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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 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 Petitions filed by the 

Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“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 to 
J-S32045-15 

- 2 - 

section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).1 We affirm 

 The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history 

of this case in its Opinion. See Trial 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 err as a matter 

of law in concluding that CYF met its burden of proving[,] by 

clear and convincing evidence[,] that [the] termination of 

Mother’s parental rights would best serve the needs and 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 discretion 

standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a 

petition for termination of parental rights. ... [O]ur standard of 

review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact 

and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are 

supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, 

appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an 

error of law or abused its discretion. As has been often stated, 

an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the 

reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. 

Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion 

only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, 

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. 

... [U]nlike trial courts, appellate courts are not equipped to 

make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record, where 

the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant 

hearing and often presiding over numerous other hearings 

 

1

 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of K.B. (“Father”) and 

“Unknown Father.” Father did not appeal the termination of his parental 

rights to the Children. 
J-S32045-15 

- 3 - 

regarding the child and parents. Therefore, even where 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; instead we must 

defer to the trial judges so long as the factual findings are 

supported by the record and the court’s legal conclusions are not 

the result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion. 

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 convincing 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 and convincing 

evidence is defined as testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty and 

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

without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” 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 of her parental rights to 

the Children under at least one subsection of 2511(a). See Mother’s Brief at 
J-S32045-15 

- 4 - 

13. Rather, Mother challenges the trial court’s decision to terminate her 

parental rights based upon section 2511(b), which states 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 welfare of the 

child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on 

the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, 

furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be 

beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition 

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

not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions 

described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the 

giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). 

Regarding section 2511(b), the court inquires whether the termination 

of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the developmental, 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 inquiry into the needs and welfare 

of the child.” Id. at 1287 (citation omitted). The trial court must also 

discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention 

to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id.; see also 

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “the court 

must take into account whether a bond exists between child and parent, and 

whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial 

relationship.”); In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008) 

(explaining that, in cases where there is no evidence of any bond between 
J-S32045-15 

- 5 - 

the parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists). 

Additionally, “the strength of emotional bond between 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 considering termination must 

also consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive 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 caseworkers 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 section 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 between her and L.A. 

Mother’s Brief at 13. Mother points out that Dr. Neil Rosenblum, a licensed 

clinical psychologist, provided expert testimony that 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 relationship 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 Mother and wants Mother to 

come home. Id. Mother desires to have contact with the Children, so that 
J-S32045-15 

- 6 - 

they can enjoy the benefit of her love and companionship. Id. Mother 

contends that the trial court’s Orders should be reversed, as CYS failed to 

prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the termination of her parental 

rights best serves the needs and welfare of the Children. Id. at 14-15. 

 In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother’s claim, set forth the 

relevant law, and concluded that her claim lacks merit. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 3/13/15, at 5-11. We concur with the sound reasoning of the trial 

court and affirm on this basis. See id. 

 Orders affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 6/3/2015 
Raymond 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 AM
1 

does not meet the needs and welfare of the children. 

upon the basis that the termination of her parental rights 

did appear at trial and she has appealed this court's order 

January 21, 2015. Father did not appear at trial. Mother 

of Mother, Father and Unknown Father to both children on 

granted CYF's petitions and terminated the parental rights 

K.A., (age 12) and their daughter L.A., (age 16). The Court 

Rights of K.A. ("Father) and M.A. ("Mother") to their son, 

Families ("CYF") filed a Petition to Terminate the Parental 

The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and 

Introduction 

L . A. , a minor, No. TPR 079 OF 2014 

K.A., a minor, No. CYS 277 OF 2010 

IN RE: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
2 

1The children ranged in age at that time from 2 years to 12 

or 13 years, excluding the older sister who was19 years of 

age and who had a child of her own. 

from March 30, 2009 to July 2011. L.A. was returned to 

never returned to mother's care. L.A. was in foster care 

throughout this case. K.A. was removed March 30, 2009 and 

February 2009. Services of various types continued 

In home services were provided through CYF beginning in 

in Ohio. Mother returned to Pittsburgh in December 2008. 

