J-A02036-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: S.A.K., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: A.M.K. No. 979 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Decree May 8, 2015 

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division

at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000170-2013

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: S.A.K. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: A.M.K. No. 999 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered May 8, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans’ Court

at No(s): 2014-0180

BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and FITZGERALD,*JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2016

A.M.K. (“Mother”) appeals from the decree and order, dated and 

entered May 8, 2015, that granted the petition filed by the York County 

Office of Children, Youth and Families Service (“CYF”) seeking to terminate 

her parental rights to her male child, S.A.K. (“Child”), born in November of 

2011, pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), 

and (b).1 We vacate and remand.

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1

In the same decree entered on May 8, 2015, the trial court also terminated 

the parental rights of Child’s father, D.G. (“Father”). Father has not filed an 

appeal and is not a party in the present appeal.
J-A02036-16 

- 2 -

We adopt the trial court’s factual background and procedural history. 

See Trial Ct. Op., 5/8/15, at 1-15. Importantly, on December 16, 2014, 

CYF filed petitions for the involuntary termination of the parental rights of 

Mother and Father, and for a change of permanency goal to adoption under 

Section 6351 of the Juvenile Act. In an order dated January 9, 2015, and 

entered on January 12, 2015, the trial court scheduled a hearing on the 

petitions to occur on February 20, 2015. On January 14, 2015, CYF filed the 

affidavit of attempted service of the Act 101 Notice on Mother via United 

States Postal Service, which was returned as undeliverable. On February 

18, 2015, CYF filed the proof of notice required by the Act 101 Notice on 

Mother, indicating that she refused to sign for receipt of the notice.

On February 20, 2015, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on 

the petitions with regard to Father, as Mother had not received the ten days’ 

notice. N.T., 2/20/15, at 10, 15. Mother had only received notice of the 

petition and hearing on February 18, 2015. Id. at 15. Mother appeared at 

the February 20th hearing without any counsel to represent her, and she did 

not waive any defect regarding CYF’s service. Id. The trial court scheduled 

the evidentiary hearing to continue on March 12, 2015, with regard to 

Mother, but proceeded with the hearing as to Father. Id. 

On March 12, 2015, and March 20, 2015, the trial court held the 

evidentiary hearings on the petitions with regard to Mother. Mother did not 

have counsel to represent her, and proceeded pro se. Mother arrived late at 
J-A02036-16 

- 3 -

the March 12th hearing, which had commenced in her absence. When she 

arrived, the following exchange took place between Mother and the trial 

court.

THE COURT: [Mother]?

[MOTHER]: Yep, I apologize. Your Honor, I would just ask 

that you show a little bit of leniency. I am learning the 

process, and I do appreciate that very much.

THE COURT: [Mother], I will provide you with some 

accommodation given your [sic] self-represented counsel. 

However, you will be held to the same standards as

counsel, as you have chosen to represent yourself in this 

matter. I may intervene, but I cannot help you present 

your case. I am not here to represent you, but I do have 

an obligation to make sure that this matter proceeds in an 

appropriate manner as are [sic] required by the Rules of 

Evidence. I need you to compose yourself so you can ask 

your questions.

[MOTHER]: I’m ready now.

[THE COURT]: Are you ready?

[MOTHER]: Yes.

N.T., 3/12/15, at 12-13.

On May 8, 2015, the trial court entered its final decree and 

adjudication, involuntarily terminating the parental rights of Mother and 

Father. On June 8, 2015, Mother, acting pro se, filed notices of appeal, 

along with concise statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On September 15, 2015, this Court sua 

sponte consolidated the appeals. Moreover, on September 15, 2015, this 

Court remanded the matter to the trial court to appoint counsel to represent 
J-A02036-16 

- 4 -

Mother on appeal, citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a.1) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 6337, 

retained jurisdiction, and extended Mother’s time for filing her brief. 

Mother’s appointed counsel then filed a brief on her behalf on November 2, 

2015. 

In her brief, Mother raises three issues on appeal:

1. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in keeping 

the goal in the juvenile dependency action as reunification 

with a parent[?]

2. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in the 

adoption action in involuntarily terminating the parental 

rights of the mother[?]

3. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in 

allowing the mother to represent herself in light of her 

mental health issues affecting her ability to competently 

represent herself[?]

Mother’s Brief at 6.

We first address Mother’s third issue, in which Mother argues that it 

was contradictory for the trial court to allow her to represent herself when 

one of her goals was to address her mental health issues. Id. at 31. Mother 

filed her Rule 1925(b) concise statement acting pro se, and did not raise the 

issue of the trial court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent her. If the 

trial court erred by (1) allowing Mother to proceed pro se, and (2) failing to 

appoint counsel to represent Mother in the termination hearings as well as to 

file her notice of appeal and concise statement, she should not be penalized 

with waiver. Cf. In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 4 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that 

“when a party ‘was denied [her] right to counsel—or failed to properly waive 
J-A02036-16 

- 5 -

that right—’” in a termination of parental rights case, “this Court is required 

to raise this error sua sponte and remand for the” trial court to correct that 

mistake); see generally Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 

776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant waives issues that are 

not raised in both his or her concise statement of errors complained of on 

appeal and the Statement of Questions Involved in his or her brief on 

appeal). We thus decline to find waiver.

Appellees CYF and the guardian ad litem assert that the trial court 

appointed counsel to represent Mother in the dependency proceedings on 

August 19, 2013, and that the trial court discharged her appointed counsel 

on June 23, 2014, at Mother’s request. Appellees’ Brief at 22. They argue 

as follows:

In spite of the fact that Mother had knowledge of the 

procedure and process in order to obtain court appointed 

counsel, she failed to avail herself of this additional request 

after the discharge of her court appointed counsel. To 

allege that it was an error of the [c]ourt to not reappoint 

an attorney to represent Mother is misplaced and not 

supported in law. A parent has the opportunity to retain 

an attorney to represent them in the dependency, as well 

as termination of parental rights proceedings; however, if 

a parent does not have the financial resources to retain an 

attorney privately, a procedure and mechanism exists to 

make application for a court appointed counsel. The 

record is silent as to any action taken by the [m]other in 

this regard after the discharge of her attorney in June 

2014. 

Id. at 22-23. 
J-A02036-16 

- 6 -

We respectfully disagree with Appellees. In In re X.J., a panel of this 

Court addressed a procedural posture that was very similar to the instant 

appeal. In In re X.J., the juvenile court appointed counsel to represent the 

mother in dependency proceedings. In re X.J., 105 A.3d at 5. The court 

then permitted the mother’s dependency-proceeding counsel to withdraw; 

meanwhile, the Lancaster County Children and Youth Social Service Agency’s 

filed a termination-of-parental-rights petition in the orphans’ court. Id. at 

4-5. The record revealed that the court never appointed counsel to 

represent the mother in the termination proceedings. Id. at 5-6. The In re 

X.J. Court explained the issue posed by the absence of appointed counsel for 

a termination proceedings:

Our review of the record reveals an issue pertaining to 

[the mother’s] lack of representation during the 

termination proceedings below. The Adoption Act controls 

termination of parental rights proceedings. See generally

23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511–2513. It provides that a court “shall 

appoint counsel for a parent whose rights are subject to 

termination in an involuntary termination proceeding if, 

upon petition of the parent, the court determines that the 

parent is unable to pay for counsel or if payment would 

result in substantial financial hardship.” Id. § 2313(a.1); 

see also In re J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. Super. 2009) 

(stating, “an indigent parent in a termination of parental 

rights case has a constitutional right to counsel . . . [and 

t]he right to counsel in parental termination cases is the 

right to effective assistance of counsel even though the 

case is civil in nature[ ]”) (citations omitted). An indigent 

parent in termination proceedings is likewise entitled to be 

advised of that right. In re Adoption of R.I., 455 Pa. 29, 

312 A.2d 601, 603 (1973). This Court has held that when 

a party “was denied [her] right to counsel—or failed to 

properly waive that right—this Court is required to raise 

this error sua sponte and remand for the PCRA court to 
J-A02036-16 

- 7 -

correct that mistake.” Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 

A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2011). In light of the 

statutory and constitutional right at stake, we conclude the 

principle enunciated in Stossel is appropriate in 

termination of parental rights cases.

In In re J.N.F., 887 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 2005), this 

Court held, consistent with the text of Section 2313(a.1), 

that the parent must request a court-appointed attorney 

once notified of the requirement to do so. Id. at 780. In 

that case, this Court concluded that the father, who was 

incarcerated, was provided with adequate notice that he 

was required to affirmatively request an attorney.

The appointment of counsel for indigent parents in 

termination proceedings is controlled by 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2313(a.1), which states, in pertinent part, the 

following:

(a.1) PARENT.—The court shall appoint 

counsel for a parent whose rights are subject 

to termination in an involuntary termination 

proceeding if, upon petition of the parent, 

the court determines that the parent is unable 

to pay for counsel or if payment would result in 

substantial financial hardship.

 

(emphasis added).

In [that] case, the original termination petition 

contained a notice that stated the following:

You have a right to be represented at the 

hearing by a lawyer; however, it is not 

necessary to have a lawyer at this hearing. A 

court-appointed attorney will be assigned to 

represent you if you cannot afford legal help. 

The Family/Orphans’ Court Administrator will 

be present at this hearing. She will give you 

an application for request of a court-appointed 

attorney. This attorney will represent you at 

your [termination hearing]. If you have any 

questions, contact [the Family/Orphans’ Court 

Administrator].
J-A02036-16 

- 8 -

See Notice, 9/4/2004.

Id. This Court concluded that the orphans’ court was not 

required to appoint counsel because the father did not 

request court-appointed counsel after he received notice of 

his right to do so. Id.

However, in this case, [the mother] was not advised of 

her right to counsel in the termination proceeding. Neither 

the termination petition, nor the orphans’ court’s 

preliminary decree contained any type of notice provision 

described in In re J.N.F. Furthermore, the certified record 

does not contain any indication that [the mother] was 

served with any of the filings in the termination 

proceedings below, except for the final termination decree 

that is the subject of this appeal. Since [the mother] was 

never notified of the proceedings against her, her right to 

counsel, or of her obligation to request the same, we deem 

the certified record’s silence on [the mother’s] application 

for counsel immaterial for the purposes of this appeal. 

Based on these considerations, we conclude that In re 

J.N.F. does not present an impediment to our decision in 

this case.

* * *

Furthermore, our review of the record reveals there were 

no orders appointing counsel for [the mother] for the 

purposes of the termination proceedings, nor evidence of 

any notice to [the mother] of her right to counsel. 

