J-S32045-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: K.A., a Minor, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, :

: Appellant : No. 251 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order entered on January 21, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans' Court Division, No. CYS 277 of 2010
IN RE: L.A., a Minor, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : APPEAL OF: M.A., Birth Mother, :

: Appellant : No. 252 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Order entered on January 21, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans' Court Division, No. TPR 079 of 2014 BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2015 M.A. (“Mother”) appeals the Order granting the Pet itions filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Fami lies (“CYF”) to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her son, K.A. (born 1/3/2003), and daughter, L.A. (born 2/16/1999) (collectively “ Children”), pursuant toJ-S32045-15

- 2 -

section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoptio n Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). 1 We affirm The trial court summarized the relevant factual an d procedural history of this case in its Opinion. SeeTrial Court Opinion, 3/13/15, at 1-4. We adopt the trial court’s recitation for purposes of this appeal. See id

. On appeal, Mother raises the following question for our review: Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or er r as a matter of law in concluding that CYF met its burden of pro ving[,] by clear and convincing evidence[,] that [the] termina tion of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the needsand the welfare of the [C]hildren pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)? Brief for Mother at 7. Our standard of review is as follows: [A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discreti on standard when considering a trial court’s determina tion of a petition for termination of parental rights. ... [O ]ur standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the fi ndings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court i f they are supported by the record. If the factual findings a re supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial c ourt made an error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely becau se the reviewing court might have reached a different conc lusion. Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonablenes s, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. ... [U]nlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold rec ord, where the trial judges are observing the parties during t he relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other hea rings

1 The trial court also terminated the parental right s of K.B. (“Father”) and “Unknown Father.” Father did not appeal the termin ation of his parental rights to the Children.J-S32045-15

- 3 -

regarding the child and parents. Therefore, even w here the facts could support an opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility determinations and judgment; instea d we must defer to the trial judges so long as the factual fi ndings are supported by the record and the court’s legal concl usions are not the result of an error of law or an abuse of discre tion. In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 826–27 (Pa. 2012) (citations omitted). Termination of parental rights is controlled by section 2511 of the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. Pursuant to that section, the burden is on the petitioner to prove by clear and c onvincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J. , 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). “[C]lear an d convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come t o a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise fact s in issue.” Id . (citation and quotation marks omitted). Satisfaction of any one subsection of section 2511( a), along with consideration of section 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination of parental rights. In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( en banc). In this case, Mother does not contest that there is competent evidence in the record to support the termination o f her parental rights to the Children under at least one subsection of 2511( a). SeeMother’s Brief atJ-S32045-15

- 4 -

13. Rather, Mother challenges the trial court’s de cision to terminate her parental rights based upon section 2511(b), which s tates the following: (b) Other considerations.― The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and wel fare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be termina ted solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequa te housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), th e court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy th e conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequ ent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Regarding section 2511(b), the court inquires wheth er the termination of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the de velopmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the Children. See In re C.M.S. , 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiryinto the needs and welfare of the child.” Id . at 1287 (citation omitted). The trial court mustalso discern the nature and status of the parent-child b ond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id .; see also In re Z.P. , 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating th at “the court must take into account whether a bond exists betwee n child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, nece ssary and beneficial relationship.”); In re K.Z.S. , 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008) (explaining that, in cases where there is no eviden ce of any bond betweenJ-S32045-15

