J -S65005- 18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.N.W., A MINOR APPEAL OF: S.O., NATURAL MOTHER : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 298 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Decree January 11, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Orphans' Court at No(s): A-8511 IN THE INTEREST OF: N.M.W., A MINOR APPEAL OF: S.O., NATURAL MOTHER : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 299 MDA 2018 Appeal from the Decree January 11, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Orphans' Court at No(s): A-8512 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2018 S.O. (“Mother”) appeals the decrees 1 terminating her parental rights to her minor daughters, D.N.W. (born in August of 2013) and N.M.W. (born in

_________________ ____________________ _______ 1 By separate decrees, the trial court involuntarily terminated the parental rights of D.M.L.W. (“Father”) on January 11, 2018 . Father filed separate appeals at 316 MDA 2018 and 317 MDA 2018 .J -S65005- 18

- 2 -

July of 2014) (collectively, “the Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b). We affirm. 2 The orphans’ court fully set forth the facts of this case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, and we summarize the procedural background as follows: The record reveals that CYS assumed care of the Children on January 27, 2015, pursuant to a shelter care order. Reasons for the placement were the hospitalization of the natural parents, domestic violence, parental mental health and substance abuse issues, and unstable housing. Subsequently, the Children were placed in foster care on September 21 , 2015. On November 28, 2016, Luzerne County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Child ren . The orphans’ court conducted a termination hearing over several days, beginning on May 8, 2017, and ending on July 26, 2017. 3 In support of its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted , CYS called the following witnesses: Alicia Singer, senior clinician at Community Counseling Services; Grace Tavaris, case manager in the Intensive Family Reunification parenting program of Family

_________________ ____________________ _______ 2 We note with displeasure that neither CYS nor the Children’s guardian ad litem has filed a responsive brief. 3 The Children were represented by legal counsel and an attorney-guardian ad litem (“GAL”) . Legal counsel was permitted to withdraw after the GAL advised the orphans’ court that there was no conflict between the Children’s legal and best interests and that no party objected to counsel’s withdrawal. N.T., 5/8/17, at 3.J -S65005- 18

- 3 -

Services Association; Marisue Sack, employed by Family Services Association in the Intensive Family Reunification parenting program; Deborah Ficco, representative payee of Fitzmaurice Community Services ; and Sherri Hartman, caseworker for CYS . In response, Mother testified on her own behalf and called Donald Grahm, a therapist at Haven House and navigator of its wellness recovery team. On January 11, 2018, the orphans’ court fi led decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children . On February 9, 2018, Mother filed timely notices of appeal. Both Mother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Mother presents two questions for our consideration: I. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, commit an error of law, and/or there was insufficient evidentiary support in terminating the parental rights of the natural mother of N.M.W. and D.N.W., as the grounds pursuant to 23 PA. C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) were not established by clear and convincing evidence, and such granting of a petition to terminate parental rights was against the weight of the evidence presented by the parties. II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion, commit an error of law, and/or there was insufficient evidentiary support for the court’s decision that the best needs and welfare of the minor child N.M.W. and D.N.W. would be served by terminating natural mother’s parental rights as required by 2 3 PA. C.S.A. § 2511(b). Mother’s Brief at 3 (full capitalization omitted) . We consider Mother’s issues according to the following standards: The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact andJ -S65005- 18

- 4 -

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. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill -will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Moreover: there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. We observed that, unlike 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 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 I.E.P. , 87 A.3d 340, 343 – 344 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d 817, 826–827 (Pa. 2012)) (internal citations omitted). Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 25 101 –2938, governs termination of parental rights, and it requires a bifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of h is or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part ofJ -S65005- 18

- 5 -

the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond. In re L.M. , 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). See also In re Adoption of C.L.G. , 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (explaining that the focus in terminating parental rights under Section 2511(a) is on the parent, but under Section 2511(b), the focus is on the child). The burden is upon 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). The “standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testim ony 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. (quoting In re J.L.C. , 837 A. 2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003) ). Moreover, this Court may affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of Section 2511(a). In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). Here, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b) . Orphans’ Court Opinion, 3/12/18, at 2 . Those subsections provide as follows: § 2511. Grounds for involuntary terminationJ -S65005- 18

- 6 -

(a) General rule. —The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: * * * (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. * * * (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 . § 2511. Regarding Section 2511(a)(2), this Court has stated as follows: In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), the following three elements must be met: (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well - being; and (3) the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied. In re Adoption of M.E.P. , 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). Further, we have opined that “[t]he grounds for termination due toJ -S65005- 18

- 7 -

parental incapacity that cannot be remedied are not limited to affirmative misconduct. To the contrary, those grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental duties.” In re A.L.D. , 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citations omitted). Parents are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities. Id. at 340. A parent’s vow to cooperate, after a long period of uncooperativeness regarding the necessity or availability of services, may properly be rejected as untimely or disingenuous. Id. Pursuant to Section 2511(b), this Court must analyze whether termination is in the best interests of the Children. In re L.M., 923 A.2d at 511. “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child.” In re K.Z.S. , 946 A.3d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008). This Court will also look to the bond between the child and parent and determine the impact that term ination of the parental relationship would have on the child. Id. Additionally, “ [t] he statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time following intervention by the state may properly be considered unfit and have his parental rights terminated.” In re B.L.L. , 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa.Super.2001). We have recognized a connection between Pennsylvania’s law on termination of parental rights andJ -S65005- 18

- 8 -

the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”), 42 U.S.C. § 671 et seq . The stated policy of AFSA is : to remove children from foster placement limbo where they know neither a committed parent nor can look toward some semblance of a normal family life that is legally and emotionally equivalent to a natural family.... States such as Pennsylvania, which participate in the program, are required to return the child to its home following foster placement, but failing to accomplish this due to the failure of the pa rent to benefit by such reasonable efforts, to move toward termination of parental rights and placement of the child through adoption. Foster home drift, one of the major failures of the child welfare system, was addressed by the federal government by a commitment to permanency planning, and mandated by the law of Pennsylvania in its participation in [AFSA] . Succinctly, this means that when a child is placed in foster care, after reasonable efforts have been made to reestablish the biological relationship, the needs and welfare of the child require CYS and foster care institutions to work toward termination of parental rights, placing the child with adoptive parents. It is contemplated this process realistically should be completed within 18 months. In re B.L.L. , 787 A.2d at 1016. We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, and the certified record before us, including the opinion of the orphans’ court dated March 12, 2018, which addresses the issues raised by Mother in her Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. Upon review, we determine that Mother has failed to establish that the orphans’ court abused its discretion when it involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights . The orphans’ court has provided a thorough evaluation su pporting termination of Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2) and (b) . Thus, we conclude that Mother’s issues lack merit, and the orphans’ court’s opinion adequatelyJ -S65005- 18

- 9 -

addresses Mother’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the orpha ns’ court’s opinion and adopt its reasoning as our own. 4 Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/21/2018

_________________ ____________________ _______ 4 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the orphans’ court’s March 12, 2018 opinion to any future filings in this matter.Circulated 10/29/2018 12:07 PM

IN THE INTEREST OF D.W. 

### IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

ORPHAN'S COURT NO. A-8511 298 MDA 2018 RECORDED DIVISION 03112/2018 2:41:03 P11 JUDICIAL SERVICES RECORDS LICZERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Inst N 20181059

IN THE INTEREST OF

: - 

### IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION NO. A-8512 299MDA 2018 RECORDED 03/12,9018 2142:30 PN JUDICIAL SERVICES 1, RECORDS LU2ERNE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Inst Nue 20181300



### MEMORANDUM 

### ISSUED PURSUANT TO 

### PA.R.A.P. 

## 10200 L PROCEDURAL 

### HISTORY On November 28, 2016, Petitioners Luzerne 

### toimty Children 

### and Youth Services (Children 

### andYouth), 

### fled a Petition for 

### the InvoluntaryTermination of 

### Parental Rights (Petition) of

### the naturalparents for

### the minor children, D.W. and N.W., 

### in additionto requesting 

### a change ofpermanencygoal 

### to adoption. Several hearings were 

### held commencing on May 

### 8, 2017 

### and concluding 

### on July 26, 2017. The court 

### requestedproposed findings 

### offact 

### andconclusions 

### oflaw from 

### the parties, in 

### addition

### to a recommendation from 

### the guaraion 

### ad litem. The 

### court received 

### proposed findings

### offact 

### and conclusions 

### of law, 

### but did

### not receive 

### a written recommendation from

### the guardian ad 

### litem. The

### emittook 1

### the matter under advisement 

### and on 

### January ao, 2018, 

### issued decrees 

### terminating 

### the parental rights ofboth natural father and 

### natural mother. The 

### natural parents' 

### parental rights were 

### terminated 

### pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(2). In 

### entering these termination decrees, the Court gave 

### primary consideration to 

### the developmental, physicaLand emotional needs and welfare of

### the children 

### pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(h). On February 9, 2018, 

### Mother, by and throughher Court-Appointed Counsel, filed a Notice ofAppeal 

### to the Superior Court and.

### the requisite 

### Statement of 

### Matters Complained of 

### on appeal. Father, 

### by 

### and through his Court-Appointed Counselfiled a Notice of

### Fast Track Appeal on February 12, 2018, 

### three daysbeyond 

### the February 9, 2018 deadline for 

### the filing of

### an appeal. 

### Father's counsel did 

### not file a 

### Request to Appeal 

### time Pro Tunc. Mother's 

### Statement of

### Matters Complained of on Appeal is as follows:

a. The Trial Court 

### abused its discretion, committed 

### an error of law, 

### and/or there was insufficient evidentiary 

### support in terminating 

### the parental rights of

### the-Natural Mother of D.W. 

### and N.W., as 

### the grounds 

### pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.§2513. (a)(2) were not established by clear and convincing evidence, 