Thus, the certified record reveals that [the mother] did 

not receive counsel for the purposes of termination 

proceedings, even though she was entitled to 

representation. See, e.g., Stossel, supra; In re J.T., 

supra. Nor does the record indicate that [the mother] 

was ever advised of her right to counsel for termination 

proceedings. See In re Adoption of R.I., supra. 

Therefore, we believe the best course of action is to 

remand this case for a new termination hearing, before 

which the orphans’ court shall advise [the mother] of her 

counsel rights, appoint counsel for [the mother], or 
J-A02036-16 

- 9 -

affirmatively determine that [the mother] does not qualify 

for counsel. 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that [the 

mother’s] right to counsel was violated in the termination 

proceedings below. Accordingly, counsel’s petition to 

withdraw is denied, the orphans’ court’s April 21, 2014 

decree is vacated, and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings, consistent with this opinion.

In re X.J., 105 A.3d at 4-7.

In the instant appeal, identical to In re X.J., our review of the record 

reveals there were no orders appointing counsel for Mother for the purposes 

of the termination proceedings, and there is no any evidence of any notice to 

Mother of her right to counsel. See id. Neither the termination petition, nor 

the notice of hearing, nor any other record document set forth the provision 

regarding Mother’s right to counsel as provided in Section 2313(a.1) of the 

Adoption Act. See id. Thus, the certified record reveals that Mother did not 

have appointed counsel for the purposes of termination proceedings, even 

though she was entitled to representation. See id. (citing Stossel, 17 A.3d 

at 1290; In re J.N.F., 887 A.2d at 780). The record also does not indicate 

that Mother was ever advised of her right to counsel for termination 

proceedings. See id. (citing, In re Adoption of R.I., 312 A.2d at 603). 

Accordingly, we conclude that Mother was deprived of her right to counsel in 

the termination proceedings. See id. at 7. Thus, we remand this case for a 

new termination hearing, before which the orphans’ court shall advise 
J-A02036-16 

- 10 -

Mother of her counsel rights, appoint counsel for Mother, or affirmatively 

determine that Mother does not qualify for counsel.2 See id.

Decree vacated. Case remanded with instructions as set forth above. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/17/2016

 

2

In light of our resolution of this matter, we do not address Mother’s 

remaining issues.
--i 

------~~-ft---------·--~-~·--·--· 

on March 20, 2015. Mother was not prepared to offer any credible evidence, and foiled to 

admission into the record and to provide the parties with an opportunity to present summation 

scheduled an additional continued hearing to permit Mother to exchange exhibits for 

opportunity to present additional exhibits for entry into the record. The Court therefore 

the hearing on March 12, 2015 adjourned, Mother represented that she was denied the 

time provided her with personal notice of the continued hearing date of March 12, 2015. After 

did appear at the February 18, 2015 hearing and requested a continuance. The Court at that 

the hearing, having only been served with the scheduling Order on February 18, 2015. Mother 

regarding the petition on February 20, 2015. Mother was provided with insufficient notice of 

filed on December 16, 2015. An evidentiary hearing was originally scheduled to occur 

Rights of A J J. K .. ,11 (hereinafter "Mother") to the above-captioned minor child 

ADJUDICATION 

I At••KJ?III. co 

Self-Represented 

0 

N 

Martin Miller, Esquire 

Office of Children, Youth & Families 

David Worley, Esquire 

Guardian Ad Litem c 

0 

-<o 

o- :::.:,> 

,,_. 

·o 

'"01"'1 

>'::!: 

~. ~.' 

:,J (Jl 

r-o 

Presently before the Court is the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental 

APPEARANCES: 

No. 2014-0180 

Termination of Parental Rights 

In Re: Adoption of 

S~-K .... lt: 

A Minor 

~~--------------------------------~--~--------~~--------,·- 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

,; 

--------------~-- ,j 

I II !I 

I 

I 

Circulated 04/29/2016 02:24 PM
;i 

li 

q 

-------------------,·'-, --- ---------------------- 

1! 

'i 

2 

c. The car was parked on the street by Albemarle Park. 

a car; there were also two small dogs inside the vehicle. 

b. Allegations received were that the mother and the minor child were "living out of' 

child, [S.K.], due to allegations of homelessness and lack of supervision. 

a. On or about August 3, 2013, [the Agency] received a referral regarding the minor 

Agency on August 5, 2013. The allegations included: 

5. An Application for Emergency Custody in the related Dependency action was filed by the 

Adjudication. 

rights have also been terminated; the reasons for that termination are set forth in a separate 

4. 

2. st.~K··· (hereinafter "S.K.") was born November 27, 2011. 

3. A. IP KS Bl •(hereinafter "Mother") is the natural mother of S.K. 

as above with no objection. 

Common Pleas in York County was incorporated into the Orphans' Court record docketed 

1. The record docketed at CP-67-DP-170-2013 with the Clerk of Courts in the Court of 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

K DJ 9 $\ is GRANTED for the reasons outlined herein. 

record, the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Mother to S.A. 

Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, and upon consideration of the 

ii /1 comply with the specific timeline set forth. Therefore, she was deemed to have waived the 

presentation of additional evidence. 

:1 

'I 

:1 :i 

:i 

;i 

1i !I 

·~ '•····-·"--·-·---- ---··----·····,···-··---~------ ------ 
I 

ii 

'I !1 11 

ll I: 

H 

It 

ii 

ii 

ll 

ii 

Ji 

I! 

'.I 

It 

iJ 

)l 

Ii 

i' 

---- ~'- -------- 

rJ 

,; 

" ., 

-------· -·----·---·-------+-· 

3 

admitted on a 302 commitment. 

n. The York City Police Department took twenty-four hour protective custody of the 

minor child on August 3, 2013. 

o. On August 4, 2013, [the Court] was contacted and verbally awarded temporary 

legal and physical custody of the minor child, [S.K), to [the Agency) for continued 

foster-care placement. 1 

m. The mother was transported to the York Hospital Psychiatric Unit where she was 

not provide any information. 

l. The mother further stated that her mother and her sister were alcoholics and would 

provide his address or telephone number. 

k. The mother stated that the father was a D- CS 7, however, was unable to 

J. The York City Police were contacted and responded to the scene. 

eratically [sic]. 

1. Upon the mother's return to her vehicle, she was allegedly acting and speaking 

h. The woman stood by the car and watched the minor child. 

the mother left her son and the two small dogs in the car. 

g. The man and the mother got into his car and drove the man's dog to a veterinarian; 

f. The man's dog jumped out of his car and was hit by another vehicle. 

e. The woman requested that her son assist and he drove over to the mother's vehicle. 

d. The mother requested a woman to assist her in "jump starting" the vehicle. 

d 

if 

!i 

;: 

I 

I, 

L 

·, 

i· 

---~ 'j 
4 

:1 

new counsel entered an appearance or Mother executed an entry of appearance form. 

secure alternate counsel. Attorney Woodward agreed ·to remain Mother's counsel until · 

Mother. At the time of the October 7, 2013 expedited review, Mother indicated a desire to 

filed on August 20, 2013, the Court appointed Attorney Gillian Woodward to represent 

I 9. Mother requested county-paid court-appointed counsel on August 19, 2013. In an Order 

I; 

! 

II 

:1 

·, 

II 

.'! 

., 

~-f~---- -·---- .. -------------------------------- 

and Fluphenazine. 

c. The mother allegedly has mental health issues and is prescribed Carbamazephine 

she will be staying with her dogs in a hotel until she secures that apartment, 

b. The mother indicated she is in the process of securing an apartment from a friend; 

dogs. 

living with a friend in York, Pennsylvania but cannot continue there because of her 

a. The mother was discharged from York Hospital on August 7, 2013 and has been 

for Emergency Custody, but included several additional averments, including: 

forth in the Dependency Petition were consistent with the allegations in the Application 

8. A Dependency Petition was filed regarding S.K. on August 14, 2015. The allegations set 

afforded supervised visitation with Mother twice per week. 

were awarded to the Agency. S.K.'s placement in foster care continued. Mother was 

7. A Shelter Care Order was filed on August 13, 2013. Legal and physical custody of S.K. 

Summons was entered on August 5, 2013. 

i' 

..... ir-~~~ ;r~: to Reaffirm d~e ~:,;a~-~~~= :~s~-;:cdule Protective Custody Hearing, and 

! 
-~----·--·-----t-1----------------- 

5 

screens of parents and maternal grandparents [B.. W • S and C4 a 

f. [The Court specified the following tests to occur]: random drug and alcohol 

e. The current placement goal for the Child is adoption. 

d. The child is safe in the current placement setting. 

view toward possible placement of the child with the maternal grandmother. 

c. 

placement is the least restrictive alternative available. 

minor child at this time and no relative has yet been approved, whereby foster-care 

Jess restrictive alternative available, in that: neither parent is a resource for the 

is the least restrictive alternative that meets the needs of the child and there is no 

b. [S.K.] is to be placed, by the agency, in foster-care placement. [S.K.]'s placement 

He does admit to paternity. 

admission. Father acknowledges that he is not a resource for the child at this time. 

at this point. She has recently been released from [York] Hospital after a 302 

a. Mother is returning to the home of her husband, but does not have stable housing 

in that Order include, but are not limited to: 

Order are hereby incorporated as if set forth more fully herein. The findings of the Court 

consideration of the petition and by the agreement of all parties. The contents of that 

Order of Adjudication and Disposition was entered on August 20, 2013 after 

I 

Ii 

ii 

ii 

,: 

' 

·11··· IO. An 

i! 
6 

Works. 

d. Mother shall cooperate with the following services ... in-home team[,] Justice 

Square or another qualified counselor. 

the results made known to the Agency within 60 days of today's date. The named 

11 person(s) shall follow through with any recommendations made as a result of any 

J! 

1j evaluation conducted in this matter. 

I: 

!I c. Mother shall attend counseling sessions with Wellspan Behavioral health at Edgar 

evaluation, within 10 days of this date, and the evaluation shall be completed, and 

appropriate organization or evaluator approved by the Agency to do the 

evaluator. The named person(s) shall contact the designated evaluator, or an 

performed by agreed upon evaluator or another appropriate organization or 

b. Mother shall cooperate in obtaining a psychological evaluation which shall be 

proof of such to the Agency. 

shall maintain stable, lawful income to support the minot(s}, and shall provide 

a. Mother shall maintain safe, stable and appropriate housing for the minor(s) and 

following: 

Order, the Court ordered certain directives, which included but were not limited to the 

11. As part of the Court-Ordered Services/Conditions appendixed to the August 20, 2013 

placement. 

