J-A09045-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.N.S., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: T.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1432 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered November 3, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Juvenile Division at No(s): 

Docket No. CP-7-DP-00056-2023, 

FID: 7-FN-00031-2023

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: July 25, 2024

T.S. (Mother) appeals from the order granting the petition filed by Blair 

County Children, Youth & Families (the Agency) and adjudicating A.N.S. 

(Child) dependent. Mother argues that the trial court erred in granting the 

Agency’s petition, placing Child in foster care, and declining to allow Mother 

in-person visitation with Child. We affirm.

By way of background, the family has been in contact with the Agency 

and receiving services since 2019. See N.T. Hr’g, 7/21/23, at 3. Specifically, 

the record reflects:

Between 10/07/2019 and 03/10/2023, [the Agency] received 

eight (8) different general protective services (GPS) referrals for 

the family alleging the following concerns: sexual assault, 

[Mother] being involuntarily hospitalized (302),[1] domestic 

violence (broken furnishings had been observed in the home), 

____________________________________________

1 See 50 P.S. § 7302.
J-A09045-24

- 2 -

[Mother’s] erratic behaviors, and [Child’s] truancy during the 

COVID-19 pandemic. All eight (8) of the incidences were screened 

out due to unsubstantiated concerns, forwarded to local law 

enforcement (LEO) for them to investigate, or closed during the 

assessment phase of the case because the initial validated 

concerns had since been alleviated.

The family has been involved with the following services in the

past and/or currently: Home Nursing Agency (HNA) case 

management (Mother has gone through about 4 case managers 

herself due to her lack of consistency and failure to follow 

through), Evolution Counseling (for the past 4 years, 

approximately), mental health counseling through Primary Health 

Network (PHN), Suboxone treatment, family-based counseling 

(just recently), and Altoona Cyber Academy ([C]hild was most 

recently in the 6th grade). In previous conversations that 

caseworkers had with [Mother], she described that she and [Child] 

had a significant history of trauma (including sexual abuse).

Additionally, [Mother] alleged that she had been previously 

diagnosed with ADHD/ADD, Agoraphobia, Panic Attacks/Anxiety, 

and Severe Depression, and [Child] had been diagnosed with 

PTSD, Separation Anxiety, and ADHD (for which [C]hild is 

receiving prescribed medication through ACRP). Allegedly, [Child] 

was also receiving psychiatric services as well, but [C]hild was 

discharged after several late arrivals or “no shows” for scheduled 

appointments. Furthermore, [Mother] had recently cancelled her 

and [Child’s] necessary medication management appointments, 

and [Child] was desperately in need of refills.

Dependency Pet., 7/14/23, at 6.2

On July 10, 2023, the Agency received a GPS report stating that there 

were ongoing concerns regarding Mother’s mental health. See Dependency 

Pet., 7/14/23, at 6. That same day, Judge Ilissa Zimmerman granted 

emergency protective custody to the Agency and placed Child into foster care. 

See id. at 8.

____________________________________________

2 We note that the parties stipulated to the contents of the dependency 

petition at the dispositional hearing. See N.T. Hr’g, 7/21/23, at 2.
J-A09045-24

- 3 -

The Agency filed a dependency petition on July 14, 2023. Therein, the

Agency alleged that Child was without proper care or parental control due to

concerns regarding Mother’s mental health. See id. at 6-7. Specifically, the 

petition stated:

[Mother] has already been diagnosed with schizophrenia . . . and 

the 7/10/2023 GPS referral was the [third] such referral that the 

Agency had received concerning the currently poor state of 

[Mother’s] mental health. 

[Child] has sporadically stayed with a friend, Nanette Williams,

sometimes as long as up to 1 month--when [Mother] was acting 

paranoid and/or admitted for a psychiatric hospitalization. During 

these time periods when [Mother] was struggling with her mental 

health, [Mother] was unable to provide [Child] with a nurturing 

environment or a consistent schedule. 

[Mother] recently threw away [Child’s] mattress and other 

belongings, and the police responded to the home during one of 

[Mother’s] manic episodes (unknown outcome). 

Service providers had observed that, as of late: 1) [Mother] did 

not appear to be herself as she was “distant” (had a flat affect); 

2) [Mother] was mumbling her words and was unable to complete 

her thoughts/sentence[s]: and 3) [Mother] was also seen 

retreating into her bedroom often, sitting on the edge of her bed 

talking to herself, and laughing as if someone or something was 

amusing, however, no one was there with her. 