### and such granting of a 

### petition to

### terminate parental rights was 

### against 

### the weight ofthe evidence

### presentedby 

### the parties. 2. The Trial Court 

### abused

### its discretion, committed 

### an error oflaw, 

### and/or

### that there was insufficient evidentiary 

### support for 

### the Court's decision

### that the

### best needs 

### and welfare ofthe 

### minor children, D.W.1151.1.12a:n



### andN.W. would 

### be served by

### terminating Natural Mother's parental rights as 

### required by 23 Pa.C.S.A.§2511(b) 3. Counsel for 

### Natural Motherreserves 

### the right to amend this document within a 

### reasonable 

### time after receipt of

### the final transcript 

### and/or the Trial Court's Opinion in Support of

### the 

### January 11, 2018 Decree. (sic) 

### IL 

### FINDINGS OF 

## FAcr There 

### are two 

### minor children 

### in this case. D.W. 

### was 

### born on August 29, 2013 

### and she is 

### currently four (4) years old. N.W. was 

### born on July 

### is, 2014 and she is currently 

### three (3) 

### years old. The children were

### placed on November 27, 2015. This case involves 

### the proposed termination of

### Mother's parental rights. 

### It is 

### unrebutted

### that the minor children have 

### been 

### in placement 

### and therefore removed from 

### the care ofFather and Mother 

### since November 27, 2015. The reasons 

### forplacement were domesticviolence, 

### mental health and substance abuse issues. In meeting its requisite 

### burden ofproofby clear 

### and convincing evidence regarding 

### the termination 

### ofparental rights 

### ofMother, 

### Petitioner offered the testimony ofAlicia Singer, 

### senior clinician 

### at Community Counseling Services; Grace Tavaris, case 

### manager in the Intensive Family Reunificafion 

### parenting program ofFamily Services Association; Marisue Sack, 

### employed byFamily Service Association 

### in the Intensive Family Reunification 

### parenting program; and Deborah Ficco, 

### representative payee, 

### at Fitzmaurice Community Services. Additionally, Mother testified on 

### her own 

### behalfand offered into evidence the testimony ofDonald Graham, a 

### therapist at Haven 

### House 

### and a 

### navigator of

### the wellness recovery

### team. 3

### HL CONCLUSIONS 

### F LAW After 

### consideration 

### ofthe credible evidence as 

### summarized above 

### and

more 

### detailed below, 

### the Court concludes: (1) Children 

### and Youth 

### has shown

### by clear 

### and convincing evidence 

### that Mother's parental rights to the 

### minor children, D.W. and N.W. 

### should be 

### terminated pursuant

### to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(2). (2) Children 

### and Youth has shown by 

### clear and convincing evidence 

### that terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor children, D.W. 

### and N.W. 

### best serves 

### the needs 

### and welfare 

### of

### the children 

### pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b). 

### W. DISCUSS' Ng 

### G 

### INDS FORTERMINATI N <IiF 

### M 

### THE 

### 'S PARENTAL I, 

### GHTS The 

### statute permitting involuntarytermination 

### of parental rights in Pennsylvania, 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511, sets forth the 

### certain irreducible 

### minimum requirements

### ofcare 

### thatparents must provide 

### to their children. A 

### parent who 

### cannot or will 

### not meet the requirementswithin a reasonable time following 

### the intervention by 

### the State may properly be 

### considered

### unfit and may 

### properly have 

### his or her 

### rights terminated. 

## In ison 

### J.T. wain 

### R.T., 817 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2002). Termination of 

### parental rights is 

### an issue of

### constitutional dimensions 

### because of

### the fundamental 

### right of

### an individual 

### toraise his 

### or her own child. Therefore, in proceedings 

### terminating parental rights, 

### the Petitioner must prove 

### by clear 

### and convincing evidence

### that the statutory criteria have been met. 4

### Sonatoskg v. 

### Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), 

### In 1yec 

### T.R., 502 Pa. 165, 465 A.2d 642 (1983). However, 

### as 

### the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 

### has stated "a 

### parent's basic constitutional 

### right to custody and rearing 

### ofhis 

### or her child is converted 

### upon the failure 

### to fulfill 

### his or her parental duties 

### to the child's 

### right to have 

### proper parenting in fulfillment 

### ofhis or 

### her potential in a 

### permanent, healthy, safe 

### environment." Ira 

### Re: 

## Jr., 2003 Pa. Super. 112, citing Ira 

### the 

## Interest of Willie, 719 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super 8998). 

### A. 23 

### Pa. C.S.A. 

### Section 251111 

### (a)(2) A Court may 

### terminate parental rights 

### under Section 2511(a)(2) when: 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 of

### the incapacity, abuse, neglect 

### or refusal cannot or will 

### not 

### be remedied by 

### the parent. Accordingly, 

### Mother's 

### parental rights to

### the children, 

### DN. and N.W. can 

### be 

### terminatedunder Section 2511(a)(2) ofthe statute. Credible testimony 

### at 

### the termination hearing was 

### presented and demonstrated by clear 

### and convincing evidence 

### that Mother is incapable ofpresently remedying 

### her mental health issues 

### and incapable of providing 

### parental care which 

### is necessary for 

### the physical 

### andmental well 

### being ofthe children. 

### Although Mother completed a 

### parenting education 

### program, it was completed 

### with 

### outstanding concerns. 

### Mother missed 

### many visits 

### and she was observed 

### in a 

### supervised setting. Mother did 

### not progress to a 

### point where she was 

### observed with 

### the children 

### out in the public 

### or 

### at her home. 

### Furthermore, Mother's 

### failure to visit on a consistentbasis was 

### causedby Mother not managing 

### her finances so as 

### to afford 

### the cost of

### transportation, an issue which became 

### a concern after placement.

5Mother chose to move 

### to a location 

### that would have a negative impact upon her ability to visit 

### consistently with 

### her visitation and 

### treatment. Ms. Deborah Ficco 

### testified 

### at she works 

### for Fitzmaurice Community Services as a 

### representative payee. She testified 

### that as a representative payee 

### she receives social 

### security benefits on 

### behalf of

### individuals in order to assist 

### them in timely bill 

### paying 

### and money management. Ms. Ficco testified 

### that she 

### beganworking with 

### the parents in May 

### of2016. 

### She testified that when she began working with the 

### parents, the parents were homeless. Ms. Ficco testified 

### her agency helped 

### the parents secure housing. Ms. Ficco testified 

### that the parents chose 

### to reside 

### in Catasauqua, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and 

### that they would have received 

### their social security benefits 

### no matter where they resided. N.T. 

### 5/8/17 at 60-62. Ms. Ficco 

### testified 

### that Mother receives 

### $1,too per month and Father

rec ives $777.10 