Agency] for continued foster-care placement until further review for family 

g. Legal and physical custody of the minor child, [S.K.], shall continue in [the 

--------------~--------- 

,. 

i! 

I 

:I 

i: 

------------------------~--i ~~-------- 

1 

I 

1: 

i, 
:i :i l CPC is the Community Progress Council. The Court is familiar with this community program that promotes 

ir self-sufficiency for low- to moderate-income residents of York County. CPC provides emergency assistance 

! with food, heat, and other basic needs, as well as assistance with housing. 

I! 7 :1 

I wished to obtain alternative counsel and give the new counsel the opportunity to review 

I 

Ir the case. 

fl 

!t 

q 

n 

il 

:[ 

Ii 

!t 

until January 29, 2014 at Mother's request. She requested the continuance because she 

16. A Permanency Review hearing originally scheduled for January 21, 2014 was continued 

she has received. 

January 10, 2014. The Court granted the request, provided Mother paid for each transcript 

15. Mother, through Attorney Woodward, filed a Request for Release of Transcripts on 

14. Mother requested assistance from CPC.1 She was denied assistance. 

Court approved partially unsupervised contact. 

13. By November 13, 2013, Mother was exercising three visits per week. At that time, the 

Court have been incorporated as if set forth more fully herein. 

12. A 45-Day Expedited Review occurred on October 7, 2013. The findings made by the 

g. Parents shall execute an acknowledgement of paternity. 

discharge from Wellspan Crisis. 

f. [Mother] will cooperate and comply with the recommendations made upon 

his visit. 

to 11 :00 a.m. on Tuesday and Thursday. Father shall contact Agency to schedule 

e. Supervised visitation at [the Agency] between [S.K.] and [Mother] from 9:00 a.m. 

---------+:---------------··············----------- 
8 

proof of such to the Agency. 

shall maintain stable, lawful income to support the minor(s), and shall provide 

a. Mother shall maintain safe, stable and appropriate housing for the minor(s) and 

following: 

Order, the Court ordered certain directives, which included but were not limited to the 

f. Placement of the Child remains in foster-care placement with R- and 

e. Legal and physical custody shall remain with [the AgencyJ. 

the child is placement with a fit and willing relative. 

three to six months, but unlikely in that time. The concurrent placement plan for 

due to lack of progress by his parents. It is hopeful that he can be returned wi thin 

projected date by which the goal for the child might be achieved is undetermined 

d. The current placement goal for the child is return to parent or guardian. The 

necessitated placement ... 

c. [Mother has made] minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which 

b. There has been minimal compliance with the permanency plan as to the mother. .. 

a. The placement of the child continues to be necessary and appropriate. 

herein. The Court's findings included, but were not limited to: 

ii 18. As part of the Court-Ordered Services/Conditions appendixed to the January 29, 2014 

II 

Ii 

I' 

1/ I; 

r 

made various findings and directives. The Order is incorporated as if set forth more fully 

Ill 17. A Permanency Review Order was entered on January 29, 2014. In said Order, the Court 

11 

------··-·-·-·---··-····· ----- -------·-··---- 

.1 

I, 

[: 

-----~!t----,-,-~-·- . 

't 
10 

i 

ii 

'i 

Cl.f:B .. C 

1

'1 

11 has not shown any interest in his son. 

ii 

JI e. Legal and physical custody shall remain with [the Agency]. 

I! f. Placement of the Child remains in foster-care placement with R... and 

Ii 

i! 

indicated that she is not a resource for Child. Father has not had any contact and 

resource for the child. Although the maternal grandmother has contact, she has 

progress by the parents and failure of any viable family to come forward to be a 

for the child, including change of the concurrent goal to adoption given the lack of 

be modified or supplemented as follows: ... Agency to explore permanency options 

this child, dated January 29, 2014 ... is appropriate and feasible except that it shall 

is placement with a fit and willing relative. The permanency plan developed for 

due to lack of progress by his parents. The concurrent placement plan for the child 

projected date by which the goal for the child might be achieved is undetermined 

d. The current placement goal for the child is return to parent or guardian. The 

necessitated placement ... 

c. [Mother has made] no progress toward alleviating the circumstances which 

b. There has been minimal compliance with the permanency plan as to the mother ... 

a. The placement of the child continues to be necessary and appropriate. 

herein. The Court's findings included, but were not limited to: 

made various findings and directives. The Order is incorporated as if set forth more fully 

23. A Permanency Review Order was entered on June 23, 2014. In said Order, the Court 
I! 

j! 

;: 

I I 

'I !; 

b. There has been minimal compliance with the permanency plan as to the mother. .. 

a. The placement of the child continues to be necessary and appropriate. 

28. A Blended Perspective Meeting was held November 4, 2014. 

I 29. During one of S.K. 's medical appointments, Mother left twice to check on her dogs. 

I· J/ 30. A Permanency Review Order was entered on December 3, 2014. In said Order, the Court 

JI ii made various findings and directives. The Order is incorporated as if set forth more fully 

ii ii herein. The Court's findings included, but were not limited to: 

as if set forth more fully herein. 

27. A Status Hearing Order was entered on September 22, 2014. Its contents are incorporated 

repeated expressed desire to represent herself. 

26. On June 23, 2014, the appointment of Attorney Woodward was vacated due to Mother's 

sessions decreased eventually to bi-weekly. 

25. From January until April 2014, Ms. Hill was meeting with Mother twice per week. The 

c. Mother shall cooperate with ... Justice Works. 

Counseling. 

b. Mother shall attend counseling sessions ... The counseling shall be Individual 

proof of such to the Agency. 

shall maintain stable, lawful income to support the minor(s), and shall provide 

a. Mother shall maintain safe, stable and appropriate housing for the minor(s) and 

the Court ordered certain directives, which included but were not limited to the following: 

!I 

l: 

. It __ J __ 

r 24. As part of the Court-Ordered Services/Conditions appendi~ed to the June 23, 2014 Order, 
12 

account and paid utility receipts. 

c. Mother will provide the Agency with pay stubs, paid rent receipts or escrow 

Counseling. 

b. Mother shall attend counseling sessions ... The counseling shall be Individual 

proof of such to the Agency. 

shall maintain stable, lawful income to support the minor(s), and shall provide 

a. Mother shall maintain safe, stable and appropriate housing for the minor(s) and 

following: 

Order, the Court ordered certain directives, which included but were not limited to the 

31. As part of the Cerni-Ordered Services/Conditions appendixed to the December 3, 2014 

f. Placement of the Child remains in foster-care placement 

e. Legal and physical custody shall remain with [the Agency]. 

goal given the lack of progress by [S.K. ]' s parents. 

adoption. . .. the concurrent goal shall be pursued by the Agency as the primary 

[Mother's] lack of progress. The concurrent placement plan for the child is 

projected date by which the goal for the child might be achieved is unlikely given 

i! 11- Ji -·~----· 

.I c. [Mother has made] minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which 

1/ 

necessitated placement. .. 

d. The current placement goal for the child is return to parent or guardian. The 

I· 

' i ,! 
! ,. 

,· 

!i 

13 

documents, the Court was unable to timely rule upon them. 

became independently aware of the existence of the documents. Without notice of the 

2015. No Certificates of Service were filed regarding these petitions. The Court later 

"Petition/Motion for the Request of Following Transcripts Listed Below" on January 2, 

handwritten and others modified by Mother, were attached to the petition. She also filed a 

Hearing Held December 3, 2014" on January 2, 2015. A number of documents, some 

also filed a document she titled a "Petition/Motion for Appeal of Child Dependency 

36. Mother filed a Petition for Leave to Proceed In Fonna Pauperis on January 2, 2015. She 

Father was filed on December 16, 2014. 

35. The Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights related to both Mother and 

by the Agency. 

34. On December 16, 2014, the Petition for Hearing to Change Cami-Ordered Goal was filed 

either hearing for the Court's consideration. 

admitted to the record, the document labeled by Mother was not entered as an exhibit at 

DEPENDENCY HEARING 12/03/14." Although a copy of the same report was later 

September 19, 2014 labeled, "Exhibit B FOR STATUS HEARING 9/22/14 & FOR 

33. On December 12, 2014, Mother filed a copy of a Mental Health Update Report dated 

any point in time." She has not provided this documentation to the Agency at any time. 

time during this month process, I would have provided a prescription bottle or script at 

declining testing. Mother stated "[i]f [the prescription] was such an issue [ at] any point in 

i 

,I 

ii ' ·-----------··--·-···-·· .. ~-- -----~ ----~- 

I 32. On November 6, 2014, Mother provided a written explanation as to why she was 

I 
14 !i 

ti 

:J 

r: 

i) 

stipulation. The Court did not consider it in rendering its Order in this matter. 

ii 41. A Stipulation of Counsel was filed on February I 8, 2015. Mother did not agree to the 

i! 

'! 

Mother. Mother received personal notice on February 20, 2015 of the continued hearing. 

change the Court-ordered goal and for the involuntary termination petition as it related to 

Court would hear evidence on the ninety-day Status Hearing and on the petitions to 

continued the remainder of the hearing to March 12, 2015 at 9 :00 a.m. At that time, the 

Ii 

IJ 

!I 

·1 

11 

II 

Ji 

!I 

ii 

Ii d 

H 

the Court did hear evidence on the termination petition as it related to Father and 

February 20, 2015 hearing, but did not waive any defect in service. On February 20, 2015, 

Change of Goal. Mother was not timely served notice of the hearing. She did appear at the 

2015 hearing related to the Petitions for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights and 

40. On January 29, 2015, Father was personally and timely served notice of the February 20, 

transcripts. 

forwarded to counsel and Mother. No Order was entered directing release of the 

Reporters by the Clerk of Courts and transcripts were produced. The transcripts were 

39. The request for transcripts Mother made on January 2, 2015 was forwarded to the Court 

Matters Filed on the Appeal on January 30, 2015. 

consideration. In any event, it was not timely filed. Mother filed a Concise Statement of 

been recognized as a Notice of Appeal and was not forwarded to the Superior Court for 

of Child Dependency Hearing Held on 12-3-2014." The petition does not appear to have 

38. On January 7, 2015, Mother filed a document she titled a "Petition/Motion for an Appeal 

···-------------------·-· ---+i;_______ ------- ---~---~ ----·-··-·· .. ·-······-·-···-·+·---- 

11 

/ 37. A Permanency Meeting was held on January 5, 2015. 
44. A Status Hearing Order was entered on March 12, 2015. Its contents are incorporated as if 

I set forth more fully herein. 

i 

11 ii 45. The Court denied the Change of Goal petition on March 20, 2015. 

1! 1: 

ii 

I! :l 2 The Order was entered March 13, 2015 with the Clerk of Courts and March 17, 2015 with the Orphans' Court, 

1: !i Mother received notice of the Order by her own admission as early as March 16, 2015. 

ii 15 

!i 

counsel. She did not. 

did not appear timely. Mother was directed to provide copies of her proposed exhibits to 

therefore was deemed to have waived the right to present the additional evidence. Mother 

schedule for presentation of that evidence. Mother did not comply with the schedule and 

additional evidence. The Court entered an Order on March 13, 20152 setting forth a 

exhibits would result in that individual waiving his or her opportunity to present 

Counsel and Mother were notified that failure to timely appear or to timely exchange 

opportunity to propose exhibits for entry into the record for the Court's consideration. 

directed to appear at 8:30 a.m. on March 20, 2015 to provide Mother with an additional 

precluded from presenting evidence to support her case. Counsel and Mother were 

43. At the close of the hearing on March 12, 2015, Mother indicated that she was being 

not present. Mother did not appear until 2:54 p.m. without explanation. 

p.m. After waiting for a few minutes, the Court reconvened at 2:37 p.m. Mother was still 

told counsel and Mother it would reconvene at 2:35 p.m. Mother did not appear at 2:35 

approximately 9: 12 a.m. Later that day, the Court took a recess at 2:26 p.m. and the Court 

!i 

:! 

l':--4-2-. T-l-1e_i\_1_ai-·c_h_1_2_, _2_0_1_5_1-1e_a_n-.n-g-,,-,a-s_s_c_h_e-du_l_e_d_t_o_b_e_g1-.n-a-t -9-:0_0_::~~1:··-~~~;h-e1-· -a-n-·i\-,e-d-at-1- ~ 

I 
; ~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~- 

16 

the course of S.K.'s adjudication. Mother wrote out reasons for refusing the test each time 

until she obtained copies of transcripts from the Cami proceedings that occurred during 

thirteen times between October 17, 2014 and February 20, 2015; she refused to be tested 

where the entryway to Mother's residence was located. Mother refused to be tested 

Mother was deemed unavailable once due to the drug monitor's misunderstanding of 1! 

!! 

II 

11 ,, 

[! 

:i 

,1 

ii 

1: 

'I 

;/ 

ii 

11 

ii 

i' 

:1 r:..-..---~ 

!j 

:1 

week. Mother was successfully tested thirty-six times and was unavailable ten times. 

52. A referral was received by FUN on August 20, 2013 to test randomly Mother once a 

51. A pre-adoptive resource has been identified. 

50. S.K. is thriving in his foster home. I-Je is quick to show emotion to his foster family. 

49. Father was unaware of S.K. 's existence until after the Agency became involved. 

26, 2013; January 29, 2014; June 23, 2014; and December 3, 2014. 

48. Four Family Service Plans were created for the family and were dated as follows: August 

of that meeting and there has been some compliance with that plan by Mother. 

grandmother, Ms. WfpQC, participated in that meeting. A plan was generated as a result 

Making meeting was held in this matter on November 18, 2013. Mother and maternal 

scheduled for September 30, 2013 and was canceled by Mother. A Family Group Decision 

August 23, 20 I 3, but Mother was either not able to or did not participate. A FGDM was 

47. Workers from the Family Group Decision Making (hereinafter "FGDM") service met on 

approximately seventeen months at the time of the termination hearing. 

"the Agency") caseworker assigned to the family. She was involved with the family for 

' ,, 

L 

·I 

11 

r·--~~:-Misty Stevenso11··;~:~~~he York County Office of Chil~~:~:.~=:~h & Families (hereinafter 

.1 
17 " :i 

!l 

------':.-if------------- 

;1 

'I 

i' 

paystubs to the Agency, both from the crab shack. She at times requested financial 

1: crab shack and various other restaurants. However, Mother has provided only two legal jj 

_:; 

:1 

I' 

returned home. 

2014. Justice W arks labeled the closure as unsuccessful because S .K. had not been 

demonstrate an ability to progress substantially. Services closed out on September 26, 

I 

·1 I, 

ii Ii 

lj 

I: 

'I il 54. Since the adjudication of S.K., Mother has reportedly obtained various jobs, including at a 

Ii 

lt 

appointments last minute. Mother was generally compliant with the service, but did not 

Mother sometimes did not show or was tardy to appointments and at other times cancelled 

as a collective effort. Mother was to meet with Ms. Nulph two to three times per week. 

management; and (7) demonstrate basic employability skills. The goals were established 

communication skills with the team; (6) demonstrate a basic understanding of household 

needs; (4) seek appropriate means of transportation; (5) demonstrate effective 

sufficiency; (2) participate in meaningful supervised visits; (3) address mental health 

She also helped Mother establish and work toward seven goals: (I) demonstrate basic selfbegin services on August 13, 2013. Ms. Nulph supervised visits between Mother and S.K. 

Resource Specialist assigned to work with Mother. Justice Works received a referral to 

53. Tiffany Nulph was a Justice Works YouthCare (hereinafter "Justice Works") Family 

THC on February 27, 2015. 

of those tests were positive for marijuana. Mother tested positive for both Adderall and 

positive for Adderall, a medication Mother claims is prescribed to her. Additionally, four 

she refused. She tested positive twenty-seven times. All of those twenty-seven tests were 

I ·~~~~~~.~~~~[ 
----~~-.-~,'}+------ 

1: 

!: 

,. 

I 8 

May 15, 2015; at the Motel 6 in York from May 18, 2014 until June 28, 2014; with a 

until April 24, 2014; with a friend named Terry on South Street from April 25, 2014 until 

2014 until March 9, 2014; at the Motel 6 in York, Pennsylvania from March IO, 2014 

friend named Patricia at 1000 Country Club Road in York, Pennsylvania from February 2, 

Colony Drive in York, Pennsylvania from January 2, 2014 until February 1, 2014; with a I 

ii Ii 

11 

!I 

Ii 

I' 

)) 

.I 

il 

ii 

December 23, 2013 until January 2, 2014; with a friend named Benjamin Hoover on 

the Midway Hotel, Chateau Motel, and the Travelodge at various times between 

Pennsylvania from December 18, 2013 until December 22, 2013; with the same friend at 

Hotel from December 13, 2013 until December 17, 2013; at the Super 8 Motel in York, 

Pennsylvania from August 20, 2013 until December 12, 2013; with a friend at the Midway 

August 2013: at an efficiency in the Midway Hotel at 211 North Main Street in York, 

Agency was aware of the following addresses for Mother since the adjudication of S .K. in 

Dependency Petition was filed, Mother was residing at 1630 Randow Road in York. The 

the York Hospital Psychiatric Unit, but had been residing in her car. At the time the 

57. At the time of the Application for Emergency Custody, the Agency averred Mother was at 

56. Mother was involuntarily hospitalized from August 4, 2013 until August 7, 2013. 

55. Mother's vehicle is not a reliable means of transportation. 

self-employment, but has not filed the document. 

an affidavit on December 12, 2014 indicating her intent to file a document to establish 

services and has provided five receipts from those services in January of 2014. She signed 

assistance from churches. Mother also reports earning money by providing spiritual 

------··--------·- -----------------------·--------- ---- 
i: /j on the door. He began opening up after three months. S.K. 's basic needs are met by his 

;! 

i: 

/j 

I/ 

11 

i: 19 

fJ 

,, 

!i 

ii ,' 

mother and Ms. W4'J I) cooperate with one another to schedule these visits. 

,j 63. S.K. refers to Mother as "Mommy" or "Al U .... He refers to his foster mother as 

!, "Mommy," "Mommy Two," or "Mommy Cit A" 

11 64. S.K. has been with his foster family for nineteen-and-a-half months. When he first was 

Ii II placed with the foster family, he was very reserved and would hide if someone knocked 

62. S.K. continues to have contact multiple times per month with Ms. Wdllt? His foster 

canceled. Although frequently tardy, Mother now typically arrives within that window. 

61. If Mother has not arrived within twenty minutes of the scheduled visit, the visit rs 

60. Mother has varicose veins affecting at least one leg. 

59. Mother is often tardy. 

58. Mother is often not forthcoming with information. 

the Agency to visit her residences. 

Mother's room at the Super 8 Motel. Mother was not always available during attempts by 

visited by the Agency and were found not to be suitable residences for reunification: 

and the 339 West Main Street apartment in Dallastown. The following locations were 

and were deemed suitable residences for reunification: the efficiency at the Midway Hotel 

and thereafter on East King Street. The following locations were visited by the Agency 

Street in Dallastown, Pennsylvania from July 19, 2014 until sometime in February 2015; 

friend on Roosevelt Avenue from June 29, 2014 until July 18, 2014; at 339 West Main 

j! 

:1 

·-------- .. ···-··---- :i __ ,~---------·-·--·---- ----- ~----------- 
20 

having adjustment disorder, unspecified, and attention deficit disorder by history. 

[! 

therapy. In January 20 I 4, Mother was diagnosed by her current therapist, Deborah Hill, as 

i:' 1: 

cannabis dependence. Recommendations included medication and to participate in 

I at Edgar Square in September 2013 revealed similar concerns with bipolar disorder and 

I! 

[! 

,I r: 

disorder, not otherwise specified; cannabis abuse; and nicotine dependency. An evaluation 

abuse; upon discharge from the 302 hospitalization, the diagnosis was recorded as mood 

was recorded as bipolar effective disorder, most recent episode manic; rule out cannabis 

evaluated: In August 2013, during Mother's 302 hospitalization, the tentative diagnosis 

69. Different diagnoses have been suggested as a result of Mother's mental health being 

68. Other than Adderall, Mother does not want to take prescription medication. 

67. Mother has attended S.K. 's medical appointments. 

66. Mother has at times randomly provided S.K. with gifts. 

pursuant to the April 21, 2014 Status Hearing Order. 

minute phone call with S.K. on Monday mornings. The phone calls were permitted 

Mother has never progressed to visiting S.K. unsupervised. She is also permitted a fiveaffection and the two play together or watch videos. Her visits are partially supervised. 

visits with S.K. per week for two hours at a time. During visits, Mother shows S.K. 