[Mother] recently reported that her home caught on fire; however, 

this was determined to be false when firefighters and the police 

responded on scene to the home (she blamed it on the dishwasher 

appliance). 

A domestic violence situation had occurred in the family’s home 

over the weekend prior. More specifically, it was reported that 

[Mother] had been arguing with her paramour, Christopher Harf, 

over the past few days primarily because she believed that he had 

been cheating on her (among a variety of other issues). 

As a result of the recent trauma in the home caused by the family 

infighting, [Mother] took [Child] (age 12) to CRISIS on or about 
J-A09045-24

- 4 -

07/07/2023 where [Child] was subsequently diagnosed with 

depression, received treatment, and then discharged home.

As a result of the above GPS referral, the caseworker met with 

[Mother] and [Child] on 7/10/2023. 

During the meeting with the family, [Mother] stated that there 

was a supposed robbery of her and [Child’s] prescribed 

medication, and there were concerns that [Mother] may have 

given [Child] double (2x) the amount of her prescribed medication 

(Concerta & Buspar) as she did not recall giving them to [C]hild 

already (the Agency later discovered that a pill count of [C]hild’s 

medication was “short” and a refill would be required). 

Additionally, [Agency] caseworkers had observed [Mother] acting 

paranoid and constantly throwing away drinks in the home 

because she claimed that her boyfriend, Christopher, was trying 

to poison her (she alleged that the drinks tasted “funny”). 

[Mother] also made comments about her mail being tampered 

with. [Agency] caseworkers determined that [Mother] had viable 

reasons for her strange actions, but her explanations became 

more bizarre in nature when further discussions were had with 

[Mother].

Moreover, it was unclear whether [Mother] was following through 

with her mental health appointments, case management, and 

service providers’ recommendations. 

When the [Agency] caseworker interviewed [Child] on 7/10/2023, 

[Child] stated that she was miserable on a daily basis while in the 

care of [M]other, and the caseworker observed that [Child] was 

noticeably “shaking and trembling.” In addition, [Child] had told 

her service providers/treatment team that she was scared to be 

left alone with [M]other. The caseworker also observed that 

[Child] seemed to be highly “parentified” for her young age (12). 

[Child] has described that she clearly loves [M]other, but [C]hild 

stated that she would like to stay somewhere else until [Mother]

can get further help for her mental health.

As a result of the above, [Mother] was asked about possible 

placement of [Child] outside the home. [Mother], however, only 

agreed to the caseworker contacting an aunt who lives in 

Tennessee (TN). [Mother], however, did not have a phone 

number for the aunt so the aunt could not be contacted.
J-A09045-24

- 5 -

To further complicate matters, [Mother] denied having any sort of 

mental health issues and denied needing assistance. Moreover, 

[Mother] does not have a phone, making it difficult for the 

caseworker or service providers to contact her. 

Id. at 7-8.

The order of adjudication further summarized the subsequent factual 

and procedural history as follows:

The adjudicatory dispositional hearing was conducted on behalf of 

[Child], on the dates of July 21, 2023 and August 25, 2023 . . . .

The parties, through their counsel, entered into a stipulation to 

the extent that if an Agency worker were called to testify, that 

testimony would be consistent with the allegations set forth in the 

dependency petition, without an admission as to those facts. A 

Family Finding Report to the Court was submitted by the Agency 

and marked as Exhibit 1.

Jessilyn Williams, Blended Case Manager of Western Behavioral 

Health of the Alleghenies, has been involved with this family for 

approximately four years. The UPMC and ACRP have previously 

terminated their services during the last six months for a lack of 

attendance and participation in treatment. [Child] was the 

identified patient. It is alleged that [Mother] exhibits paranoid 

thinking, delusions of reference, confusion, and perhaps auditory 

hallucinations. On December 12, 2022, Ms. Williams visited the

[family’s] residence: however, [Child] was not there, but rather in 

respite care at the residence of a family friend, [Ms. Williams]

[Child] has stayed with [Ms. Williams] on several occasions when 

[M]other is either hospitalized or otherwise unable to care for her 

due to her unstable mental status. It is also noted that [Mother]

was admitted under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures 

Act, to UPMC, pursuant to an involuntary commitment that 

occurred on or about January 17, 2023. Prior to admission, 

[Mother] received a summons for disorderly conduct; those 

charges were resolved before the assigned [magisterial district 

judge]. 