- 5 -

the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer tha t no bond exists). Additionally, “the strength of emotional bond betwe en a child and a potential adoptive parent is an important consideration in a ‘best interests’ analysis.” In re I.J. , 972 A.2d 5, 13 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013) (stating that “courts cons idering termination must also consider whether the children are in a pre-ado ptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster parents.”). Moreover, trial courts are not required to use expert testimony when conducting a bonding analysis, and may utilize evaluations by social workers and casew orkers to show the bond between parents and their children. In re Z.P. , 994 A.2d at 1121. Finally, the focus in terminating parental rights under sect ion 2511(a) is on the parent, but it is on the child under section 2511(b ). In re Adoption of C.L.G. , 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) ( en banc). On appeal, Mother contends that the termination of her parental rights may permanently sever the loving relationship betwe en her and L.A. Mother’s Brief at 13. Mother points out that Dr. N eil Rosenblum, a licensed clinical psychologist, provided expert testimony th at L.A. has a relationship with Mother, she loves Mother, and there is a bond between them. Id . at 13-14. Mother claims that there is still a relatio nship between her and K.A., even though she is not visiting him. Id . at 14. Mother asserts that her older daughter has indicated that K.A. misses Mothe r and wants Mother to come home. Id . Mother desires to have contact with the Children , so thatJ-S32045-15

- 6 -

they can enjoy the benefit of her love and companio nship. Id . Mother contends that the trial court’s Orders should be re versed, as CYS failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the t ermination of her parental rights best serves the needs and welfare of the Chi ldren. Id . at 14-15. In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother’sclaim, set forth the relevant law, and concluded that her claim lacks me rit. SeeTrial Court Opinion, 3/13/15, at 5-11. We concur with the soun d reasoning of the trial court and affirm on this basis. See id

. Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 6/3/2015Raymond Sanchez, Esq. Juvenile Court Project 1100 Koppers Building 436 Seventh Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Cynthia Moore, Esquire Kidsvoice 437 Grant Street Frick Building, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Alexandra Gruskos,Esq. Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard Suite 101 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Copies to: Honorable Arnold Klein 440 Ross Street Suite 5039 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 BY: OPINION No. TPR 079 OF 2014 NO.: CYS - 277 of 2010 ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

## (

L.A., a minor, K.A., a minor, IN RE:



## Gu 

# lrtl _J 

# --- u, / Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM1

does not meet the ne e ds and welfare of the c hildren. upon the basis that the termination of her parental rights did appe a r a t trial and she has app e aled this court's o rder January 21, 2015. Father did not appear at trial

. M o ther of Mother , F a ther and Unknown Father to both c hi l dren on granted C YF's pe t itions and terminated the parental rights K .A. , (ag e 12) and the i r daughter L .A., (age 16). The C o urt Rights of K.A

. (" F ather) and M . A. ( " Mothe r ") to their son , Families ("CYF") filed a Petition to Terminate the Parental The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Introd u ction No . TPR 079 OF 20 1 4 L . A. , a minor, No . CYS 277 OF 2 0 1 0 K.A., a minor, OR PHANS' COURT DIVISI ON IN RE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL E AS

OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM2 1 The c hil d ren rang e d in age at that time fr om 2 ye ar s t o 1 2 or 13 years, e xcluding the old e r sister wh o was19 ye a rs o f a g e and wh o had a c h i ld o f her own. fr om M ar c h 30, 20 09 to July 2 0 11. L.A. wa s returned t o nev e r returne d t o mo th e r's car e . L.A. was in f o ster c a re thr o ughout this c as e . K.A. was remo ve d Mar c h 3 0, 2 00 9 and February 2 0 09
. Serv ice s of vari o us t ype s co ntinu e d In home serv ices wer e pro v ided thr o ugh C YF b e ginning in in Ohio. Mother returned t o P i ttsburgh in De c emb e r 200 8
. of an older sister. M o ther wa s , at that time , still living other words, all five chil d ren were living in the residence sister and her paramour al o ng with two other siblings 1 • In living in Pittsburgh at the h ome of their ninet e en years o ld When C Y F initiated contact with th e child re n, the y we re Logan County, Ohio. t o Octob e r 30, 2 00 8 wh e n they were f o und to be depend en t in Allegh e ny C ounty, but their dependenc y actuall y d ates ba c k 2009. They were adjudi c ated depe nd e nt May 1, 20 0 9 in ag e ncy. The children c ame int o the c ar e of CYF on Mar c h 9 , as the result of a referral fr om Ohio's child we lfare CYF opened its case for K.A. and L.A. in November 2008,