65. By the time of the evidentiary hearing on March 12, 2015, Mother was permitted three 

is okay once Mother arrives. 

foster family. He sometimes expresses displeasure at attending visits with Mother, but he 

--------------------· -------···-··-·-· 

-------.~~-- 
21 

Children, Youth & Families Exhibit 8; Children, Youth & Families Exhibit 9; Children, 

Exhibit J; Children, Youth & Families Exhibit 6; Children, Youth & Families Exhibit 7; 

2015. 

warrant resulted in Mother's incarceration from February 20, 2015 until February 23, 

72. Warrants have been issued for Mother's arrest during S.K.'s adjudication. The most recent 

71. Mother is diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. 

continue in counseling. 

one session by phone in November. Ms. Hill believes there is still a need for Mother to 

face-to-face session in January; one session in December; two face-to-face sessions and 

2015 hearing; she had two sessions in February, one by phone and one in face-to-face; one 

2014 until March 2015: Mother did not have any sessions in March prior to the March 12, 

twenty to thirty minutes. Mother had the following .sessions with Ms. Hill from November 

sessions last approximately sixty to eighty minutes; phone sessions last approximately 

Hill permits Mother to engage in either office sessions or phone sessions. In-office 

with Ms. Hill was initially every week, but then was reduced to every other week. Ms. 

counseling. Mother has engaged in twenty-seven sessions with Ms. Hill. Mother's contact 

be on trauma and grief. Mother contacted Ms. Hill in December of 2013 to begin 

70. Deborah Hill is a licensed clinical social worker with her own practice. Her focus tends to 

II 

-: 

! 

--·--···--ij 

ii 

I. 73. The following exhibits were admitted into evidence; Mother's Exhibit A; Mother's 

II 

11 l 

Ii 

ll 

!j .. 

il Ii Youth & Families Exhibit 10; and Children, Youth & Families Exhibit 11. 

Ii 
-----·--·--·-----··---! 

22 

3 Certain exhibits were not admitted for consideration as those documents relate to the petition against Mother; 

however, certain of these exhibits were admitted for consideration as those documents relate to the petition 

against Father. 

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a 

voluntary agreement with the agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the 

date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or 

*** 

(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a 

voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the 

conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the 

parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of 

time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to 

remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement of the child within a 

reasonable period of time and termination of parental rights would best serve the 

needs and welfare of the child. 

*** 

(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately 

preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of 

relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental 

duties. 

(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has 

caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence 

necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of 

the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the 

parent. 

of the Adoption Act. The applicable provisions appear as follows: 

Mother to S.K. on the grounds presented in 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511 (a)(l), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) 

The Agency petitioned this Court to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of 

DISCUSSION 

Families Exhibit 5.3 

document Mother referred to as Exhibit O that is unlabeled; and Children, Youth & 

D; Mother's Exhibit I; Mother's Exhibit M; Mother's Exhibit N; Mother's Exhibit K; a 

-------- -~i _ 

·, I .I 

p ,j 

11 

i! 

I! I. 

r I 

q 

------··--·---··lt- 

·1 

·---------.-.-· 1L .. ·------ 1! 

/I 74. The following exhibits were not admitted for the Court's consideration: Mother's Exhibit 

/I 
•-~- 

Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(2). The process of reunification or adoption should be completed wi thin 

23 

applicable, for consideration in the dependency matter. See In re D. C.D., 105 A.3d 662 

:! 

j (Pa.Super. 2014). The statute does not alter or effect the provisions for consideration under 

!i Section 2511 of the Adoption Act. The provisions of Section 251 l(a) establish six and twelve 

I' 

l ,, f 

J! month timelines. 23 Pa.C.S. § 251 l(a)(l), (a)(5), (a)(8). Other provisions do not require that a 

ii certain period of time lapse before termination of parental rights can be sought. Id. at 23 

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6531 (f)(9). However, the aforementioned statute creates an exemption, if 

If the child has been in placement for at least 15 of the last 22 months or the 

court has determined that aggravated circumstances exist and reasonable efforts to 

prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child from the child's parent, guardian or 

custodian or to preserve and reunify the family need not be made or continue to be 

made, whether the county agency has filed or sought to join a petition to terminate 

parental rights and to identify, recruit, process and approve a qualified family to adopt 

the child unless: 

(i) The child is being cared for by a relative best suited to the physical, 

mental and moral welfare of the child; 

(ii) The county agency has documented a compelling reason for determining 

that filing a petition to terminate parental rights would not serve the 

needs and welfare of the child, or 

(iii) The child's family has not been provided with necessary services to 

achieve the safe return to the child's parent, guardian or custodian 

within the time frames set forth in the permanency plan. 

parties at hearings and reads: 

Pa.C.S.A. § 6531 (f)(9), which appears on the Permanency Review Orders provided to the 

adoption is not even addressed until fifteen months has passed. Confusion may stem from 42 

The Court notes that, at the termination hearing, Mother voiced a concern that 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(l), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8). 

' 'I 

,-·,:~ ------------------ .... __ , _ 

) '

,./ placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would 

•1 best serve the needs and welfare of the child. 

! 
------~-!-- 

!; 

!i 

·1 

ii 

··-··-··-·----4,-i -------------------··--···-·- · ·~-------- 

24 

'./ 

(j to obstacles may forfeit his or her parental rights. In re Involuntary Termination of Parental 

ii 

:: obstacles. Id. (citing In re Shives, 525 A.2d 801, 803 (Pa.Super. 1987)). A parent who yields 

" 

Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a 

parent 'exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance in the child's 

life.' 

!I 

II 

II 

Ji 

11 

Ji Id. ( citing In re Burns, 3 79 A.2d 535 (Pa. 1977)). A parent must make a "sincere and genuine 

ii 

ll !i effort" to maintain a relationship, use all available resources to preserve the bond, and resist 

ft 

This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires 

continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication 

and association with the child. 

There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental duty is best 

understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, 

guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by 

a merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this court has 

held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative 

performance. 

The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has stated: 

circumstances clearly warrants the involuntary termination." Id. 

explanations offered by the parent to determine it the evidence in light of the totality of the 

of the court to "examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all 

"applied mechanically." In Interest of A.P., 692 A.2d 240, 245 (Pa.Super. 1997). It is the role 

(Pa. 1998)). Also, the six month time period established by Section 2511 (a)(l) should not be 

457, 461 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.li1., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 

both an intent to relinquish and a failure to perform necessary duties. In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 

To terminate pursuant to Section 251 l(a)(l), the Agency need not produce evidence of 

eighteen months. R.JS., 901 A.2d at 507 (internal citations omitted). 

---·-···----·---:----------- ------------·---··"·•···---~-·--•·''•'""·--·----··-- ---- 
·-----w---{~~ 

I 

25 

also to Section 2511 (a)(5). 

(citing In re D.A.T., 91 A.3d 197 (Pa.Super. 2014)). This Court believes this principle applies 

that ... section 251 l(a)(8) has been satisfied." In re T.A.C., --- A.3d ---, *2 (Pa.Super. 2015) 

conditions that led to a child's removal, but other conditions still exist, a court may find 

Pursuant to Section 2511 (a)(8), " ... [ w ]here a parent has addressed some of the 

Id. at 1117-18. 

Therefore, the language in subsection (a)(2) should not be read to compel courts to 

ignore a child's need for a stable home and strong, continuous parental ties, which the 

policy of restraint in state intervention is intended to protect. This is particularly so 

where disruption of the family has already occurred and there is no reasonable 

prospect for reuniting it. [Id.] Thus, while "sincere efforts to perform parental duties," 

can preserve parental rights under subsection (a)(l ), those same efforts may be 

insufficient to remedy parental incapacity under subsection (a)(2). [internal citations 

omitted). "Parents are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt 

assumption of full parental responsibilities." [internal citations omitted]. 

in which this subsection should be interpreted by this Court: 

being." Id. (citing E.A.P., 944 A.2d at 82). The Superior Court has further explained the way 

essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa.Super. 2002)). Subsection (a)(2) emphasizes the child's "need for 

affirmative misconduct. In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1117 (Pa.Super. 20 l 0)( citing In re A.L.D., 

(Pa. 1976)). Whether termination is appropriate under Section 2511 (a)(2) is not limited to 

2008) (hereinafter "E.A.P.") (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(a)(2); see In re R.I., 361 A.2d 294 

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights to E.A.P., a Minor, 944 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super. 

Section 251 l(a)(2) focuses on the child's present and future need for proper care. In re 

Rights to E.A.P., a Minor, 944 A.2d at 83 (citing In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d at 340). 

-~---······ -------- 

i 

! 

:I 
:i 

:1 

26 

continuity of relationships is important to children and also weigh the safety needs of the 

inquiry. In re C.A1.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa.Super. 2005). The Court must consider that 

child, love, comfort, security, stability and other intangibles must be considered during the 

When determining whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the 

Id. 

in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." 

R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 507 (Pa.Super. 2006)). " ... [A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold 

environment. See In re K.M., 53 A.2d 781, 792 (Pa.Super. 2012) (citing In re Adoption of 

2006)(internal citations omitted). A child has the right to care in a permanent, healthy, safe 

healthy, safe environment." In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 507 (Pa.Super. 

child's right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, 

of.. .her child is converted, upon the parent's failure to fulfill... her parental duties, to the 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(b). "A parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing 

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)(l), (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. 

i 

Once the Court has determined tl,a;~~~:;,:~:;f-the statutory req:i,emcnts under . · 1 · 

§ 2511 ( a) are satisfied, the Court must also engage in an analysis of"[ o ]ther considerations," ) 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 251 l(b): 

ii 

') 

•' '• 
27 

2003)). 

precise facts in issue." Id. ( quoting In re JL. C. & JR. C., 83 7 A.2d 124 7, 1251 (Pa.Super. 

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the 

convincing evidence is defined as evidence "so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to 

,I (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting In re SH., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Clear and 

I 

,1 

I· 

11 

ii 

I' 

H 

u 1: 

Ii 

" j! 

Ji 

ii if 

Ii 

termination are valid by "clear and convincing evidence." In re R.NJ., 985 A.2d 273, 276 

The party seeking termination of parental rights must demonstrate the asserted grounds for 

exists between the child and a parent. See In re ALM., 2014 WL 6756296 (Pa.Super. 2014). 

