeding and certainly 

doesn’t want to lose [Child] .... But there is a lack of genuineness in

acknowledging and addressing [his] problems.” Id. at 29.

The orphans’ court subsequently observed that Father “failed to engage 

in the most essential [c]ourt-ordered services.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 

8/4/23, at 33. Referencing Dr. Rosenblum’s testimony, the orphans’ court 

found Father’s

repeated and continued incapacity, neglect and/or refusal to 

provide proper parental control for [Child,] ... has caused [Child]

to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence 

necessary for [Child’s] physical or mental wellbeing. This [c]ourt 

also finds clear and convincing evidence that the conditions and 

causes of incapacity, neglect and/or refusal will not be remedied 

by [Father].

Id. at 34 (finding “sufficient grounds for termination under 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 

2511(a)(2).”).
J-A29038-23

- 16 -

On this record, we discern no error in the weight the orphans’ court gave 

to the evidence that the dependency court and Agency did not recommend or 

offer domestic violence counseling. Int. of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d at 1124.

4. Whether the trial court erred in its analysis of the bond 

between [Father] and [C]hild pursuant to § 2511(b)?

Father challenges termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). When the 

court finds grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it must separately 

consider Child’s needs and welfare:

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. ...

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

“Notably, courts should consider the matter from the child’s perspective, 

placing [their] developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare 

above concerns for the parent.” In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 

1105 (Pa. 2023). Courts 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). However,

the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on

the circumstances of the particular case.

Importantly, the question is not merely whether a bond

exists, but whether termination would destroy this

existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.

In re A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 444–45 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted, 

emphasis added).
J-A29038-23

- 17 -

Our Supreme Court recently affirmed that “the parental bond is but one 

part of the overall subsection (b) analysis.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113. Courts 

must also consider factors such as: (1) the child’s need for permanency and 

length of time in foster care; (2) whether the child is in a pre-adoptive home 

and bonded with foster parents; and (3) whether the foster home meets the 

child’s needs. Id. It bears repeating that “intangibles such as love, comfort, 

security, and stability” are relevant to a child’s needs and welfare. Id. at 

1096, 1098, 1106, 1109, 1111 (citations omitted).

Father contends the orphans’ court erred in its bond analysis. Father 

claims

there does not appear to be sufficient evidence as it concerns the 

impact on [C]hild[] of severing said bond to allow for a trial court 

to properly make a determination under the statute.

In the instant matter, the trial court erred ... by not 

undertaking an evaluation of the nature of the parental bond ...

[and] ... not explicitly considering severance of same.

The trial court appears even to deny the existence of such a

bond, which is inconsistent with the record. See infra. Rather, 

for [Child], the court focuses on the quantity of benefits the 

parents provide for the developmental, physical, and emotional 

needs of [Child] relative to quantity provided by the foster parents

who have daily physical care and control of [Child].

Father’s Brief at 28-29 (italics in original).

We disagree. The orphans’ court considered Child’s needs and welfare, 

and found that termination was in Child’s best interests. The orphans’ court 

explained:
J-A29038-23

- 18 -

With regard to [Child], who was only five (5) months old at 

the time he came into care, this [c]ourt’s evaluation under § 2511 

(b) is clear. [Child] has lived with his Foster Parents nearly his 

entire life. All of [his] physical, medical, mental, educational and 

emotional needs are cared for by the Foster Parents. Father [] 

put forth no evidence supporting maintenance of his relationship 

with [Child,] but rather championed for Mother to retain her 

parental rights. ... Accordingly, this [c]ourt finds the Child’s best 

interest and welfare [is] served by achieving permanency through 

adoption and consequentially finds clear and convincing evidence 

to terminate the parental rights of [Father] ....

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/4/23, at 38-39.

The orphans’ court’s reasoning is supported by the evidence and the 

law. See In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(stating that dependent children’s lives “cannot be held in abeyance”).

For the above reasons, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental 

rights.

Order affirmed. 

DATE: 1/4/2024