J

- S61003

- 17

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: N.N.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.J., MOTHER No. 505 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 19 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP

- 0001113

- 2016

***** IN THE INTEREST OF: N.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.J., MO THER No. 508 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 19 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP

- 0001113

- 2016.

CP

- 51

- DP

- 0002470

- 2014

***** IN THE INTEREST OF: I.N.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.J., MO THER No. 509 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 19 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP

- 0001114

- 2016J

- S61003

- 17

- 2

-

IN THE INTEREST OF: I.N.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.J., MOTHER No. 510 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 19 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP

- 0001114

- 2016

CP

- 51

- DP

- 0002471

- 2014

***** IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.J., MO THER No. 511 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 19 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP

- 51

- AP

- 0001115

- 2016

***** IN THE INTEREST OF: J.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.J., MO THER No. 512 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered January 19 , 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at No(s): CP

- 51

- DP

- 0002472

- 2014J

- S61003

- 17

- 3

-

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J. * MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 T.J. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s orders, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her three minor children, J.J.S. (born 6/12), and twins, N.N.S. (born 2/11) and I.N.S. (born 2/11) (collectively “Children”). 1 After careful review, we affirm. In June 2014, the Department of Human Service (DHS) became involved with Mother and her family after reports that Children lacked supervision and medical care, were truant from school, an d that their drug addicted maternal grandfather lived in the home. The family was monitored over the next several months; in October 2014, DHS learned that Mother had left Children in the care of maternal grandfather and had not returned home. DHS obtain ed protective custody orders for Children and they were placed in kinship care with maternal aunt. Children were adjudicated dependent on November 19, 2014. Mother, who had an admitted mental health diagnosis of bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety , was referred to outpatient mental health therapy in January 2015 in order to help her maintain stability in her life and provide safety and

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 R.S.’s (Father) parental rights were also terminated to Children. He has not appealed from those termination decrees.J

- S61003

- 17

- 4

-

permanency to Children. While Mother participated in 17 therapy sessions and was on medication management through out 2015 and early 2016, in August 2016 Mother indicated that she felt she had met her goals without being medicated. On August 16, 2016, a therapist discharged Mother from therapy with an after

- care plan, prescribed medication list, and index of

resource s; Mother was advised to reconnect with treatment. Following her discharge, Mother minimally attended treatment and never resumed medication management. Within weeks, Mother began exhibiting threatening behavior toward a friend who was her after

- care pla n support system. On November 18, 2016, DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Children and to change the goal to adoption. On January 19, 2017, the court held a termination hearing where DHS social worker, Lakesha A kines, Mother and kinship caretaker, Raven Jacobs, testified. After the hearing, the court entered an order terminating Mother’s parental rights to all Children on the basis of 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act. 2 Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and court

- ordered concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. She presents the following issues for our review:

____________________________________________ 2 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101

- 2910.J

- S61003

- 17

- 5

-

(1) Did the trial judge rule in error that the Philadelphia City Solicitor’s Office me[t] its burden of p roof that Mother’s parental rights to her children should be terminated? (2) Did the trial judge rule in error that the termination of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children? (3) Did the trial judge rule in error by changin g the goal to adoption? In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convi ncing 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.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination. In re adoption of S.M. , 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). See also In re C.P. , 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. Super. 2006) (party seeking termination of parental rights bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of eight grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) exists and that termination promotes emotional needs and welfare of child set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)). We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R. , 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence. Id. Moreover, we can affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the terminationJ

- S61003

- 17

- 6

-

of parental rights with regard to any singular subsection of section 2511(a).
In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). After reviewing the parties’ briefs, relevant case law, and the certified record, we affirm the trial court’s order inv oluntarily terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children based on the well

- reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Lyris Younge. Here, Mother’s continued incapacity to perform her parental duties, due to her significant mental health issues which she has been unable to stabilize, causes Children to be without essential care necessary for their physical and mental well

- being. Mother consistently left Children unsupervised, blamed others for her circumstances, and often put Children in maternal gran dfather’s care, a known drug addict. As a result, the court properly terminated Mother’s parental rights under section 2511(a)(2). See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (rights of parents in regard to child may be terminated where “[t]he repeated and continued inc apacity, 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

c annot or will not be remedied by the parent.”). In addition, DHS caseworker Akines testified that Children would suffer no harm if Mother’s parental rights were terminated. N.T. Termination Hearing, 1/19/17, at 43. Further, Ms. Akins stated that it woul d be in Children’s best interest if they were freed for adoption. Children have beenJ

- S61003

- 17

- 7

-

flourishing in kinship care with their maternal aunt who provides them with stability as well as their physical, emotional and educational needs; the bond with maternal a unt is undeniable. See In re I.J. , 972 A.2d 5, 11

- 12 (strength of emotional bond between child and potential adoptive parent is important consideration in “best interests” analysis). Moreover, maternal aunt testified that she was open to having Mother be a part of Children’s lives regardless of the court’s ultimate decision. N.T. Termination Hearing, 1/19/17, at 70. Accordingly, we conclude that termination was also proper under section 2511(b). We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Younge’ s opinion in the event of further proceedings in the matter. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/21/2017Circulated 09/05/2017 11:22 AM