of an older sister. Mother was, at that time, still living 

other words, all five children were living in the residence 

sister and her paramour along with two other siblings1• In 

living in Pittsburgh at the home of their nineteen years old 

When CYF initiated contact with the children, they were 

Logan County, Ohio. 

to October 30, 2008 when they were found to be dependent in 

Allegheny County, but their dependency actually dates back 

2009. They were adjudicated dependent May 1, 2009 in 

agency. The children came into the care of CYF on March 9, 

as the result of a referral from Ohio's child welfare 

CYF opened its case for K.A. and L.A. in November 2008, 

Procedural History 

i. 

\ . 

Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
3 

conclusions of law supporting its adjudication on January 

with a detailed statement of the findings of fact and 

January 9, 2015, and the Court announced its adjudication 

2014. The trial was conducted on the TPR petitions on 

rights petitions were filed for both children on May 6, 

for K.A. and L.A. on May 28, 2014. Termination of parental 

CYF's goal was changed from reunification to adoption 

mother failed to make reasonable progress on her FSP goals. 

and conclusions regarding the Section 251l(a) factors, that 

of this appeal, which does not contest the Court's findings 

issue in this appeal. It is sufficient to say for purposes 

mother. The court will not address it because it is not an 

CYF established a family service plan (FSP) in 2009 for 

into care on July 8, 2013. 

to Pittsburgh in the summer of 2013 and CYF took her back 

mother had returned to the Pittsburgh area. L.A. returned 

Pennsylvania and took L.A. back to Ohio after she or she and 

welfare agency because in January 2013 their agency came to 

least part of that time, L.A. was involved with Ohio's child 

part of that time, mother 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 AM
4 

223.Pa.C.S.A. §25ll(a) 

part: 

Pa.C.S.A. 25ll(b), Section 2511(b) provides in pertinent 

rights meets the needs and welfare of the children, 23 

the Court must also consider whether termination of parental 

terminate mother's parental rights under Section 25ll(a)2, 

In addition to deciding whether grounds existed to 

DISCUSSIONS 

reference. 

January 21, 2015 transcript, which is incorporated by 

The court's findings of facts are set forth in the 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

The iiial court abused its discretion and/or erred as 

a matter of law in concluding that CYF met its burden 

of proving by clear and convincing evidence that 

termination of Mother's parental rights would best 

serve the needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 

23 Pa.C.S. §25ll(b). Such termination immediately, 

permanently and unnecessarily deprives the child of 

the love, companionship and affection of her 

biological mother. It also jeopardizes her 

relationship with her siblings and extended family. 

Pa.R. App.P. 1925(c) raised the following single issue: 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to 

21, 2015. Mother then filed a timely appeal. Her Concise 

( 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 

autistic program. Foster parents are planning on K.A. 

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 

and foster father is retired. They live in a large house 

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 

dealing with children with developmental impairments. K.A. 

foster home. His foster parents have skill and experience 

pre-adoptive parents. He is doing well in his current 

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 

participating in activities, such as Special Olympics. They 

Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
8 

fulfill them. She clearly sees that it is in her best 

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 

successfully live on their own. L.A. is attending school 

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 

was not enrolled in that school district either. Mother 

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 AM
9 

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 examples 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 30 years. 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 foster care would conflict with 

her mother's care is an unacceptable option. However for 

L.A. would remain in foster care because returning her to 

productive adult. If the court were to deny the petition, 

by her foster mother, L.A. will continue to progress to be a 

L.A. now receives 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 told her mother 

interest to remain with her foster mother. L.A. desires to 

Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
10 

developmental and protective care they need and deserve. 

able to provide them with educational, emotional, 

want to be adopted by their current foster parents who are 

interests. Both children, for entirely rational reasons, 

children realize that being in her care is not in their best 

children to be taken into the care of others. Even her 

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 

them and they may love her, nothing else is important. Even 

that because she gave birth to these children and she loves 

Mother's thought process is immature. 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 important 

step for L.A. and something that she 

understandably aspires to as being important for 

herself. 

Circulated 05/13/2015 11:14 AM
11 

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