Superior Court, the Court is not required to ignore safety concerns simply because a bond 

factors the Court must consider. In re A.D., 93 A.3d at 897. As recently indicated by the 

best interests of the child. In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa.Super. 2012). It is but one of the 

existence of an emotional bond does not preclude a determination that a termination is in the 

(Pa.Super. 2000) (citing In re William L., 383 A.2d 1228, 1241 (Pa. 1992)). The mere 

parental ties is usually "extremely painful." In Interest of C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1202 

relationship." Id. When a child has a close relationship with a parent, severance of close 

determine whether its termination 'would destroy an existing, necessary, and beneficial 

child. The Court must "examine the status of the bond [between parent and child] to 

The Court is also required to analyze whether a bond exists between the parent and 

omitted). 

CS., 761 A.2d 1197, 1202 (Pa.Super. 2000)); In re A.D., 93 A.3d at 898 (internal citations 

child. In re Adoption of TB.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa.Super. 2003)(citing In the Interest of 

---·-----~····--~~--~ -~~--··-·--····--·······----- 

;I 
i 

28 

York." Mother also testified that S.K. "never" had any accidents with her, "not one time," and 

with a family that lived on Argyle Street. 1074 Argyle Street ... They are scared of the system, 

11 too, and they are people of God, because they were worried about getting involved because 

i' ii one minute I was Jiving with them and the next minute I'm calling them from a psychiatric 

1: 

I! 

J/ ward to come pick me up, and they are like, whoa, you know?" This testimony indicates that 

;i ii on August 3, 2013 Mother's address was 1074 Argyle Street. Later in her description of the 

1: 

!I same day, Mother described her address to the police officer as " ........ Street, 

;1 

ij 

stated, "We didn't want to be there for six or seven hours. I had a place to live. I was living 

believes is the truth, even if she is mistaken. During her testimony on March 12, 2015, she 

discrepancies in Mother's testimony are not intentional, but rather Mother presents what she 

historically not forthcoming with information. The Court believes, that many of the 

At the outset, the Court did not find Mother to be a credible witness. Mother is 

is presented. 

only to the evidence presented, but takes into consideration the manner in which that evidence 

Adoption of R.JS., 90 l A.2d 502, 506 (Pa.Super. 2006)). This Court, therefore, considers not 

all, part, or none of the evidence." In re N. C., 909 A.2d 818, 823 (Pa.Super. 2006)( citing In re 

conflicts in the testimony. In carrying out these responsibilities, the ... court is free to believe 

charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witnesses and resolving any 

Court to consider. The Court is not required to accept all statements as true. The Court "is 

not mean that the statement itself is considered fact or that the statement is evidence for the 

ii 

11 

---- --- II ~--- ;l,~~;:~p;e fact that something was stated and was memorialized in the transcript does -r~~ 

I, I 

I 
i 

i 

,-·-~- 

29 

Ii 

iJ 

ii 

!: 

)! " 

Mother engaged in sincere efforts to perform some parental duties sufficient for this 

Section 2Sll(a)(2) 

Court does therefore decline to terminate Mother's rights pursuant to this subsection. 

j. provides him with gifts. She has made a sincere effort to remain a part of S.K.'s life. The 

'

], I 

if I, 

I! 

:J 

Ii I, 

Ii ;: ·1 

!i 

Ii 

11[ 

Comito determine that the Agency did not carry its burden by clear and convincing evidence 

li 

with him once a week by phone. She attends some of S.K. 's medical appointments and 

keeps in contact with S.K., visiting with him approximately three days per week and speaking 

2013, Mother has continued to perform some parental duties on behalf of her son. Mother 

relinquish her parental rights to S.K. On the contrary, since the adjudication of S.K. in August 

No credible evidence was demonstrated that Mother demonstrated a settled purpose to 

Section 2Sll(a)(l) 

rendering its determination on the termination petition. 

The Court took the Jack of credibility of both of these witnesses into consideration in 

adjudication. 

communicated with a number of other employers throughout the course of S.K.'s 

restaurant jobs, when a review of the record clearly indicates that Ms. Stevenson herself had 

components of her testimony. For example, Ms. Stevenson testified that Mother had two 

The Court also did not find Ms. Stevenson to be a credible witness related to certain 

dishonesty. 

some of her testimony was clearly contradictory, inconsistent, or showed evidence of 

then admitted that he "might have had one or two accidents with me." The Court finds that 

I. 

II 

:1 

': 
. 

,I 

u 

.I 

30 

Mother often moves from location to location, prioritizing her dogs over establishing stability. ,. 

/l !i 

j! 

:I 

I 

housing. Mother often selected housing that was inappropriate for reunification purposes. 

to her dogs. During the course of S.K.'s adjudication, Mother was unable to maintain stable 

present, although she had been told about the visit earlier in the day; she called Ms. B .. 

j, 

!f when she was instructed not to do so; and she left one of S.K. 's medical appointments to tend 

I, 

11 

11 I. 

ii 

ii 

Ii 

d 

she appeared at a visit between S.K. and his grandmother, claiming she didn't know he was 

Illlll9 detailed an incident where Mother chased S.K. around the backseat of the minivan; 

In addition to leaving her child with a stranger, which led to the original placement, Ms. 

needs of her son and an inability to control her impulses and exercise proper judgment, to wit: 

safe environment for S.K. Her behavior demonstrates a clear lack of an ability to prioritize the 

Mother has not demonstrated an ability to operate in a fashion that would provide a 

incapacity will not be remedied by Mother, at least not within the foreseeable future. 

and physical well-being. The credible evidence presented also indicates that the cause of the 

providing S.K. the essential parental, care, control, and subsistence necessary for his mental 

S.K. The credible evidence, however, does support a finding that Mother remains incapable of 

repeated and continued abuse or neglect of S.K. by Mother or a refusal of Mother to parent 

Although the competent evidence presented does not suggest there is a question of 

supported by the record. 

Court to make a finding that a termination of parental rights under Section 2511 (a)(2) is 

However, the Court does find that sufficient credible evidence was presented in order for the 

Ii that termination of her parental rights pursuant to Section 2511 (a)(l) was appropriate. 

I 

i 
31 

is inconsistent in treating her mental health. In periods of stress, particularly "around the 

of stress, though she does well when she has stable housing and a functioning vehicle. Mother 

by history. According to Ms. Hill, Mother's attention deficit disorder is exacerbated in periods 

I 

I 

after more than a year-and-a-half of Agency involvement. ! 

Despite Mother's protestations that she does not have any mental health concerns, Ji;1""( 

I current counselor has labeled Mother with adjustment disorder and attention deficit disorder 

behasiortand lack of stability have led Mother's visits to remain partially supervised, even 

circumstances that necessitated placement. The continuing concerns related to Mother's 

no point during S.K. 's adjudication has she made substantial progress toward alleviating the 

with a stranger, rather than acknowledging the potential safety risk such conduct created. At 

physical and mental health concerns. Mother continues to attempt to justify abandoning S.K. 

on obtaining stable, appropriate housing; stable, consistent employment; or treating her 

was removed from her care by the police. Mother simply is not capable of directing her efforts 

approximately forty-five minutes at the termination hearing retelling the story of the day S.K. 

questioning witnesses on statements they made nearly a year before and spending 

counsel. Mother continues to focus on determinations that have already been made, 

laughter and covering her face with papers during witnesses' responses to questions by 

frequent disruptive behavior and interruptions during the proceedings, such as her outbursts of 

limitations. Mother also, at times, acts erratically, evidenced before the Court during her 

seeks employment doing jobs she cannot maintain considering her self-described physical 

; . . . . . . I . Although she could detail a list of bills to be paid, she was unable to establish an income. She ) 
-----·----~~···· 

32 

Nulph never received proof of Mother's employment. 

prescription. Mother has never provided Ms. Egbert with a copy of that prescription. Ms. 

documentation requested; for example, Ms. Egbert did request a copy of Mother's Adderall 

Mother decides what information Mother would like to provide. She does not provide 

termination from the crab shack, although she had been terminated at the time of the meeting. 

to assist Mother in the reunification effort. Mother, for example, did not disclose her 

communicate her absence, but she was not willing to fully cooperate with the service designed 

Mother obviously connected with Ms. Nulph, and would make most appointments or 

lacks the ability to exercise appropriate coping skills in her everyday life. 

implementation of coping skills in Mother's everyday life. This testimony suggests Mother 

from having the services provided by an in-home team, who could be with her to assist in the 

testified that Mother also continues to need counseling services and Mother could benefit 

her mental health reportedly prescribed. She self-medicates with marijuana. Ms. Hill credibly 

between October 17, 2014 and February 20, 2015. She declines to take other medications for 

medication she is not supposed to consume. Mother refused to take tests for a period of time 

amphetamines. Conversely, assuming she does not have a prescription, she is often taking a 

not take it consistently; nine of the thirty-six successful attempts to test were negative for 

Also, assuming, arguendo, Mother is prescribed Adderall for her diagnosis, she does 

participation in counseling since September or October 2014 as "sporadic." 

------------------------ --- i 

holidays" when Ms. Hill indicated Mother started to decline, Mother should seek additional i 

! 

treatment or at least meet treatment recommendations. Ms. Hill described Mother's 

·-,"--------···-,.··---- -·-~II ~--·-"--- 

if 

:1 

I 
----·-----4---- ---~- ---- ------- ---------------------+---- 

33 

health, instability, particularly in the areas of housing and employment, and drug use. Those 

ii was not a resource at the time of the adjudication, due to concerns regarding Mother's mental 

'i 

·! 

: 

where Mother left S.K. with a stranger while she took another person's injured dog to receive 

'I 

'1· j basis due to a safety concern. Mother was hospitalized pursuant to a 302 hold after an incident 

rl 

1· ,I 

!1 

!j 

:: veterinary care. S.K. was placed in foster care at the time of his adjudication because Mother 

S.K. was removed from Mother's care and initially put in placement on an emergency 

eighteen months. Both sixteen and eighteen are greater than six. 

occurred on the petition related to Mother, S.K. had been in placement for approximately 

which time S.K. was in placement for approximately sixteen months. At the time the hearing 

dependent on August 20, 2013; the termination petition was filed December 16, 2014, at 

S.K. has undeniably been in placement in excess of six months. S.K. was adjudicated 

Section 2511(a)(5) 

discussion of Section 2511 (b) appears herein. 

of Mother's parental rights pursuant to Section 2511 (a)(2) is appropriate. A detailed 

Therefore, based on the credible evidence presented. the Court finds that termination 

enough stability lo render her capable of independently providing S.K. with the care he needs. 