[Mother] had resided with her paramour, Christopher Harf. They 

have been separated since July, 2023, but intend to reunite.

[Child] refers to Mr. Harf as dad. [Child’s] natural father is 

unknown. [Mother] claimed that her mail has been stolen and 
J-A09045-24

- 6 -

unknown individuals have tampered with her medication. 

[Mother] states that she now takes her medication as p[re]scribed

on a regular basis. 

Ashley Nearhoof has provided services to this family through the 

Evolution Express Program. The Evolution Express Program

provides support to [Child] and works with her socialization and

coping skills. The program provides both group and individual 

services. The Evolution Express Program will discontinue service 

in approximately one month. Ms. Nearhoof wants the opportunity 

to assist [Child] in participating in extracurricular school activities. 

[Child] has expressed an interest in drama, cheerleading, and an 

exercise program. [Mother] has participated in the “Mom’s Club,”

where she attended one session through the months of February 

to July [of] 2023. 

Chelsea Clark, also of the Evolution Counseling Services; closed 

with this family on August 23, 2023. [Child’s] contract with the

Agency had expired. [Child] will attend the 7

th grade at the

Altoona Area School District. The Family Based Program Provided 

by CenClear Services will also terminate in the near future. A two 

week extension has been granted through September 7, 2023. In

place of the Family Based Intervention Program, the Maintain 

Strength Program . . . will be initiated. This program is not as 

intense as the Family Based Intervention Program, however, [it] 

will provide ongoing support on behalf of [Child]. [Child] will also

participate in the Student Assistance Program. 

[Child] has consistently stressed that she does not want to return 

to [M]other’s home. [Mother] has the assistance of her Case 

Manager, and has attended her scheduled appointments with her 

personal care physician and with the Department of Motor 

Vehicles. [Mother] has weekly phone contacts with [Child] at her 

foster care residence. It has been noted that [Mother] tends to 

antagonize [Child] by talking about sensitive issues such as 

[Child’s] foster treatment, and the fact that [Mother] wants [Child]

returned to her residence at the present time. [Mother] receives 

case management services through the Behavioral Health of the 

Alleghenies program and Tiara Novak. Ms. Novak will also assist 

in assuring that [Mother] attends her medication management 

program through ACRP. Currently [Mother] receives medication 

management and case management services through ACRP, 

Behavioral Health of the Alleghenies, the Primary Health Network, 

and the CleanSlate Program. [Child’s] case manager will make a
J-A09045-24

- 7 -

referral for individual trauma therapy on her behalf, either through 

ACRID or UMPC Western Behavioral Health of the Alleghenies. 

[Mother] testified at this proceeding. She did not exhibit any

significant psychotic symptoms at this time, however, her affect 

was flat and she has no insight. She has no understanding as to 

why her daughter would retain negative feelings about her. As

mentioned above, [Child] “has consistently stated that she does

not want to return to [M]other’s home at this point or at any time

in the future. [Child] is willing to participate in a bi-weekly phone 

conversation with [M]other, to be supervised by the Path House. 

These contacts will be on an alternate week basis, in an effort to 

ease [Child] [into] establishing some resemblance of a

relationship with [M]other at this time.

* * *

Matthew Dombrosk, Esquire, as Guardian Ad Litem [(GAL)], 

reiterated that [Child] does not want visitation or contact with 

[M]other at this time. However, he does not object that 

supervised phone contact via Pathways facility on a bi-weekly 

basis is appropriate.

[Child’s] foster mother, testified at this hearing. She notes that

Christopher Harf has sent several text messages to [Child]. 

[Child] is receptive to Mr. Harf and would like to have visitation 

with him and her older sibling. She does refer to Mr. Harf as her 

father. [Foster mother] described the atmosphere of the phone 

conversations between [Child and Mother]. She states that

[Child] is often anxious, crying and on at least one occasion,

hyperventilated following the phone call. [Child] is fearful of 

[M]other, apparently related to their past history and it has yet to 

be determined whether this relationship can be salvaged. A list 

was provided of [Child’s] personal property that remains at 

[M]other’s residence, which will be provided to her by the Agency.

Order of Adjudication, 11/3/23, at 5-6.

Following the two-day hearing, the hearing officer issued an adjudication 

of dependency by recommendation. After Mother filed exceptions, the trial 

court conducted a hearing, then issued an order affirming the hearing officer’s 

adjudication of dependency. See id. at 5-7.
J-A09045-24

- 8 -

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal and a simultaneous Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion adopting 

the officer’s findings.

Mother raises the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring [C]hild 

dependent? 

2. Whether or not the trial court erred in removing [C]hild from 

Mother’s care and placing in foster care?

3. Whether or not the trial court erred in not awarding Mother inperson visitation when the goal was return to parent?

Mother’s Brief at 4 (some formatting altered).

Finding of Dependency

In her first claim, Mother argues that the trial court erred in concluding

that Child was dependent because the Agency failed to prove that Child was 

without proper parental care. Id. at 11. In support, Mother relies on her own 

testimony that she disagreed with her recent diagnosis for schizophrenia and 

claims that she had been regularly taking medication and participating with 

counseling. Id. at 11-13. Mother also notes that she has lived in the same 

house for nine years and that her home was physically appropriate, clean, and 

had working utilities. Id. at 11. Therefore, Mother concludes that the Agency 

failed to meet its burden to prove that Child was dependent. Id. at 14.

Initially, we note that 

the standard of review in dependency cases requires an appellate 

court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations 

of the trial court if they are supported by the record, but does not 

require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s inferences 
J-A09045-24

- 9 -

or conclusions of law. Accordingly, we review for an abuse of 

discretion.

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted). “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.” In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations

omitted). 

“The burden of proof in a dependency proceeding is on the petitioner to 

demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a child meets that 

statutory definition of dependency.” In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa. 

Super. 2004) (citation omitted). 

A “dependent child” is defined as a child who

is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education 

as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his 

physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals. A determination 

that there is a lack of proper parental care or control may be based 

upon evidence of conduct by the parent, guardian or other 

custodian that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at 

risk[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 6302.

“Proper parental care” is care “which (1) is geared to the particularized 

needs of the child and (2) at a minimum, is likely to prevent serious injury to 

the child.” In re A.B., 63 A.3d 345, 349 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). 

Proof that a parent has committed abuse is not necessary for a child to be 

found dependent under the Juvenile Act. In re R.R., 686 A.2d 1316, 1317 

(Pa. Super. 1996).
J-A09045-24

- 10 -

In the instant case, the trial court concluded that the “order of 

adjudication and the record in this matter evidence a situation where . . . 

Mother’s mental health issues prevented her from being []able to care for 

[C]hild and caused [C]hild who is 12 years of age [to] fear[] for her safety 

and not want[] to be in . . . Mother’s home.” See Trial Ct. Op., 12/12/23, at 

3 (some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by 

the trial court. See R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. As noted previously, Mother has 

been diagnosed with schizophrenia, has struggled with her mental health for 

several years, and the July 10, 2023 GPS referral was the third referral that 

the Agency had received concerning the poor state of Mother’s mental health. 

See Dependency Pet., 7/14/23, at 6-7. During the dispositional hearing, 

Cenclear family therapist Sarah Selinski,3testified that Child “feels as if the 

house is unsafe, that her mom is unsafe, and until her mom gets . . . the 

mental help she needs,” Child did not want to return to Mother’s home. N.T. 

Hr’g, 7/21/23, at 35.

Although Child is required to take daily medication, there were concerns 

as to whether Mother was accurately dosing Child’s medication, and the 

Agency later discovered that a pill count of Child’s medication was “short,”

which required a prescription refill. See Dependency Pet., 7/14/23, at 7. 

____________________________________________

3 We note that the transcript from the hearing indicates that the stenographer 

was unable to hear the witness’s last name and therefore spelled her last 

name phonetically. See N.T. Hr’g, 7/21/23, at 32.
J-A09045-24

- 11 -

Additionally, Child reported that Mother “had given her an extra [dose] when 

she had told her that she had already taken her medications.” See N.T. Hr’g, 

7/21/23, at 34. Additionally, Child’s family physician indicated to the Agency 

that there had been “medication compliance concerns” while Child was in 

Mother’s care which prevented the doctor’s office from seeing Child for 

medication management. Id. at 20.

On this record, we agree with the trial court that the Agency met its 

burden to demonstrate that Child was without parental care and control. See 

G.T., 845 A.2d at 872; see also A.B., 63 A.3d at 349. Therefore, Mother is 

not entitled to relief.

Foster Care

Mother also argues that the trial court erred by placing Child into foster 

care. Mother’s Brief at 14-16. In support, Mother contends that Child “could 

have stayed in the home, subject to conditions and limitations as the [c]ourt

prescribes, including supervision and/or preservation services” and that she 

would allow staff to monitor her “mental health and her parenting while [C]hild 

was in the home.” Id. at 15. Finally, Mother claims that “[t]he Agency and 

[t]rial [c]ourt used . . . Mother’s mental health diagnosis and history against 

her, but . . . Mother had fit and appropriate care providers for [C]hild when 

she was hospitalized . . . .” Id. at 16. Therefore, Mother concludes that even 

“if dependent, [C]hild could have still been safely maintained in . . . Mother’s

physical custody.” Id.
J-A09045-24

- 12 -

§ 6351. Disposition of dependent child 

(a) General rule.—If the child is found to be a dependent child 

the court may make any of the following orders of disposition best 

suited to the safety, protection and physical, mental, and moral 

welfare of the child: 

(1) Permit the child to remain with his parents, guardian, or 

other custodian, subject to conditions and limitations as the 

court prescribes, including supervision as directed by the court 

for the protection of the child. 

(2) Subject to conditions and limitations as the court prescribes 

transfer temporary legal custody to any of the following: 

(i) Any individual resident within or without this 

Commonwealth, including any relative, who, after study by 

the probation officer or other person or agency designated 

by the court, is found by the court to be qualified to receive 

and care for the child. 

(ii) An agency or other private organization licensed or 

otherwise authorized by law to receive and provide care for 

the child. 

(iii) A public agency authorized by law to receive and provide 

care for the child. 

(2.1) Subject to conditions and limitations as the court 

prescribes, transfer permanent legal custody to an individual 

resident in or outside this Commonwealth, including any 

relative, who, after study by the probation officer or other 

person or agency designated by the court, is found by the court 

to be qualified to receive and care for the child. A court order 

under this paragraph may set forth the temporary visitation 

rights of the parents. The court shall refer issues related to 

support and continuing visitation by the parent to the section 

of the court of common pleas that regularly determines support 

and visitation. 

(3) Without making any of the foregoing orders transfer 

custody of the child to the juvenile court of another state if 

authorized by and in accordance with section 6363 (relating to 

ordering foreign supervision).

42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(a).
J-A09045-24

- 13 -

This Court has further noted that

[w]hen a child is adjudicated dependent, the child’s proper 

placement turns on what is in the child’s best interest, not on what 

the parent wants or which goals the parent has achieved. 

Moreover, although preserving the unity of the family is a purpose 

of the [Juvenile] Act, another purpose is to “provide for the care, 

protection, safety, and wholesome mental and physical 

development of children coming within the provisions of this 

chapter.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1.1). Indeed, the relationship of 

parent and child is a status and not a property right, and one in 

which the state has an interest to protect the best interest of the 

child. When a trial court is determining where or with whom a 

child should be placed, the express wishes of the child do 

constitute an important factor that must be carefully considered 

in determining the child’s best interests. The child’s wishes must 

be based upon good reasons, and the child’s maturity and 

intelligence must be taken into account. Finally, we note that the 

weight to be attributed to the child’s testimony can best be 

determined by the judge before whom the trial court testified. 

In re K.C., 903 A.2d 12, 14-15 (Pa. Super. 2006) (some citations omitted

and some formatting altered).

Here, as noted previously, the trial court credited the hearing officer’s 

findings, which indicated that Child should remain in foster care. See Trial Ct. 

Op., 12/12/23, at 3; see also Order of Adjudication, 11/3/23, at 5-6.

Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by 

the trial court. See R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. As noted by the trial court, Child 

remains in foster care and “has consistently stressed that she does not want 

to return to her mother’s home.” Order of Adjudication, 11/3/23, at 5-6; see 

also N.T. Hr’g, 7/21/23, at 35 (reflecting testimony from an Agency 

caseworker who stated that Child “feels as if the house is unsafe, that her 
J-A09045-24

- 14 -

mom is unsafe” and that Child does not want to return home until Mother 

“gets the mental help she needs”). Further, the record contains testimony 

from Cenclear family therapist Sarah Selinski, who confirmed that Child would 

be “at risk” if she were to be returned to Mother’s home, that Mother would 

continue to miss medication appointments, and that Child would continue to 

be fearful of returning home until Mother receives help. See N.T. Hr’g, 

7/21/23, at 56. Finally, the record reflects that Child’s physician was 

previously unwilling to see Child for medication management due to 

“medication compliance concerns,” but had agreed to see Child after she was 

living in foster care. Id. As noted previously, it is within the trial court’s 

province to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. See M.G., 855 A.2d at

73-74. Therefore, the trial court did not err in concluding that it would serve

Child’s best interests to remain in foster care. See K.C., 903 A.2d at 14-15. 

Accordingly, Mother is not entitled to relief.

In-Person Visitation

Finally, Mother argues that “[t]he [trial c]ourt erred in not ordering inperson visitation (even if supervised) and professional reunification to work 

on whatever issue existed between . . . Mother and [C]hild.” Mother’s Brief 

at 17. Mother claims that “[t]o not offer . . . Mother even professionally 

supervised visitation is to fail to make any meaningful effort to maintain, 

restore or strengthen the parent-child relationship when the goal is ‘return to 

parent.’” Id. at 19.
J-A09045-24

- 15 -

The polestar and paramount concern in evaluating parental 

visitation, in dependency as well as non-dependency situations, is 

the best interests and welfare of the children. Once a child is 

adjudicated dependent, the issues of custody and continuation of 

foster care are determined according to a child’s best interests. 

Thus, it has been said that the sole concerns of a court called upon 

to enforce a parent’s right of visitation are the welfare and best 

interests of the child. 

In re C.J., 729 A.2d 89, 94 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citations omitted and some 

formatting altered).

In cases where the goal is reunification, a parent may not be denied 

visitation “except where a grave threat to the child can be shown.” In re 

M.B., 674 A.2d 702, 705 (Pa. Super. 1996).

It has long been the law in this Commonwealth that “only when 

the evidence clearly shows that [parents] are unfit to associate 

with [their] children should [they] be denied the right to see 

them.” Commonwealth ex rel. Turner v. Strange, 115 A.2d 

885, 886 (Pa. Super. 1955); see also In re Damon B., 460 A.2d 

1196 (Pa. Super. 1983); In re Rhine, 456 A.2d 608, 613 (Pa. 

Super. 1983) (“Visitation has been limited or denied only where 

the parent has been shown to suffer from severe mental or moral 

deficiencies that constitute a grave threat to the child.”); In re 

Mary Kathryn T., 629 A.2d 988 (Pa. Super. 1993); In re 

Adoption of Michael J.C., 473 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 1984). 

C.J., 729 A.2d at 95 (citation omitted, some formatting altered).

Here, the disposition order stated the following with respect to 

visitation:

Essentially a status quo in this case will be maintained, with the 

exception that [Mother] may have supervised phone contact with 

[Child] on a bi-weekly basis. The phone calls will be monitored to 

make an effort to ensure that the content of the conversations do 

not create undue anxiety for [Child]. Christopher Harf may have 

visitation with [Child], supervised at the Path House upon his 

request; Visitation with Mr. Harf was requested by [Child].
J-A09045-24

- 16 -

* * *

[T]here will be no face to face visitation between [Child] and

[M]other [] due to the intense negative attitude [Child] harbors 

against her mother. A visitation schedule may be initiated by the 

Agency upon the recommendation of Dr. O’Hara. The suspension 

of visits is temporary and will be reevaluated at the next 

proceeding.

Order of Adjudication, 11/3/23, at 6.

Following our review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion by 

the trial court. See R.J.T., 9 A.3d at 1190. As noted previously, Child

indicated that she “does not want visitation or contact with [M]other at this 

time.” See Order of Adjudication, 11/3/23, at 6. Further, Child’s foster 

mother testified that Child becomes “really upset” after calls with Mother and 

continues to indicate that she does not want any contact with Mother. See

N.T. Hr’g, 7/21/23, at 65. On one occasion, Child’s foster mother indicated 

that Child was 

so upset she was literally [] almost passing out. She was choking, 

breathing real heavy and I had to try to get her to calm down and 

every time it’s landed in really, really [] strong crying and kind of 

like anxiety and she has to [] go to her room and lay down but 

usually I would try to [] find something to do to calm her down. 

Id. at 65. Additionally, in light of Child’s negative reaction to contact with 

Mother, Child’s GAL recommended that there be no further contact until there 

was a “therapeutic recommendation from [Child’s] counselor.” See N.T. Hr’g, 

8/25/23, at 71-72. Therefore, the trial court did not err in temporarily limiting 

Child’s visitation with Mother to supervised phone calls. See C.J., 729 A.2d 
J-A09045-24

- 17 -

at 97; see also M.B., 674 A.2d at 705. Accordingly, Mother is not entitled to 

relief. For these reasons, we affirm.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 07/25/2024