Procedural History i

. \

. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM3

c o nc l usions of law supporting i ts adj udicati o n on January with a detailed statement o f the find ings o f fact and January 9 , 20 1 5, and the Court announc e d i t s ad j udicati o n 2 014
. The tria l was conduct e d on the T PR petitions on righ t s petiti o ns were f iled fo r b o th children on May 6 , f o r K.A. and L.A. o n May 28 , 2014
. Termination o f pa r ental CYF's goal was changed from reuni f ication to ad opt i on mo ther fa il ed to make reas o nable progress on her F S P goals
. and conclusions regarding the Secti o n 25 1 l(a) factors, that of this appea l, wh i ch do e s not contest the Court's findings I t is s ufficient t o say f o r purpos e s issue in this appeal. moth e r . The court wi ll not add ress it because i t is no t an CYF established a family service plan (FSP) in 2009 for into care on Ju l y 8, 201 3
. to Pittsburgh in the summer of 2013 and CYF t oo k her bac k mother had re t urned to the Pittsburgh area . L.A. returned Penns y l vania and took L.A . back t o Ohio after she o r she and w elfare agency because in January 2013 their a genc y c ame t o l ea st part of tha t time, L .A. was involved with Ohi o ' s child part of that time, moth e r and L.A
. lived in Ohio

. For at mother ' s care from July 13, 2011 to February 2013. During / ,.. -· ·· l Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM4 2 2 3 .Pa.C.S.A. § 25ll ( a) p art: Pa.C.S.A. 2 5 ll(b), Secti o n 2511(b) pr ovides in p e rtinent r ights meets the needs and welf a re of the childr e n, 23 the C o urt must al s o c o nsider wh e th e r termination of par e ntal terminate mo ther' s parental righ ts under Section 2 5 ll (a ) 2 , In add i ti o n to deciding wheth e r grounds existed to DISCUSSIONS reference. J anuary 2 1, 2015 transcript, which is incorporated by Th e c o urt's findings o f facts are s e t forth in t he STATEMENT OF FAC TS The i ii a l court abused its discretion and/or erred as a ma tte r o f law in c oncluding that C Y F me t it s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination o f Mother's parental rights would best serv e the needs and welfare of t he child p ur s uant t o 23 Pa. C .S. §25ll(b). Su c h termination immediat e l y , p e rmanently and unnecessarily deprives the child of th e love, companionship and affecti o n o f her biological mo ther. It als o jeopar d iz e s h e r re lationship with her siblings and extended family. Pa.R. App .P. 19 2 5(c) raised the foll o wing single issu e : Stateme nt of Errors C omplained o f on Appeal p u rsua n t t o 21, 2015. Mother then fil e d a timely appeal. Her Con c ise 

## ( Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM

### 5

who has cognitive and developmental disabilities and he does himself when he returned from the visits. K.A. is a child detrimental affect on K.A., such as he was urinating on suspended after February 2013 because they were having a was on December 10, 2012. All of mother's visits were per week under supervision. Mother's last visit with K.A. seven years old. His mother's visits were less than once K.A. has not been in his mother's care since he was added). re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa.Super.2008), (emphasis In re T.A.C., 2015 PA Super 31 (Feb. 11, 2015) quoting, In The court should also consider the importance of continuity of relationships to the child, because severing close parental ties is usually extremely painful. The court must consider whether a natural parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship. Most importantly, adequate consideration must be given to the needs and welfare of the child. 2511(b) requires that, The best interests of the child analysis under Section 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. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM

### 6 Foster parents are planning on K.A. autistic program. with ample room for K.A. and the other children and adults who reside there. His foster family ensures that K.A. receives needed mental health services.

K.A. is coming out of his shell in his current foster home and interacting more with others and his behavior has improved since he was placed with this foster family. The foster parents have a large and close extended family that allows K.A. to interact with others. K.A. is enrolled is school in the Keystone Oaks School District, which has an They live in a large house and foster father is retired. K.A. is now placed with very capable foster parents. It is close to certain that K.A.'s current foster parents will adopt him. He calls them "mom and dad". They have decades of experience as foster parents of children with special needs, some of whom they have adopted. Foster mother works

at Pressley Ridge, a school for children with special needs, not readily form bonds with others. For all practical

purposes K.A. has no bond with mother. Breaking what bond does exist with mother will have no detrimental effect on him. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM

### 7

development.