Court cannot. from the credible evidence presented, speculate as to when Mother may have 

not have the stability necessary to alleviate the stressors that exacerbate her disorder and the 

providing S.K. with the essential parental care and subsistence that he requires. Mother does 

·---,. ---~'I 

I

ll Because of the sheer lack of sustained progress in the past year-and-a-half, the Court 

cannot determine that Mother can or will remedy the conditions that render her incapable of 
,, 

-----:;----------- 

34 'i 

i weekly, but then Ms. Hill described Mother's participation in sessions to be "sporadic." 

JI intermittently. Ms. Hill stated that in September or October the sessions were moved to binot remedied many of the concerns that cause her stress and, at a time when she should be 

her apartment, the car was running well," Mother was doing well, However, when stress I 

f I increased, her symptoms increased and "it kind of went down from there." Mother still has 

ii !I 

Ji 

H ,, 

;[ consistent in attending counseling sessions, she has been communicating with Ms. Hill only 

H 

L 

Hill, during periods of stress. During periods of stabilization, Ms. Hill testified, "when she got 

Mother also has difficulty controlling her behavior, particularly, as pointed out by Ms. 

on a rather regular basis. 

after the visit was scheduled to begin, but she does see S.K. or speak to him on the telephone 

she does maintain consistent visitation with S.K. She does occasionally miss a visit, or appear 

for more than thirty minutes and did not, at that time, explain her absence. To Mother's credit, 

show progress. During the termination proceeding, she disappeared during a ten-minute recess 

she consistently indicates that she is working on her time management skills but does not 

demonstrate those very behaviors. Mother appears late to hearings and to visits. Furthermore, 

misjudge how much time something will take. Both Ms. Hill and this Court have seen Mother 

individual with ADHD has "horrendous" time management skills, because they are prone to 

difficulty processing information and prioritizing tasks. Additionally, Ms. Hill testified that an 

individuals with severe ADD and ADHD are impulsive, make snap judgments, and have 

Concerns regarding Mother's mental health continue to exist. Ms. Hill testified that 

.I 

!! 

:: 

. ... . / t..; concerns have not been alleviated and cannot be re1~1:die~ witl~in a reasonable peri:c;-:f ti~~~:.-···--···-~ 
:j 

35 

I 

'I ,, 

2014 until sometime after the 2015 calendar year began that the Agency deemed acceptable; 

the time of the adjudication, Mother did reside in a hotel room at the Midway Hotel from 

/J August 20, 2013 until December 12, 2013 that the Agency deemed as suitable for 

II reunification purposes. Unfortunately, Mother did not remain there long enough to achieve 

!i 

!! 

:' reunification. She has been in-and-out of a number of hotels and friends' homes for most of 

ij 

'I u 

/i the months S.K. has been in placement. She did obtain an apartment in Dallastown from July 

:l 

and whether she could do so within a reasonable amount of time is unclear. Early on, around 

At this time, Mother cannot provide S.K. with stable housing suitable for reunification 

medication for her mental health, she declines to take other medication. 

Adderall revealed by the test, some tests were negative. Although she was prescribed other 

taking the medication. Although many of her drug tests were positive for the component of 

Furthermore, assuming she does maintain a valid prescription, she is not consistent with 

former counsel, Mother has never provided the Agency with a copy of her prescription. 

Although she asserts she provided a copy of her prescription for Adderall to her 

and tools in her daily life. 

the added benefit of Justice Works, because that service assisted Mother in using coping skills 

ongoing need for services and an ongoing need for counseling. Ms. Hill testified she could see 

during periods of stress. Furthermore, Mother's chosen counselor believes Mother has an 

Ji 

i; Ii , 

--·· -· .... --·-··I Bec::se :other has not adequately been addressing either her meutal health concerns or the I 

I I 

other conditions that necessitated placement, safety concerns still exist. Mother continues to 

I be unable to identify the potential danger caused by her actions when she acts impulsively 
--------------------- 

'j 

36 

:; 

4 It is unclear to the Court what lawyer Mother had to pay. Attorney Woodward was court-appointed and paid by 

the County. 

know why she is terminated from positions. 

to provide more than two legal paystubs since S.K. was adjudicated. She has only sought legal 

I/ employment that seems physically challenging for her to do, considering the varicose veins 

if 

ii 

(1 and pain she reports in her leg, and therefore unlikely she can maintain. She claims not to 

I) 

never worked at any of those jobs for any significant, consistent period of time and she failed 

throughout York County, and some of those jobs were verified by the caseworker, but she 

than a few weeks at any of these positions. She reported employment at restaurants 

of time; most of her employment is in the food service industry and she has not lasted more 

Mother has been unable to obtain and maintain employment for any extended period 

that she obtained this housing because it was an "emergency situation." 

posed, that her - 1111 Street apartment is neither appropriate nor big enough for - and 

does not intend on staying at this address, as she advised this Court, when no question was 

receive notice of its address until Mother appeared at the March 12, 2015 hearing. She also 

Mother's new residence in the city is, in fact: appropriate is unknown, as the Agency did not 

$1,000.00 to "[her) lawyer,"? and paid her friend $1,000.00 for caring for her dogs. Whether 

to paying child support, fines, and tow costs, Mother instead paid three payments to a hotel, 

return Mother received in 2014 could have been used to secure stable housing, but, in addition 

Dallastown, having moved into York City in January or February of 2015. The sizeable tax 

the record a number of complaints about its condition. Mother no longer remains in 

however, Mother was persistent that the apartment was unacceptable and tried to enter into 

-~---ii ~·--·····-·----------- 

,, 

,, 

!· 
-I ,, 

~--~--·-· -----------~----·---~----·--------------------- 

'! 

37 

!! circumstances would change. 

:[ a Justice Works team was assigned to work with Mother at this point in time that the 

,. 

instead, preferring to work independently, did not utilize those services in a way that made 

11 

them effective. Mother likes to choose what she works on, when she participates, and what 

I, 

n !I ii that participation looks like. When the Justice Works team terminated services in September 

Ir 

i) 2014, after nearly a year of providing assistance, Mother had not made substantial progress 

ii 

!! toward achieving many of the goals set forth for her. There is no indication to the Court that if 

concerns within a reasonable period of time. Mother has been provided with services, but 

Services or the assistance of the Agency will not assist Mother in remedying these 

determine Mother's use of drugs is no longer a concern. 

Mother sees no issue with using illicit drugs to self-medicate. The Court therefore cannot 

she consumes marijuana to relieve pain, and the presentation of the testimony suggested 

refused to test for several months until she got the transcripts she wanted. Mother testified that 

resumed taking the tests in February. There was a significant period of time when Mother 

were only a few positive tests prior to September 2014, she tested positively twice since she 

Drug use, namely Mother's use of marijuana, continues to be an issue. Although there 

Mother has stable employment or that she has achieved this goal. 

unknown. Her affidavit does not reveal sufficient information for this Court to conclude that 

Whether she earns sufficient income from this work and how often she does this work is 

work, but the only time Mother has provided receipts from payment was in January 2014. 

-·--·--···---------------------------------------'-- 

Mother testified that she receives income from performing some form of spiritual 

,, 

i· I - 

I 
-- --··---··--ti---------------------- 

!! i; 

:[ 5 At the hearing, Mother stated, " ... because I knew you were a person of God and I knew that my son was 

exactly where he was supposed to be." The "you" Mother was referring to was Ms. B ... 

i 38 

:; 

that S.K. is where he was supposed to be.5 Ms. Ba.II provided credible testimony that S.K. 

11 is thriving in her care; he has blossomed from being rather timid to an outgoing, intelligent 

i/ 

ii 

Jt Additional consideration as to whether termination is in S.K.'s best interest is detailed in !I I, 

I' 

i[ Section 2511 (b ). 

i) 

water and S.K. wearing socks she believed restricted his circulation, Mother in fact admits 

adjudication of dependency, S.K. 's daily needs have been met by his foster mother. Although 

While Mother has continued to associate with S.K. consistently throughout S.K.'s 

The termination of Mother's parental rights best serves S.K. 's needs and welfare. 

wait for Mother to achieve stability. 

matter has reached a point where the Court is unable and unwilling to continue to make S.K. 

a ten-minute recess for more than thirty minutes. She appears tardy to visits with S.K. This 

any progress: she appeared tardy to all of the termination proceedings and disappeared during 

asserted that time management is something she is working on, but she has not demonstrated 

independent and wants to achieve her goals on her own time. Mother has continuously 

for a sustained period of stability is contrary to his interests, as Mother wants to be 

It would take Mother several months to achieve and maintain stability. S.K. has 1/ 

11 

'I already been in care for approximately half of his young life. To continue to make him wait 

i 
39 

:i consistently indicates that she is working on her time management skills but does not show 

;j 

'1 

demonstrate those very behaviors. Mother appears late to hearings and to visits; she 

ii individuals with severe ADD and ADHD are impulsive, make snap judgments, and have 

I/ difficulty processing information and prioritizing tasks. Additionally, Ms. Hill testified that an 

,,. 

/J individual with ADHD has "horrendous" time management skills, because they are prone to 

'I 

ii 

!) misjudge how much time something will take. Both Ms. Hill and this Court have seen Mother 

Concerns regarding Mother's mental health continue to exist. Ms. Hill testified that 

the placement of S.K. continues to be necessary. 

services provided, all of the concerns that necessitated placement have not been alleviated and 

may have at times made progress toward some of her goals or has been mostly compliant with 

instability, particularly in the areas of housing and employment; and drug use. Although she 

resource at the time of the adjudication, due to concerns regarding Mother's mental health; 

care. S.K. was placed in foster care at the time of his adjudication because Mother was not a 

where Mother left S.K. with a stranger while she took an injured dog to receive veterinary 

basis due to a safety concern. Mother was hospitalized pursuant to a 302 hold after an incident 

S.K. was removed from Mother's care and initially put in placement on an emergency 

greater than the twelve-month requirement established in Section 2511 (a)(8). 

S.K. was in placement for approximately sixteen months. Sixteen months is four months 

S.K.' s adjudication on August 20, 2013 until the time the petition on December 16, 2014, 

Indisputably, S.K. has been in placement in excess of twelve months. From the time of 

Section 251l(a)(8) 

. ·----- .. ,, ---~ii i-,--~---· 

! 

,i 
40 

taking the medication. Although many of her drug tests were positive for the component of 

I Although she asserts she provided a copy of her prescription for Adderall to her 

II 

" r: former counsel, Mother has never provided the Agency with a copy of her prescription. 

!l 

1' !I Furthermore, assuming she does maintain a valid prescription, she is not consistent with 

'I 

counseling. 

