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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

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., MOTHER

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-0001114-2016
J-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., MOTHER

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., MOTHER

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-0002472-2014
J-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, and 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 obtained 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 throughout 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 

resources; 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 plan 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 Akines, 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 proof 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 changing 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 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.” 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 termination 
J-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 involuntarily 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 grandfather’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 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.”).

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 would be in 

Children’s best interest if they were freed for adoption. Children have been 
J-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 aunt 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: 9/21/2017
Circulated 09/05/2017 11:22 AM