L.A. is a sixteen year old young woman who desires to be adopted by her current foster family and she has made remarkable progress in her adoptive home. During the time that L.A. was returned to mother, there were problems with truancy and getting L.A. enrolled in school following a has made marked improvement since coming into their home. Mother admitted that she did not understand K.A's problems, and she does not know what to do to help him. Removing K.A. from his current pre-adoptive foster home would be detrimental to him developmentally, emotionally and educationally. His current placement could not be improved upon. While he knows his mother, severing that relationship will not have a material detrimental affect on his K.A. dealing with children with developmental impairments.

His foster parents have skill and experience foster home. He is doing well in his current pre-adoptive parents. are also teaching him responsibilities and incorporating him into the family by having him do chores. K.A. has developed a good relationship with his current They participating in activities, such as Special Olympics. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM8 She clearly sees that it is in her best fulfill them. regularly and getting good grades. L.A. plans to join the Marines after high school, then retire and join the FBI. She currently participates in Junior ROTC. L.A. is doing well, and she is very happy in her current foster home.
L.A. is a young woman with ambitions and goals for her life, and she possesses the drive and determination to L.A. is attending school successfully live on their own. enrolled L.A. in a cyber school after she moved to Ohio. L.A. did not do well educationally until her placement with her current foster family, after which she developed educationally as well as emotionally. L.A.'s foster mother plans to adopt her. She previously adopted five other children, two of whom now Mother was not enrolled in that school district either. change of residence. L.A. was enrolled in a cyber school prior to July 2012. That type of school was not conducive to L.A.'s needs, and the court ordered mother to enroll L.A. in a traditional school in the Steel Valley School District, where mother was residing at the time, but that enrollment never happened. Mother then moved to McKeesport, but L.A. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM9 In L.A.'s case, I mean, she does have a relationship with her mother. She loves her mother. But she is very definite in stating that she wants to get adopted. She has experienced some criticism from her family, sisters, mother, about her decision, but I have found her to be resolute and very clear thinking about her reasons for wanting a goal of adoption. And I have to editorialize and say that L.A. is one of the brightest e xamples of progress and improvement in her personal adjustment and in her goals and her aspirations as any child I've seen in the dependency system in 3 0 y ears. She just hyperbolic statements: coming as it does from a witness who is not given to Dr. Ros?nblum's testimony about L.A. is worth quoting, status. the law's goal of achieving a final resolution of a child's the court to leave L.A. in f o ster care would conflict with However for her mother's care is an unacceptable option. L.A. would remain in foster care because returning her to If the court were to deny the petition, productive adult. by her foster mother, L.A. will continue to progress to be a L.A. now recei v es and the stable living environment provided that she wants to be adopted. With the educational support be adopted by her foster mother and she has t o ld her mother interest to remain with her foster mother. L.A. desires to Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM10

developmental and protective care they need and deserve. able to provide them with educational, emotional, want to be adopted by their current foster parents wh o are

Both children, for entirely rational reasons, interests. children realize that being in her care is not in their best Even her children to be taken into the care of others. others to help her correct the behaviors that required her despite considerable, but unsuccessful, efforts by CYF and after five years, Mother clings to this immature belief Even them and they may love her, n o thing else is important. that because she gave birth to these children and she loves Mother's thought process is immatur e . Mother believes CONCLUSION has blossomed into a young lady who's going to make her mark in life. And I have personally witnessed just enormous progres~ .with this young lady. She's a shining example of what happens to a child if she gets the right - they get the right attention and emotional support. So I believe that this is a very imp o rtant step for L.A. and something that she understandably aspires to as being important for herself. Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM11 

# Ud)JJ~. Arnold I. Klein BY THE COURT: needs and welfare of these children. of mother's parental rights to K.A. and L.A. best serves the The evidence could not be more certain that termination Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM