J-S73016-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: J.R., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: C.T., MOTHER

No. 1268 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered July 3, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Orphans’ Court at No: 45 of 2014

BEFORE: BOWES, J., WECHT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 03, 2014

C.T. (“Mother”) appeals the July 3, 2014 order that terminated her 

parental rights to J.R. (“Child”).1 After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the procedural and factual history of this 

case as follows:

This matter comes before the court on the Petition filed by the 

Lancaster County Children and Youth Social Service Agency 

(hereinafter “Agency”) to terminate the parental rights of [J.R. 

(“Father”)] and [Mother (collectively, “Parents”)], birth parents 

of [J.R. (“Child”).] The petition was filed on January 8, 2014 and 

notice in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption Act was 

provided to Parents. The petition was served on Parents on 

February 25, 2014. [Child] has now been in placement for 

almost 18 months. A full hearing was held on March 25, 2014, 

and then additional testimony was presented on April 22, 2014. 

Juvenile records were incorporated fully at the termination 

hearing on March 25, 2014.

____________________________________________

1 The court also terminated the parental rights of J.R. (“Father”) in the 

July 3, 2014 order. Father also filed a notice of appeal which was docketed 

at 1325 MDA 2014. That appeal is disposed of in a separate memorandum.
J-S73016-14

- 2 -

* * *

The relevant facts are as follows: [Child] is a minor child born [in 

November 2012], in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. At the 

time of [Child’s] birth, Mother and Father were living together in 

a motel room at Penns Woods Inn, in Manheim with three other 

people. Additionally, Mother had a previous history with the 

Agency, and her first[-]born child was placed with a family friend 

under a safety plan that was developed due to neglect [of the 

child] while under Mother’s care. Mother’s older child was 

subsequently adopted by the resource family.

Due to these concerns, [Child] was released from the hospital 

under a safety plan on December 13, 2012. On December 15, 

2012, the safety plan family contacted the Agency and stated 

they were no longer willing to keep the child. [Child] has been 

in Agency care since December 16, 2012. [Child] was placed in 

the resource home that adopted his older half-brother and has 

done very well there. At the time of placement, the Agency was 

very concerned with Mother and Father’s inappropriate housing, 

Mother’s mental health and their parenting skills.

The court approved a Child Permanency Plan that included the 

following goals for both Mother and Father: mental health, 

parenting, income, housing, and commitment to the child. At 

the hearing, the caseworker testified that she had provided them 

with information on low-income housing and how to apply for it. 

She also spoke to them about websites they could use to find 

housing and how to look in the newspaper. At that time, the 

caseworker also offered to continue providing the information 

and assist in filling out applications. Both parents have 

completed their mental health goals, have demonstrated a 

commitment to the child by regularly attending visits, and now 

have sufficient income. However, Parents have been unable or 

unwilling to find appropriate housing for the child. Mother and 

Father were also unable to start working on the parenting goal, 

as the Personalized Parent Trainer [(“PPT”)] could only be put in 

place once the housing goal was met.3 In addition to verbal 

communication, the Agency sent letters to Parents on June 6, 

2013, August 5, 2013, September 4, 2013 and December 9, 

2013 in which [it] encouraged Parents to keep the Agency 

updated and to find housing so that a referral to a [PPT]

program could be made. [Child] has now been in placement for 

almost 18 months.
J-S73016-14

- 3 -

3 The Agency determined that a parenting class would not 

be sufficient to satisfy the parenting goal, due to Mother’s 

demonstrated parenting deficits with her older child.

At the first review hearing on June 4, 2013, the caseworker 

testified that Mother and Father were still residing at the Penns 

Woods Inn, but they had plans for housing. The caseworker also 

testified that she explained to Mother and Father that she could 

not make a referral to a Personalized Parent Trainer until there 

was more stable and appropriate housing. The caseworker 

stated, “I think that they’re both committed to getting housing, 

and I think that knowing that the biggest step, being the 

parenting, can’t start until that happens . . . I think, if anything, 

they’re definitely going to make sure they have it done now.”

The caseworker testified that, in 2013, Father was reporting to 

the Agency that he was making $800 per week. In actuality, 

Father had made approximately $5,000 for the entire year of 

2013. Mother reported to the Agency that she was filing for SSI 

and would receive around $900 per month. Based upon the 

income being reported to the caseworker, the Agency did not 

provide services to help Parents apply for low-income housing. 

Additionally, Parents repeatedly indicated to the caseworker that 

they were identifying appropriate housing and therefore did not 

need support finding a place to live. The parents are solely 

responsible for the misinformation given to the Agency and 

Court concerning their income and housing prospects, which 

directly affected the services provided to them.

Father first told the Agency that he had trouble locating housing 

in October of 2013, after the child had been in placement for 10 

months. At a hearing before the Master on October 2, 2013, the 

caseworker stated: “The income is less than we expected. Part 

of the Agency’s sort of hands-off approach at finding housing 

was an impression to us that they had sufficient funds . . . So 

there will be some additional efforts put forth in terms to help to 

find some housing.” The caseworker again stated that the PPT 

would only be willing to work with the family in a potentially 

permanent home, and they would not accept a referral while 

Mother and Father continued to reside in the motel. [The] 

caseworker also testified that Parents indicated that part of their 

struggle finding housing was their low credit score. The 
J-S73016-14

- 4 -

caseworker had made calls to Tabor[2] but had not been called 

back. The caseworker also testified that she was going to ask 

Mother and Father to sign a release so she could talk with the 

landlord to figure out what it would take for Parents to switch 

from the motel room to an apartment on the same premises.

The caseworker spoke with Father in November 2013, and he 

told her that a family friend was willing to rent them a basement 

apartment for $250 or $500 a month,13 which was less than 

what they paid to the motel. The caseworker testified that at 

that time she told Father that was a good option, because even 

if it was not appropriate for the child, they would save money to 

put towards an apartment. The caseworker stated that Father 

told her in December that moving into the basement apartment 

would not happen, as he did not think it would be the right place 

for the child. At this point, [Child] had been in Agency custody 

for a year.

13 The record is unclear. The caseworker originally 

testified that the rent of the basement apartment would be 

$450-$500, but later stated that it was $250. Parents 

were paying about $750/month at the motel where they 

were staying.

At the initial termination of parent rights and review hearing on 

February 25, 2014, the caseworker stated that the parents had 

progressed only minimally on their child permanency plans since 

the first review. The caseworker stated, “They certainly took a 

lot of steps early on, but there seems to be not much followthrough lately.” [He] testified that parents still did not have 

stable income, they continued to reside in the Penns Wood Inn, 

and therefore had not been referred for parenting. The 

caseworker also testified that Parents had completed the mental 

health component of their plans and continued to attend and 

behave appropriately at visits [with Child], however they did not 

seem dedicated to completing their plans. The caseworker 

stated that [he] was suspicious as Parents kept telling [him] that 

they were applying for housing, but had not provided [him] with 

any names, applications, or records of income.

____________________________________________

2 Tabor is a Lancaster County community organization that assists with 

housing and provides financial counseling.
J-S73016-14

- 5 -

Father testified at the [February 2014] hearing that he was laid 

off from Good’s Dairy in November of 2013, where he worked for 

8 years, and only earned approximately $5,000 before he was 

let go in 2013. He had earned approximately $800 per [week] 

(approximately $40,000 a year) in prior years. He stated that 

he had filed for unemployment but was denied due to inadequate 

hours, and at the time of the hearing his appeal was still 

pending. Father stated that he was unable to obtain 

employment because he needed Monday afternoons off in order 

to attend visits. Father told the Court that his friend was buying 

a lot with a house on it, and hopefully they could move in by 

March 1, 2014. The caseworker met with Father on March 3, 

and he told the caseworker that he would be meeting with the 

landlord later that week to sign a lease. Prior to the termination

of parental rights hearing on March 25, 2014, Father informed 

the caseworker that they would not be moving into that property 

in the immediate future as the current tenant was still living in 

the house and the potential landlord had not purchased the 

property yet. At this point [Child] had been in care 

approximately 15 months.

The termination of parental rights hearing was continued to April 

22, 2014 in order for Parents to prepare their testimony and the 

potential landlord’s testimony. When the Court reconvened in 

April, Parents had changed their plan yet again, and were no 

longer going to live in the house from the March hearing, and 

were now planning on renting a house with Father’s birth 

mother, [D.C.].29 Both Father and [D.C.] testified that they had 

signed a lease on a duplex, and would be moving in June 1, 

2014. A copy of the lease was presented at the hearing, marked 

as an exhibit and admitted to the record. As of the June 1, 2014 

occupancy date, [Child] would be in care for approximately 16 

months.