### per month in social security benefits. Once 

### her agencyreceives 

### theparents' social 

### security benefits,

### the agency 

### pays 

### theparents' monthly rent, utilities, medical bills 

### and representative payee's fee. 

### After all expenses are paid, 

### the parents receive 

### their remaining "spending money". Mother 

### and Father each receive approximately 

### $400-$500.00 per month 

### in "spending money." Ms. Ficco testified 

### that the parents requested 

### that their "spending money" 

### be depositedinto 

### their 

### bank accounts on a weekly basis. Ms. Ficco testified 

### that 

### the parents' "spending money" was 

### to be spent on 

### basic necessities 

### such as food, toiletries and any 

### other household necessities. 

### Id. 

### at 64,67,75.'UI

Ms. Ficco 

### further testified 

### that Father received 

### settlementfunds from

### the Social Security

### Administration in the amount of $8,210.50 to be paid in three monthly installments. Ms. 

### Flew testified 

### that Father was 

### paid $2,199.00 for each of

### the first two 

### installments and received his 

### lastinstallment on May 2, 2017, in the 

### amount of $3,812.50. Id. 

### at 82, 96. As 

### of

### the date ofthe hearing on 

### July13, 2017, Ms. Ficco 

### testified

### that Father 

### had a 

### total of $3,700 in his account 

### and Mother 

### had a 

### total of $1,069.36 in 

### her account. Id. 

### at 96-97. Ms. Piece 

### testified

### that from 

### the $400.00 to $5oo.00 

### that the parents

were eachreceiving 

### per month, she was paying 

### them 

### $200.00 per 

### month for 

### transportation. The 

### transportation money was given 

### to 

### them to visit with 

### their children. However, Ms. Ficco 

### later learnedfrom Ms. 

### Hartman that the parents missed many visits 

### during the months 

### that they were given money for 

### transportation. Moreover, Ms. Ficco 

### later learned

### that the price of a 

### roundtrip bus ticket per 

### person was $32.75 

### per person. Therefore, it would cost $65.50 for 

### both parents for a 

### round trip ticket and not 

### $200.00. Id. 

### at 66, 68,69, 82. Ms. Ficco confirmed 

### on cross 

### examination by the 

### Guardian Ad Litem 

### that the parents

were always 

### provided money for 

### transportation in 

### order to visit 

### their children. Ms. Ficco confirmed 

### that in September of 2016 

### and December of 2o16 

### when the parents missed visits with 

### their children, the 

### parents had available funds to visit with their children. 

### Furthermore, in May 

### of 2016 

### and August 2016, 

### the parents would also have 

### had sufficient funds 

### to use for visits with 

### their children. Id. 

### at 94-95, 99-10o. The Court finds 

### that lack of

### funds could 

### not have

### been

### the reason 

### that the parents were 

### not able 

### to visit with 

### their children since 

### the funds were always available 

### to 

### the parents for visits.

7010

Ms. Sherri 

### Hartman testified 

### that she is a caseworker for Children & Youth. She 

### stated D.W. was

### born on August 29, 2013 

### and N.W. was 

### born on 

### July 15, 2014. The children were placed in 

### January of 2015. Ms. Hartman testified 

### the reasons for 

### placement were domestic violence, 

### mental health, 

### and drug and alcohol abuse 

### in the residencewhere 

### the parents were residing. Ms. Hartman testified 

### that a family service 

### plan was developed for 

### the parents, including 

### drug and alcohol 

### rehabilitation services 

### for the Father, 

### mental health services 

### for 

### both Mother and 

### Father 

### and a requirement 

### that the 

### parents obtain and 

### maintain safe 

### and stable housing. Id. 

### at 101-102. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the children were initially removed from Plymouth, Luzerne County. Both 

### parents were 

### subsequently hospitalized 

### to address mental 

### health issues. 

### Father was 

### discharged 

### and he moved out 

### of Luzerne County 

### to Tobyhanna, Monroe County, 

### to reside with friends. When Mother was discharged, she refused a shelter 

### placement in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 

### and decided to move out ofLuzerne County 

### to reside with Father. Ms. Hartman testified 

### that she 

### later learned 

### that the 

### parents were evicted from 

### the residence in Tobyhanna. In 

### June of 2015, 

### the parents reported 

### that they were homeless. The 

### parents were residing in 

### a shelter in East Stroudsburg, Monroe County. On 

### July 20, 2015, Ms. 

### Hartman indicated 

### that Mother 

### had telephoned 

### her and related to 

### her 

### that she was 

### in a 

### shelter 

### and Father was residing outdoors. Mother related to Ms. 

### Hartman

### that he was moving 

### back to Luzerne County to 

### the Wilkes-Barre area, 

### and 

### that she was not going 

### to move back to Wilkes

### -Bane due to dislike 

### of 

### Father's family. Mother had 

### wanted to move to New York with 

### her Mother. Id. 

### at 101-103. Ms. 

### Hartman then indicated that the 

### parents werehomeless from August 25, 2015, until September 1, 2015 when they signed a lease in East Stroudsburg. However, 

### in November of2015, 

### the parents again 

### reported 

### that they were 

### homeless 

### and resided in 

### a shelter 

### though March 8, 2016. By April of 2016, 

### the 

### parents were residing with 

### Mother's 

### aunt in Allentown. Ms. 

### Hartman then learned 

### that on

### July 1, 2016, 

### the parents signed a lease in Whittier Place, Catasauqua, Lehigh County. 

### Id. 

### at 104. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that initially, the 

### parenting education services were deferred due to 

### the location 

### ofthe parents' residence 

### and the inconsistency 

### of visitation with 

### the children. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the parents engaged 

### in mental 

### health services initially 

### in East Stroudsburg; however, 

### they 

### did not follow through with the services. The 

### parents later engaged in mental 

### health treatment at Community Counseling 

### in Luzerne County. 

### Id. 

### at 104-106. With 

### respect 

### to 

### the parents' transportation for 

### the visits with the children, Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that a bus ticket cost 

### $32.00 per person for a 

### round 

### trip from East Stroudsburg to Wilkes-Barre. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that after 

### the parents purchased 

### theirtickets, they would 

### submit the receipt to Children & Youth 

### and the 

### parents would be reimbursed for 

### the cost. Ms. 

### Hartman 

### stated that

once the 

### parents moved to Catasauqua, a 

### farther location 

### than East Stroudsburg, 

### then the price 

### doubled for the 

### bus pass which

### then wouldhave 

### been approximately 

### $64.00 per person. Ms. 

### Hartmantestified 

### that she 

### related 

### to the parents 

### that they could only be 

### reimbursed for one bus pass due to the expense 

### of the bus pass. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that initially 

### the visits with 

### the children were weekly, 

### but when 

### the parents were 

### not able 

### to make 

### the weekly visits, 

### the visits

were 

### then bi-weekly. Id. 

### at 106-107. 9Wk.

Ms. 

### Hartman emphasized 

### that she 

### had recommendedseveral times to 

### the 

### parents to move 

### back

### to Luzerne County. She 

### further explained to 

### the parents 

### that they did 

### not need 

### to 

### return to Plymouth, where a relative with whom 

### they 

### had a 

### disagreement was residing. The 

### parents could move anywhere 

### in Luzerne County. However, 

### the 

### parents refused. Id. 

### at 107. Ms. 

### Hartman testified

### that from April 2015 

### through 

### June of2015, 

### the 

### parents' visits 

### with 

### the children were inconsistent. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that during

### that time, 

### Mother was hospitalized. 

### Father was 

### residing in Tobyhanna 

### and did 

### not have 

### transportation for 

### the visits. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that in 

### July 2015, the 

### parents were provided assistance with 

### transportation. However, 

### the parents attended only one visit out 

### offour visits 

### in July. 

### In August of2015, 

### they again 

### attended one visit out 

### offour visits. 

### In September, 

### they attended all 

### scheduledvisits. 

### In October 

### and November, 

### they 

### attended one 

### visit in each month. In December 

### of 2015, they 

### attended four 

### out offive visits. Ms. 

### Hartman stated 

### that the parents moved 

### to Lehigh County in April 

### of 2016. Ms. 

### Hartman testified

### that initially 

### the 

### parents had family 

### members and a 

### friendtransport 

### them prior 

### to the 

### use ofbus 

### transportation. Id. 

### at 108-109. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that according 

### to information she received, 

### the parents only 

### had two problems with the bus 

### transportation. The 

### first issue was when 

### Mother took the wrong bus 

### and ended up 

### at a different location. The second issue was 

### when the bus experienced mechanical problems. Ms. 

### Harman testified

### that the parents moved 

### to Lehigh County 

### in April 

### of 2016. She 

### testifi 

### that in May of 2016, 

### the parents attended one visit 

### and cancelled 

### three visits. 

### In June 2015, 

### the parents attended two visits 

### and cancelled two visits. 

### In July of 2016, 

### they 10

### attended one visit 

### and cancelled

### three visits. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that there

were some 

### months wherethey did not visit with 

### the children 

### at all. Id. 

### at 

### no

### m. Ms. 

### Hartman 

### further testified 

### that Mother did 

### not comply with her 

### mental health services. She was 

### not consistent with 

### attending

### her appointments. On November 17, 2015, 

### Mother 

### attended an 

### appointment at Community Counseling Services in Luzerne County. She 

### attended sessions, 

### but then later Mother was discharged for 

### noncompliance on September 14, 2o16. 

### Mother did not successfully 

### complete mental 

### health services. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that Mother reengaged in 

### mental health services 

### in Lehigh County; however, she did 

### not successfully complete 

### the services. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that Mother did 

### not like 

### the mental health services 

### in Lehigh County. She, 

### therefore, stopped engaging in services 

### and she also 

### stopped taking her medication. Ms. 

### Hartman testified

### that Mother advised 

### her that her primary diagnosis was 

### bipolar disorder. Id. 

### at 111- 113. On cross 

### examination, Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that Mother was engaged in 

### mental health 

### treatment, but did 

### not know 

### if

### the treatment included a medical management 

### portion. At 

### the time oftrial, Mother 

### had not successfully 

### or consistently

### addressed her mental health concerns. Id. at 122,125. Ms. 

### Hartman also 

### indicated 

### that Mother's 

### treatment includes Mother being consistentlyengaged 

### in medication management 

### based 

### treatment and

### that Mother has consistently disengaged from 

### medication management during 

### the time the childrenhave been in placement. Id. 

### at 131-133. Mother called Donald Grahm, a 

### therapist at Haven House 

### Treatment Center 

### to testify on 

### her behalf. Mr. Grahm commenced 

### working with 

### Mother in

11yk,,, -CoactMuir i



### outpatienttherapy on 

### January 27, 2017. Mr. Grahm 

### testified 

### that Mother was diagnosed with 

### bipolar disorder Type 1, 

### intermittent explosive disorder. Mr. Grahm testified 

### thathe 

### had 18 

### appointments with Mother; however, Mother 

### had

11 missed 

### appointments which were 

### either cancelled or rescheduled byMother. While the Court recognizes 

### that mental health concerns often require lifelong 

### treatment, at 

### the time of

### the hearing addressing

### the instant petition to 

### terminate parental rights, 

### Mother 

### had not remediedher mental 

### health issues 

### to a level in which she was 

### stable and consistent. N.T. 7/13/17 

### at 149, 151, 156. With 

### respect 

### to parenting education, Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that Mother completedthe 

### parenting education program with concerns. According

### to Ms. Hartman, 

### the 

### remaining concerns address protective capacities and 

### the ability 

### to prioritize needs. For instance, Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that when attempting 

### to teach the 

### parents aboutbudgeting 

### their finances, 

### the Mother's focus was always

on buying 

### the children more "things". Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that Mother purchased approximately 56 

### hair bows 

### for the children. N.T. 5/8/17 at 111, 114. Ms. Hartman 

### ultimately 

### stated 

### that she does 

### not believe 

### that the Mother remedied

### the circumstances 

### that led to 

### the children's placement. Id. 

### at 114. 

### Furthermore, Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the children initially 

### had a

### bond with 

### the parents. However, 

### due to the 

### parents' lack ofvisitation, 

### that bond has deteriorated. According 

### to Ms. 

### Hartman, 

### it is difficult 

### to maintain a 

### bond when 

### the parents are visiting

### the children once per 

### month. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that she observed 

### the children with 

### the natural parents 

### and she also observed 

### the children with 

### the foster parents. The children 

### spontaneouslybegan calling the foster mother, "Mommy." Id. 

### at 136-137.

12a

Ms. Alicia Singer 

### testified 

### that she is a senior clinician employed 

### at Community Counseling Services. She 

### testified 

### that she is familiar with 

### the ease only as e 

### record custodian. Ms. Singer indicated 

### that Mother had 

### her intake 

### at the agency on December 15, 2015. 

### When questioned on 

### the current status of 

### Mother's 

### treatment, Ms. Singer testified 

### that Mother is 

### terminated from 

### therapeutic services 

### and Mother will 

### not be receiving 

### medication until she sees a physician. However, 

### there was no 

### further appointments made for Mother. Id. 

### at 47. Ms. Singer also 

### testified to correspondence 

### dated September 14, 2016, which advised Mother 

### that she was 

### terminated from 

### treatment at Community Counseling Services. Ms. 

### Singer indicated 

### thatthe correspondenceoutlined all 

### of 

### the appointments missed by Mother. According

### to the correspondence, Mother 

### had cancelled or failed 

### to appear at scheduled 

### appointments as follows:

a. December 22, 2015; b. 

### February 16, 2016; c. March 1, 2016; d. March 8, 2016; e. March 22, 2016; 1. April 5, 2016; g. April 9, 2016; h. April 25, 2016; i. May 3rd, 2016 j. May 17, 2016; k. May 24, 2016; 1. May 31, 2016; m. 