Mother has an ongoing need for services, specifically Justice Works, and an ongoing need for 

acts impulsively during periods of stress. Furthermore, Mother's chosen counselor believes 

Mother continues to be unable to identify the potential danger caused by her actions when she 

concerns or the other conditions that necessitated placement, safety concerns still exist. 

be "sporadic." Because Mother has not adequately been addressing either her mental health 

weekly, but then Ms. Hill described Mother's participation in sessions after that alteration to 

intermittently. Ms. Hill stated that in September or October the sessions were moved to biconsistent in attending counseling sessions, she has been communicating with Ms. Hill only 

remedied many of the concerns that cause her stress and, at a time when she should be 

however, her symptoms increased and "it kind of went down from there." Mother still has not 

her apartment, the car was running well," Mother was doing well. When stress increased, 

Hill, during periods of stress. During periods of stabilization, Ms. Hill testified, "when she got 

Mother also has difficulty controlling her behavior, particularly, as pointed out by Ms. 

S.K. or speak to him on the telephone on a rather regular basis. 

occasionalJy miss a visit, or appear after the visit was scheduled to begin, but she does see 

·----------·-·····--· ..• ····~ -~-~------~-~----------------- 

Mother's credit, she does maintain consistent visitation with S.K. She does 

' ii 

i/ 

!; 

i! 

-----t'j 

-----·-·~--·,!~- --· --·------··--·----- 

I progress. To 

I 

' 

,, 

' 
41 

period of time; most of her employment is in the food service industry and she has not lasted 

Mother has also been unable to obtain and maintain employment for any extended 

because it was an "emergency situation." 

apartment is neither appropriate nor big enough for smf and that she obtained this housing 

address, as she advised this Court, when no question was posed, that her .... Street 

Mother appeared at the March 12, 2015 hearing. She also does not intend on staying at this 

in fact, appropriate is unknown, as the Agency did not receive notice of its address until 

as she departed that apartment in early 2015. Whether Mother's new residence in the city is, 

the termination, the Court does note that Mother no longer remains at the Dallastown address, 

Although the Court is not to consider efforts to remedy the circumstances made after 

this goal. 

complaints about its condition. Mother seems to want the Court to believe she did not achieve 

Dallastown apartment was unacceptable and tried to enter into the record a number of 

insisted prior to the Status Hearing Order being entered on March 12, 2015, however, that the 

was deemed appropriate, Mother moved again subsequent to the petition being filed. Mother 

this apartment appropriate, although there were some "cosmetic" problems. Though the home 

remained there at the time of the filing of the petition in December 2014. The Agency deemed 

appropriate for reunification. She did obtain the apartment in Dallastown from July 2014 and 

At the time of the petition, Mother did have what appeared to be stable housing 

I I Add~ral.l revealed by the test, some tests. were negative. Altho.ugl~ she was prescribed other 

· medication for her mental health, she declmes to take other medication. 

i. 

I; 

1] 
!. 

1' 

42 

Lastly, the termination of Mother's parental rights best serves S.K.'s needs and 

t r 

Ii 1· // with drug testing as directed until February 2015. 

·1 

" 

ii 

,f I; 

j! 

,1 

ii 

has stable employment or that she has achieved this goal. 

!

/ Drug use, namely Mother's use of marijuana, continues to be an issue. Although there 

:/ 

I! were only a few positive tests prior to September 2014, Mother then began refusing to 

I' 

Jj participate in the testing until she got the transcripts she wanted. The Court therefore cannot 

II I[ determine Mother's use of drugs is no longer a concern, because Mother chose not to comply 

tj 

Her "affidavit" does not reveal sufficient information for this Court to conclude that Mother 

She has not demonstrated, or has not at least been willing to demonstrate, stable employment. 

self-employed individual, but her declared intent to do something is speculative at this point. 

unknown. She provided a signed "affidavit" in mid-December declaring her intent to file as a 

Whether she earns sufficient income from this work and how often she does this work is 

work," but the only time Mother has provided receipts from payment was in January 2014. 

Mother testified that she receives income from performing some form of "spiritual 

maintain. She claims not to know why she is terminated from positions. 

considering the varicose veins and pain she reports in her leg, and therefore unlikely she can 

filed. She has only sought legal employment that seems physically challenging for her to do, 

to provide more than two legal paystubs in the year prior to the termination petition being 

never worked at any of those jobs for any significant, consistent period of time and she failed 

. 

)j 

I 

.i 

:1 

.. -r,~;~,e than a few weeks at any of these posi ti~~:-~;,: reported emp I oyment a~ ;e;;::::~:-~-- 

throughout York County, and some of those jobs were verified by the caseworker, but she 
43 

ii I· 

II 1·~----- 

,i 

j ! 6 At the hearing, Mother stated, " ... because I knew you were a person of God and I knew that my son was 

!! exactly where he was supposed to be." The "you" Mother was referring to was Ms. 811111. 

q 7 Any facts as they relate to Mother's attempts to remedy conditions after the filing of the petition in October 

:; 2014 were considered only as this section relates to Section 251 l(a)(2) and (a)(5). In accordance with the 

directives in Section 25 I I (b), facts related to Mother's efforts after the filing were not considered as this section 

relates to Section 2511 (a)(8). 

:j 

1J Mother's own feelings of Jove and affection for S.K. do not prevent termination of her 

I! parental rights. See In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super. 2010) (internal citations 

Ji !] 

]: 

developmental, physical, and emotional welfare. See generally id. 

and other witnesses in making the determination whether termination would best suit S.K. 's 

(Pa.Super, 2011 ). The Court can consider the testimony that was presented by caseworkers 

consideration under this subsection of the Adoption Act. See In re NA.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 

Neither expert testimony nor a formal bonding assessment is required for 

Section 2Sll(b)7 

S.K.' s best interest is detailed in Section 2511 (b ). 

the residence he considers his home. Additional consideration as to whether termination is in 

rather timid to an outgoing, intelligent little boy. He can give Ms . .S.- directions back to 

provided credible testimony that S.K. is thriving in her care; he has blossomed from being 

have been found. Mother admits that S.K. is where he was supposed to be. 6 Ms. ~ 

complaints about fluoride and socks, no concerns about S.K. 's safety in Ms. i:a•' care 

B....- is the individual who makes medical appointments for S.K. and, although Mother 

adjudication of dependency, S.K. 's daily needs have been met by his foster mother. Ms. 

welfare. While Mother has continued to associate with S.K. consistently throughout S.K.'s 

.. - r 

,, 

i· 
44 

B9Ais the individual who cares for S.K. on a daily basis and ensures he receives medical 

Ms. B .. for nearly half of his life and likely for the entirety of the life he remembers. Ms. 

placement with Ms. B ... since he was approximately twenty months old. He has been with 

termination petition was filed in December 2014, S.K. was three years old; he had been in 

(Pa.Super. 2014)(citing In re K.ZS., 946 A.3d 753, 764 (Pa.Super. 2008)). By the time the 

and the resulting bond with the natural parent is attenuated." In re K.HB., 107 A.3d 175, 180 

child and a natural parent where the child has been in foster care for most of the child's life, 

--------+!----·----~-----·----------------------------+--- 

The Superior Court has stated that "no bond worth preserving is formed between a 

the five-minute mark. 

the one hanging up the phone, it is S.K. that hangs up on Mother when the phone calls near 

visit ends. He provides Ms. B .. with the directions back to what he considers to be his 

sometimes reluctant to attend visits with Mother and is always ready to head home when the 

typically fine during the visit and interacts with Mother when she is present, S.K. is 

Additionally, the credible evidence presented to the Court indicates that, although he is 

Rather, according to Mother, S.K. is always testing boundaries when he's with her. 

finds it difficult to consider the love, comfort, security, and closeness S.K. feels to Mother. 

credible evidence presented regarding Mother's interactions with S.K. The Court therefore 

Because the Court did not find Mother to be a credible witness, there was not significant 

supported such a finding, does not preclude termination. See In re NA.1\1., 33 A.3d at 103. 

ii 1',- ---- ··--··--····--·- .. - . ··- ·----·-···· ---------- --·-· ------ 

I omitted). Moreover, the mere existence of a bond, if the Court did find credible evidence 
45 

The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that S.K. was removed 

CS.§ 251 J(a)(2). 

of the incapacity, neglect and refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Mother. 23 Pa. 

subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes 

I 

I I 

II 

[) 

il J; 

!i 

:i 

t r 3. 

_, 

H 

ii 

ii 

u 

ii 

and refusal of Mother has caused S.K. to be without essential parental care, control or 

2. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that the incapacity, neglect 

petition. 23 Pa. CS.§ 2511 (a)(l). 

perform parental duties on behalf of S.K. for at least six months prior to the filing of the 

either demonstrated a settled purpose to relinquish her parental rights or has failed to 

I . The Agency has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mother has 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

petition filed by the Agency. 

rights pursuant to both Section 25 I 1 (a) and Section 25 I 1 (b ), the Court does GRANT the 

As the Court has found credible evidence exists to support termination of Mother's 

opportunity he is not afforded by his mother. 

Ms. B- facilitates ongoing contact between S.K. and his maternal grandmother, a 

variations of "Mommy," but sometimes refers to Mother as just "AMS?Mt" Furthermore, 

not demonstrated she has the ability to offer him. He refers to Ms. B •21 always with 

longer the case. Ms. B .. has provided S.K. with the safe, stable environment Mother has 

When S.K. first came into Ms. Ell f care, he was easily frightened by visitors; this is no 

i 

---i-- 

1 

i 

i' 

ii 

i ~r~ Ii ----------------- 
46 

~· ( 

~W(Qe(k 

ANDREA MARCECA STRC 

Dated: s(~[lS 

23 Pa. CS.§ 251J(a)(5); 23 Pa. CS§ 2511(a)(8); 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(/_ 

5. Termination of Mother's parental rights will best serve S.K. 's ne 

23 Pa. C.S. § 2511 (a)(8). 

Furthermore, the termination of parental rights is in S.K. 

petition and that the circumstances that necessitated placement c 

from Mother's custody more than twelve months prior to the filing 

4. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that : 

S.K.'s best interest. 23 Pa. CS.§ 2511(a)(5). 

within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, the termination of p 

the services or assistance available to Mother are not likely to rem 

Mother cannot or will not remedy these conditions within a reasonable 

placement. The circumstances which led to S .K. 's placement con 

from the care of Mother for a period in excess of six (6) months and ha 

---~---·-·-- 

! 

·1 

I· 

:r 

. . .. .. ··- . ·-----1-- --· ·-------- ... 

I