29 Father’s birth mother has a history with the Agency. 

She placed Father for adoption when he was an infant. 

Father did not have any contact with his birth mother until 

very recently.

Trial Court Memorandum and Order (“T.C.M.”), 7/3/2014, at 1-6 (some 

footnotes omitted; minor modifications to capitalization and punctuation).
J-S73016-14

- 6 -

Following the hearings, on July 3, 2014, the trial court issued a 

memorandum and order that terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental 

rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8) and (b). On July 24, 2014, 

Mother filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On August 13, 

2014, the trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

Mother raises two issues for our review:

A. Did the court err by allowing the Children and Youth Agency 

to determine the requirements needed to satisfy the 

parenting goal of the child permanency plan and then finding 

that Mother failed to complete the Agency’s parenting 

requirements, rather than making an independent judicial 

determination?

B. Did the court err in finding that the Children and Youth 

Agency provided sufficient assistance to the parents regarding 

the completion of the parenting and housing goals of the child 

permanency plan such as would justify termination of their 

parental rights?

Mother’s Brief at 4.

Our standard of review is as follows:

In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, our 

scope of review is comprehensive: we consider all the evidence 

presented as well as the trial court’s factual findings and legal 

conclusions. However, our standard of review is narrow: we will 

reverse the trial court’s order only if we conclude that the trial 

court abused its discretion, made an error of law, or lacked 

competent evidence to support its findings. The trial judge’s 

decision is entitled to the same deference as a jury verdict. 

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). 

Further, we have stated:
J-S73016-14

- 7 -

Where the hearing court’s findings are supported by competent 

evidence of record, we must affirm the hearing court even 

though the record could support an opposite result. 

We are bound by the findings of the trial court which have 

adequate support in the record so long as the findings do not 

evidence capricious disregard for competent and credible 

evidence. The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of 

the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all 

credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence. 

Though we are not bound by the trial court’s inferences and 

deductions, we may reject its conclusions only if they involve 

errors of law or are clearly unreasonable in light of the trial 

court’s sustainable findings.

In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). 

The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to section 

2511(a)(8) and (b), which provides in relevant part:

(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:

* * *

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the 

parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with 

an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date 

of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the 

removal or placement of the child continue to exist and 

termination of parental rights would best serve the needs 

and welfare of the child.

* * *

(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 
J-S73016-14

- 8 -

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.

To terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2511(a)(8), the following factors must be demonstrated: (1) 

the child has been removed from parental care for 12 months or 

more from the date of removal; (2) the conditions which led to 

the removal or placement of the child continue to exist; and (3) 

termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and 

welfare of the child. Section 2511(a)(8) sets a 12-month time 

frame for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the 

[child’s] removal by the court. Once the 12-month period has 

been established, the court must next determine whether the 

conditions that led to the child’s removal continue to exist, 

despite the reasonable good faith efforts of [the child welfare 

agency] supplied over a realistic time period. Termination under 

Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a 

parent’s current willingness or ability to remedy the conditions 

that initially caused placement or the availability or efficacy of 

[the child welfare agency’s] services.

In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted).

With that background, we turn to Mother’s first issue. Mother argues 

that the trial court abdicated its role to the Agency in allowing the Agency to 

determine that a PPT was the only method by which Mother could satisfy the 

parenting goal. Mother also contends that, prior to the termination 

proceedings, the trial court did not clearly state that working with a PPT was 

the only possible way to meet the goal. Mother’s Brief at 7-9.

The trial court stated that, based upon Mother’s previous involvement 

with the Agency, it had “serious concerns” about Mother’s ability to parent. 

Trial Court Opinion (“T.C.O.”), 8/13/2014, at 1. Therefore, the trial court 
J-S73016-14

- 9 -

determined that a PPT was necessary to alleviate those concerns, that 

parenting classes or other alternatives would not have provided enough 

guidance to ensure that Mother could parent Child adequately, and that the 

PPT was the only method by which Mother could meet her goal. Id. at 1-2. 

Because Mother’s housing was not appropriate, the PPT could not work with 

Mother in her residence to assess her parenting or work with her and Child. 

Id. at 2.

We find nothing in the record to contradict the trial court’s statements. 

At the last permanency review in February 2014, the trial court stated that 

the parenting referral could not occur until housing had been secured. Notes 

of Testimony (“N.T.”), 2/25/2014, at 31-32. Further, the record supports 

the court’s concerns about Mother’s parenting skills. With regard to Mother’s 

other child, among other issues, the child was found with overflowing 

diapers, Mother had left medication on the floor to which the child had 

access, and Mother ignored the child while he was crying. N.T., 3/25/2014, 

at 51-52. While the court did state in a footnote that the Agency determined 

that Mother required a PPT, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the 

court abdicated its role and did not adopt that requirement. Further, Mother 

points to no case law that prohibits a trial court from adopting a agency’s 

recommendations.

In her second issue, Mother argues that the Agency did not make 

reasonable efforts to assist Mother in meeting her goals. Specifically, 

Mother contends that the Agency should have not conditioned the parenting 
J-S73016-14

- 10 -

goal upon her attaining adequate housing. Mother also argues that the 

Agency did not provide adequate assistance to Mother in finding housing. 

Mother contends that the record does not support the trial court’s 

determination that Mother and Father were not credible regarding their 

housing. Mother’s Brief at 9-11.

Matthew McCafferty, the caseworker, testified that he tried to get 

Mother assistance through Tabor, but was unable to do so. N.T., 2/25/2014, 

at 17, 20. Mr. McCafferty had been informed about various plans from 

Mother and Father about housing, but that Mother and Father never 

provided any details, such as lease applications, names of contacts, or any 

records. Id. at 19-21. Mr. McCafferty stated that housing has been a main 

issue for Mother and that he had attempted to stress the importance of 

adequate housing since he became involved in the case. Id. at 22. At the 

termination hearing, Mr. McCafferty testified that Mother or Father told him 

four or five different times that they had secured housing, only to have it not 

work out. N.T., 3/25/2014, at 19, 33. Additionally, Parents’ place at the 

motel was a single, small room with a microwave and an adjoining 

bathroom. Id. at 19-20.

The trial court concluded that Mother misled the Agency about the 

housing situation. T.C.M. at 7. The court found that Mother was aware that 

housing was a paramount issue and that she did not progress toward 

meeting this goal. Id. Further, Mother’s lack of transparency about housing 

caused the Agency to provide less assistance than it might otherwise have 
J-S73016-14

- 11 -

provided. T.C.O. at 2. The trial court concluded that Mother and Father 

were the sole cause of their lack of appropriate housing. T.C.M. at 8.

We previously have affirmed the termination of parental rights where a 

parent has made progress toward his or her goals, but has not yet remedied 

all the conditions that lead to removal. See In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 

1005 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]lthough Mother exhibited substantial 

progress in meeting the Agency's objectives, she ultimately was unable to 

care for C.L.G. because, twelve months later, she could not provide the 

requisite parenting and adequate housing.”). Here, Mother made progress 

on her mental health goals. However, she has not secured housing, which 

has also prevented her from starting the program that was necessary to 

ensure that she can safely and adequately care for Child. While Mother 

blames the Agency for not providing enough services, the record supports 

the trial court’s conclusion that it was Mother who was not forthcoming with 

the Agency. Further, as noted above, the court and Agency had adequate 

reasons to require a PPT. The PPT would only work with Mother and Child on 

parenting once Mother had adequate housing. Mother was aware of this 

requirement, and it was her failure to secure reasonable housing that

delayed her ability to focus upon the necessary parenting skills training. 

Even if Mother’s most recent proposed housing alternative with D.C.

comes to fruition, Mother still would have to complete her parenting goal 

before Child could be returned. Child had already been in the Agency’s 

custody for almost eighteen months when the trial court ruled. It is 
J-S73016-14

- 12 -

unknown how much longer it would take Mother to complete her goals, or 

even if she can complete them. “[A] child’s life ‘simply cannot be put on 

hold in the hope that [a parent] will summon the ability to handle the 

responsibilities of parenting.’” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 732 (Pa. Super. 

2008) (quoting In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super.

2003)). Based upon the record before us, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/3/2014