### June 21, 2016; n. 

### July 12, 2016; 0. August 2nd, 2016; p. August 16, 2016; August 23, 

### 2016:and r. September 16, 2016.

13NN . r

Based on 

### Mother's attendance records, Ms. Singer testified 

### that Mother

was 

### not consistent with 

### her appointments. Ms. Singer 

### further indicated 

### that Mother did 

### attempt to reengage in services on October 25, 2016; however, 

### Mother cancelled 

### the appointment and did

### not reschedule. Id. 

### at 48-50. On cross examination, Ms. Singer testified as to a 

### treatment letter dated January 19, 2016 which stated 

### that Mother had reached

### her goals with respect to the 

### treatment plan in January. Ms. Singer 

### testified 

### that from 

### January 2016 to April 2016, 

### the agencyprovides 

### updates for 

### thepatients to work on new goals. Therefore, although 

### Mother reached her goals for 

### the month of 

### January 2016, 

### there was no 

### testimony given 

### as to 

### mother reaching 

### other goals for additional 

### treatment 

### pans. Id. 

### at 58-61. Ms. Grace Tavaris testified 

### that she is employed 

### at Family Services Association. She 

### testified 

### that she worked with Mother 

### and Father as a case manager 

### and also in 

### the Intensive Family Reunification Services 

### parenting education 

### program(IFRS). Ms. Tavaris testified 

### that she began working with the parents in 

### June of2015. Ms. Tavaris 

### described

### the IFRS as a 

### parenting program designed to work 

### with

### the causes for 

### placement so 

### that the children can 

### either return home 

### to 

### their parents or have permanency. Ms. Tavaris 

### indicated 

### that the

concerns 

### noted in 

### the file by 

### the case worker were 

### mental health issues for 

### both parents, drug 

### and alcohol issues for 

### Natural Father, domesticviolence 

### for Mother 

### and the need 

### for safe 

### and stablehousing for 

### both. N.T. 7/13/2017 

### at 7-9. Ms. Tavaris testified 

### that the parents were experiencing 

### transportation issues; therefore, they only 

### met with 

### the parents for 

### the introductory meeting. Ms. Tavaris 

### testified 

### that she 

### attempted to 

### meet with 

### the parents on July 1, 2015,

14-JVAMIMITOndlit

July 15, 2015, 

### July 28, 2015, 

### and August 4, 2015, 

### but was unable to meet with 

### them. Since 

### the parents were 

### not able to consistently 

### meet with Ms. Tavaris, the

case was 

### deferred until the 

### parents were able 

### to visit consistently. The program is 

### meantto include 

### meetings with 

### the parents twice 

### per week. Ms. Tavaris testified 

### that without being able 

### to meet on 

### that basis, 

### it is difficult 

### to gauge 

### the parents' progress. Id. 

### at 9-10. Therefore, according 

### to Ms. Tavaris, 

### the case was "on hold". Id. 

### at 12. Ms. Tavaris 

### testified

### that the parents were 

### referred to the same 

### program with the same concerns on February 25, 2016. Ms. Tavaris testified 

### that 

### the parents remained inconsistent with 

### their attendance. Ms. Tavaris testified 

### that she was 

### supposed to meet with

### the parents twice 

### perweek, however, 

### the parents

were only able 

### to meet once per week 

### and 

### later where available once every two weeks. Id. 

### at 13. Ms. Tavaris 

### testified

### that theparents did complete 

### the IFRS 

### program; however, 

### they completed 

### the program with "concerns". Id. 

### at 26-27. Ms. Marisue Sack, also employed 

### by Family Services Association

### in the Intensive Family Reunification Program (IFRS) explained 

### that the 

### parents completed 

### the program with "concerns". Ms. Sack 

### testified 

### that she 

### began working with 

### the family in March 

### of 2016 

### and there were 26 sessions offered to 

### the family, however 

### the parents only 

### attended 10 sessions. Ms. Sack

### indicated 

### that she was 

### informed 

### that the reason for the parents only attending 10 

### out of 26 sessions was 

### due 

### to transportation issues 

### and aninability 

### to obtainmoney from the 

### representative payee for 

### transportation. Ms. Sack 

### stated that the program

was "completed with concerns" due 

### to

### the following 

### reasons: a) The inconsistencies in the keeping the 

### parenting sessions;

15111111111111

b) The inconsistencies in visiting with 

### children 

### at the child welfare agency; c) The visits were only 

### observed 

### at the child welfare agency. Ms. Sack was 

### not able to see 

### the children with 

### the parents in 

### their own home or in a public setting. She was observing 

### the 

### parents in a supervised setting. Id. 

### at 31-32. Ms. Sack testified 

### that it was 

### important for the 

### parents to attend all 

### the sessions on 

### a consistentbasis. The goal 

### ofthe program is 

### to work 

### with parents and children toward reunification. The lack 

### ofconsistency from 

### parents hindered 

### that reunification. 

### Id. 

### at 34. Ms. Sack testified 

### that she was 

### supposed to meet 

### the parents and observe the visitstwo times per week. Ms. Sack was only able to meet with 

### the parents 

### tentimes over 

### a period 

### ofnine 

### months. Id. 

### at 34-35. Ms. Sack testified 

### that she also 

### attempted to work with the 

### parents by recommending 

### that they move back

### to Luzerne County so 

### that they would 

### be closer 

### to 

### the agency for visits. However, 

### the parents, who were residing 

### out of county, did 

### not wish to

move back to Luzerne County. Ms. Sack 

### stated 

### that the parents had an issue with

one 

### ofthe relatives, 

### an 

### aunt who lives in 

### Luzern County, 

### and did 

### not want to 

### reside in 

### the vicinity 

### ofthe aunt. Id. 

### at 35-36. Ms. Sack 

### further testified 

### that they worked with 

### the parents regarding 

### their financial budget. They explained to 

### them 

### that their spending should 

### be used for necessities 

### and insuring 

### that they have a sufficient 

### amount ofmoney for 

### transportation. Ms. Sack 

### commented that at one time, 

### the mother,

### purchased clothes 

### and accessories, 

### headbands and a 

### pair ofnewboots for 

### the girls. Ms. Sack was concerned 

### that the Mother needed 

### to appropriately maintain 

### her budget so 

### that she could 

### continue seeing

### the children. Id. 

### at 36-37. Ms. Sack testified 

### that although 

### the parents were advised 

### oftheir

16

### budgeting, the Mother 

### stated 

### that she "couldn't help it" 

### and she liked buying nice 

### things for 

### the girls Ms. Sack 

### noted 

### that Mother needed 

### to realize 

### that ifshe did not budget her money well, 

### then she would 

### run out ofmoney to use for 

### transportation in 

### order to have visits with 

### the children. 

### Id. 

### at 57. Ms. Sack 

### testified 

### that during the program, Mother 

### and Father did 

### maintain housing and were no 

### longer homeless. Ms. Sack alsotestified 

### that with 

### respect to domesticviolence, 

### Mother 

### and Father made 

### progress and worked 

### with their communication skills, 

### learning to walk away 

### during 

### an argument 

### and working with stress. However, Ms. Sack remained concerned regarding 

### parenting abilities. Ms. Sack

### testified 

### that her observations of

### the parents were solely 

### under a 

### supervised setting. She was 

### not able 

### to observe 

### the parents in 

### an unsupervised setting. Ms. Sack 

### became concerned 

### regarding the 

### parents' budgeting. Although

### budgeting may 

### nothave been 

### an 

### initial reason for placement, budgeting 

### later became 

### an issue which affected 

### the parents' ability 

### to visit with the children. Ms. Sack also 

### testified 

### that initially

### the parentswere scheduled for a 

### visit

once 

### per week. Then 

### it was once every two weeks 

### at the parents' request. However, 

### should the parents cancel a visit, the next visit would 

### not occur 

### until two weeks 

### later. Id. 

### at 39.41. The inconsistency 

### created a scenario 

### in which 

### the parents saw

### the children only once 

### per month. Therefore, Ms. Sack 

### testified 

### that although the 

### parents completed the program, 

### the program was completed with "concerns". 

### Id. 

### at 45. Ms. Sack confirmed, on cross 

### examination by

### the Guardian Ad Litem 

### that 

### the parents did 

### not see 

### the children sufficient 

### times for 

### her to

assess 

### the type 

### ofbond theyhave with 

### the children. Id. at 51. Ms. Sack 

### further

17

### explained

### that although 

### the parents were able to apply

### the information they 

### learned in 

### to sessions over a 

### nine (9) 

### month period, 

### that time frame was not sufficient for Ms. Sack

### to 

### recommend 

### that the children 

### return home as all 

### the visits were in 

### a controlled 

### and supervised environment. Id. 

### at 53. Ms. Sack 

### further testified

### that the parents 

### had chosen 

### to reside outside 

### of Luzerne County. The 

### parents receive 

### their income 

### from social security benefits 

### and 

### thus, would have received 

### the money even if

### theyresided in Luzerne County. Ms. Sack 

### noted 

### that had 

### the parents chosen to reside in Luzerne County,

### they wouldhave 

### been able 

### to see 

### their children more often. 

### Id. at 55-56. The Court finds 

### that Mother had opportunities 

### to reside in Luzerne County close 

### to 

### her children. However, she chose 

### to follow 

### Fatherto Tobyhanna, Monroe County. When 

### Father 

### subsequently contemplated 

### returning to Luzerne County, 

### Mother refused 

### because she did 

### not want

### to be 

### near Father's family. Mother could have certainly 

### resided in Luzerne County 

### in a 

### different town and away from 

### the aforementioned aunt, 

### but Mother refused. The 

### court finds 

### thatwhen given 

### the choice 

### to have visits 

### with the children, Mother chose 

### her own 

### interest above 

### the children's interest. The court 

### further finds 

### that Mother's mental health issue 

### contributed to 

### her failure to appreciate

### the consequences 

### ofnot visiting 

### with 

### her children on a 

### consistent basis. 

### Mother's choice 

### to reside in a different county 

### and thus, create a more difficult 

### situation for herself, in 

### addition to Mother's choice 

### to purchase unnecessary items for 

### her children versus insuring 

### that she 

### had sufficient funds to visit 

### her children also reflects Mother's impairedjudgment. Based on 

### the Petitioner's evidence, 

### the Court finds 

### that Mother is incapable of providing 

### the childrenwith essential parental care, 

### control 

### or subsistence

18164

necessary for the 

### children's physical or 

### mental well 

### being 

### and further finds 

### that Mother's mentalhealth issues 

### and thus her attendant parental choices have not been remedied. Therefore, based on 

### the all testimony 

### ofthe witnesses, the Court 

### further finds 

### that Mother 

### has not

### been able to remedy 

### all 

### ofthe conditions 

### that gave 

### rise 

### tothe placement of

### the children, namely 

### her

### mental health concerns. Unlike 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), subsection (a)(2) does not emphasize a 

### parent's refusal or failure to 

### perform parental duties,

### but instead emphasizes 

### the child's present 

### and future needfor essential 

### parental care, 

### control or subsistence 

### necessary for his physical or 

### mental well-being. 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

. 

### .. this is 

### particularly so where 

### disruption of the familyhas already occurred 

### and 

### there is no 

### reasonable prospect for 

### reuniting it." 

### (our emphasis added) 

## In re FOAOPO, 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. 

### Super 2008). At 

### this

### juncture, 

### the children's right to have 

### proper parenting in fulfillment 

### oftheir potential in 

### a permanent, healthy, safe 

### environment outweighs Father's 

### interest.. 

### In It

### e: 

## JAS., Jr., 2003 Pa. Super. 112, citing 

## In the 

## Interest 

## of Mile, 719 A.2d. 327 (Pa. Super 1998). 

### V. AD'i ITI NAL 

### CONSIDERATIONS UNDER 23 P.A.C.S.A, SECTION 

### 251301 FOR M 

### TEE A, 

### ENVI MENTAL FACTORS Title 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b) specifies 

### that a court may 

### not terminate 

### the parental rights "solely on the basis 

### ofenvironmental factors such as

19

### inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing, 

### and medical care if found 

### to be 

### beyond 

### the control of

### the parent." As "environmental 

### factors beyond the control ofMother" was not the linchpin in the 

### placement 

### of

### the minor children 

### and because ofthe presence of 

### other, independent factors 

### utilized 

### in the placement of D.W. 

### and N.W., 

### this consideration does 

### not apply 

### and will 

### not be addressed.

ft; 

### NEE S 

### AND 

### WELFARE 

### F THE CIULDR1EN Once the Court 

### has found 

### that involuntary 

### termination of

### parental rights is 

### warrantedunder the Act, 

### the court must then "give 

### primary consideration to 

### the developmental, physical 

### and emotional needs 

### and welfare 

### ofthe child." This is 

### to be a separate inquiry 

### and even where the court has 

### already considered the needs 

### and the welfare 

### of

### the child 

### under one of

### the grounds 

### oftermination, the court 

### must do so again. Ilya 

### re Matseek, 611 A.2d 738 (1992). The term "needs 

### and 

### wefare" ofa child refers 

### to 

### both tangible and intangible needs. The intangible needs 

### ofa child include love, comfort, security 

### and closeness. 

### In 

## re Matzoth, 416 Pa. Super. 520, 611 A.2c1737, 747 (1992). There is nothing in 

### the record 

### that shows 

### that the natural Mother is 

### presently capable of providing a safe, secure 

### environment for the minor children. Parental duty is 

### best 

### understood in relation to 

### the needs 

### of a child. These 

### needs, both physical 

### and emotional, cannotbe 

### met by 

### a mere passive 

### interest in 

### the development of

### the child. Meeting a child's needs is a positive duty 

### that requires affirmative performance. ]M 

### re Shives, 363 Pa. Super. 225, 525 A.2d 

### 8oi, 8o2 (1987).

20IraMak( .11

A 

### parent is 

### not relieved ofhis or

### her responsibility relating to 

### the needs 

### of

a child when a child has 

### been placed in foster care. A 

### non-custodial 

### parent has a 

### duty to exert 

### himselfto 

### take and maintain a place of

### importance in the child's life. 

## In re Adoptiorni 

## of M.J.H., 348 Pa. Super. 65, 301 A.2d 

### 648 (1985). A 

### parent 

### must demonstrate 

### a continuinginterest in the child 

### and make a genuine effort 

### to maintain communication 

### and association with 

### the child. 

# lit reAdoption 

## of Meeray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1973). Moreover, a 

### parent with a child in foster care has an affirmative duty 

### to work toward 

### the return of

### the child. 

## /a Re: 

### William L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A.2d 1228 (1978). When considering 

### the needs 

### and welfare 

### ofthe child, 

### it is also 

### important for 

### the court 

### to consider 

### the bond between 

### the parent 

### and the child because

severance 

### of a 

### strong 

### parental bond can have a 

### detrimental impact on

### the child. 

### Matzoth, supra. Petitioner 

### presented credible testimony 

### regarding the needs, welfare 

### and best interest 

### ofminors D.W. 

### and N.W. in relation to 

### their Mother. Ms. Hartman, testified 

### that the children have 

### been with 

### the foster 

### parent, Sharon Anderson, since September 21, 2015. N.T. 

### at 7-8. Ms. 

### Hartman 

### testifiedthat she observes 

### the children 

### on 

### a monthly basis. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the children have 

### been assimilatedinto the family. They 

### attend all family outings and refer to family members as uncles, 

### aunts and grandparents. Ms. 

### Hartman also testified 

### that the foster 

### parent is an adoptive resource for

### the children.

21Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the foster mother meets 

### the children's physical needs. She provides 

### the children with food, shelter, 

### and clothing. The children's medical needs 

### and immunizations are also up to date. 

### Id. at 9. Ms. 

### Hartman 

### further testified that the foster 

### mother meets the children's developmental needs. She 

### works with

### the children 

### on age-appropriate activities. She is teaching D.W. 

### her numbers and alphabet. She engages 

### the children in play dates so they 

### are interacting with 

### other children. The 

### foster mother also "potty- 

### trained" the children. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the foster mother also meets 

### the children's emotion& needs. According 

### to Ms. 

### Hartman, 

### the children seek 

### the foster mother for comfort 

### and affection. The foster 

### mother is very 

### nurturing with the children 

### and very affectionate 

### towardthem. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that the children have been with 

### the foster 

### parents since 

### the date ofplacement. Id. 

### at 8, 21. Ms. 

### Hartman also 

### testified 

### that there is a bond between 

### the Mother and 

### the minor children. Ms. 

### Hartman describes the 

### children's bond with 

### their Mother as 

### a "play date 

### bond." She 

### testified 

### that although D.W. identifies 

### that the natural mother is 

### her mother, 

### there is 

### not a lot offaffection 

### in

### the room. There is 

### not much "kissing 

### or hugging" between 

### the Mother 

### and the children. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that N.W.

### just follows her sister, D.W. N.W. does 

### not identify 

### Mother as 

### her mother 

### and views 

### the foster mother as 

### her mother. According to Ms. 

### Hartman, D.W. exhibits some behavioral issues 

### when she has to visit 

### the natural parents. After 

### the visits, she easily separates 

### from them to 

### return to the 

### foster mother. Id. 

### at 11-12. Ms. 

### Hartman testified

### that when 

### there was a period of time when 

### the visits 

### did 

### not take placebetween 

### the natural parents and the

22SL-VaPittaWffraSE?....a. Dlial tl - ..,11111,1

children, 

### the children 

### did not inquire about thevisits. D.W. also was having less behavioral issues. Ms. 

### Hartman described the bond between the 

### foster mother and the children as a 

### parent/child bond. She also described 

### the bond as a positive bond. Both children call 

### thefoster mother "Mommy" 

### and also follow

### the rules she 

### puts in place. Id. 

### at 12-13. Ms. 

### Hartman testified 

### that that the foster 

### parent mother is willing 

### to be legally and financially 

### responsible for 

### the children. 

### The foster mother is aware 

### that the children can 

### inherit from 

### her as ifshe is 

### their own natural mother. Id. 

### at 32. Ms. 

### Hartman also believes 

### that if

### the natural 

### parents' rights were 

### terminated, it would have a positive effect on 

### the children. The 

### children would have stability 

### and would be 

### adopted 

### into a loving 

### and caring family. Ms. 

### Hartman further stated 

### that the children 

### would notbe negatively affected 

### shouldthe contact with 

### the natural 

### parents be 

### terminated. She explained 

### that there was a lack 

### of consistency. At times, 

### the parents only saw the children onceper month. Other 

### times, the children did 

### not see

### the parents at all in 

### a given month. Thevisits were 

### not consistent. Ms. 

### Hartman believes 

### that adoption of

### the children by the foster 

### mother serves 

### the best 

### interest ofthe children. Id. 

### at 12-13. Accordingly, 

### based 

### on 

### thetestimony ofMs. 

### Hartman, 

### the court 

### further finds 

### that the termination ofMother's parental rights would 

### best serve

### the needs 

### and welfare of the children.

23long expired 

### to remedy 

### parental incapacity and 

### there is 

### little rational prospect of 

### the timely 

### reunification of D.W. 

### and N.W. 

### to their Mother. MIL 

### CONCLUSION The 

### Court finds 

### that Mother 

### had not addressed 

### her mental health issues 

### and thus, her 

### attendant parenting deficits so 

### that she is capable ofproviding essential care 

### and control ofthe minor children. The 

### Court further finds 

### that she is 

### not able 

### to 

### meet her children's needs. 

### In stark contrast, the foster 

### mother for each child has amply 

### demonstrated she can and does 

### meet the physical, developmental 

### and emotional needs 

### of

### the minor children. N.W. and D.W. have 

### thrived under 

### her care. 

### The children need and deserve a 

### permanent home with a loving capable 

### parent. The only way to provide 

### this is 

### to terminate the rights of 

### the Mother. Clearly, 

### it is 

### in 

### the children's best 

### interest to do so. In the event this Honorable Superior Court 

### entertains Father's "Notice 

### of Fast 

### 'hack Appeal," 

### then, upon being advised of same, 

### this Court will file a 

### supplemental opinion addressing same. Respectfully 

### submitted,

DATE: BY E COURT,

JIENNI

25 RSIrn a a

COPIES TO: 

### Jena Piazza 

### Braunsberg, Esquire Children & Youth Services ofLuzerne County 

## in North Pennsylvania Boulevard Wilkes-Barre, PA187o1 Stephen Palubinski, 

### Esquire Attorney for Mother P.O. Box 656 Nuremberg, PA 18241 Paul L. Delaney, 

### Esquire Guardian Ad Litem 16 

### Institute Street Wyoming, PA 18644

26