J - S04028 - 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: F.H., Z.H. (MINOR CHILDREN) : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : APPEAL OF: M.H., FAT HER : : : No. 1116 WDA 2015 Appeal from the Orders entered on June 26, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County , Orphans' Court Division, No(s): 63 - 15 - 0241; 63 - 15 - 0242 BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER, * JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J. : FILED FEBRUARY 05, 2016 M.H. (“Father”) appeals from the orders 1 dated June 25, 2015, and entered on June 26, 2015, granting the petitions filed by the Washington County Children and Youth Social Service Agency (“CYS” or the “Agency”) to involuntarily terminate his parental rights to his dependent, special needs children, F.H., a female born in September of 2003, and Z.H., a male born in

* Retired Senior Judge specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 On November 16, 2015, this Court, acting sua sponte , dismissed Father’s appeal at Docket No. 1117 WDA 2015 as duplicative, and preserved th e right for him to assert issues properly raised at that docket number in the present appeal.J - S04028 - 16

- 2 -

September of 2005 (collectively, “the Children”), pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). 2 We affirm. The trial court set forth the relev ant history of this case in its opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/15, at 1 - 14. We adopt the trial court’s recitation for purposes of this appeal. See id . On July 20, 2015, Father timely filed a notice of appeal along with a concise statement of er rors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). In his brief on appeal, Father raises two questions for this Court’s review, as follows: I. Whether the trial court improperly terminated Father’s parental rights where [F]ather was compliant with the court ordered services but was unable to obtain employment or housing that was outside of his control pursuant to § 2511(b)[?] II. Whether the trial court improperly terminated Father’s parental rights where testimony indicated that [F]ather had a close bond with the [C]hild[ren] and that severing the bond would have a detrimental effect on the [] [C]hildren[?] Father’s Brief at 6. In reviewing an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we adhere to the following standard: [A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the 2 C.K., t he natural mother of the Children, (“Mother”), died in June of 2011. N.T., 6/25/15, at 12.J - S04028 - 16

- 3 -

findi ngs of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T. , 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. Id. ; R.I.S. , [614 Pa. 275, 284,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a differe nt conclusion. Id. ; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc. , 613 Pa. 371[, 455], 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely , [575 Pa. 647, 654 - 655], 838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discreti on only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill - will. Id. As we discussed in R.J.T. , there are clear reasons for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these cases. We observed that, unlike tri al 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 pa rents. R.J.T. , [608 Pa. at 28 - 30], 9 A.3d at 1190. 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 imp ose 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. I n re Adoption of Atencio , [539 Pa. 161, 165,] 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994). In re Adoption of S.P. , 616 Pa. 309, 325 - 26, 47 A.3d 817, 826 - 27 (2012). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted gr ounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J. , 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009). Moreover, we have explained: [t]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty an d convincing as toJ - S04028 - 16

- 4 -

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). 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). See In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( en banc ). The trial court terminated Father’s paren tal rights under sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). See Trial Court Opinion, at 9/2/15, at 1. Sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) provide as follows: § 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination (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: (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpos e of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties. (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 sub sistence 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. * * * (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the cou rt or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period ofJ - S04028 - 16

- 5 - t ime, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the nee ds and welfare of the child. * * * (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 th e 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 ca re 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 s ubsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. This Court has explained 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. In re Adoption of C.L.G. , 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) ( en banc ). W e could find that Father waived any challenge to the trial court’s findings as to section 2511(a) and the subsections thereof by failing toJ - S04028 - 16

- 6 -

challenge specifically that section in his concise statement and brief. See Krebs v. United Refining Company of Pennsylvania , 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant waives issues that are not raised in both his or her concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and the Statement of Questions Involved in his or her brief on appeal). However, given the broad language used by Appellant in his concise statement and brief and, under an abundance of caution, we will review the trial court’s holdings under section 251 1(a). W e will focus on subsection 2511(a)(2), and adopt the trial court’s discussion in its opinion as this Court’s own. 3 See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/15, at 15 - 20. The Supreme Court set forth our inquiry under section 2511(a)(2) as follows: [Section] 2 511(a)(2) provides [the] statutory ground[] for

termination of parental rights where it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be witho ut 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.” . . . [The Supreme Court] has a ddressed incapacity sufficient for termination under § 2511(a)(2): A decision to terminate parental rights, never to be made lightly or without a sense of compassion for the parent, can seldom be more difficult than when termination is based upon parenta l incapacity. The

3 We note that the trial court relied on its discussion of the facts in relation to section 2511(a)(1) to support its analysis under section 2511(a)(2).J - S04028 - 16

- 7 - legislature, however, in enacting the 1970 Adoption Act, concluded that a parent who is incapable of performing parental duties is just as parentally unfit as one who refuses to perform the duties. In re Adoption of J.J. , 515 A.2d 88 3, 891 (Pa. 1986), quoting In re: William L. , 383 A.2d 1228, 1239 (Pa. 1978). In re Adoption of S.P. , 616 Pa. at 326 - 327, 47 A.3d at 827. This Court has stated that a parent is required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities. In re A.L.D. 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002). 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 dising enuous. Id. at 340. The trial court assessed the evidence regarding Father’s repeated incapacity to parent the Children, and his inability to remedy the conditions and causes of his incapacity to parent the Children, at length, which we adopt herein. Se e Trial Court Opinion, 9/2/15, at 9 - 12. The trial court found that the repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of Father has caused the Children to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for their physi cal or mental well - being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Father. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/15, at 19.J - S04028 - 16

- 8 -

Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in terminating his parental rights when CYS failed to provide him with reasonable efforts to promote reunification between him and the Children prior to filing the termination petitions. Father’s Brief, at 9 - 10. Specifically, Father comp lains that he lacked employment, despite applying for jobs, and that he lacked housing and a vehicle, until his mother, (“Paternal Grandmother”), gave him a vehicle at the time of the termination hearing. Father asserts that CYS did not contact Paternal G randmother to inquire whether she would move back with Father when he obtained housing or independently become a placement resource for the Children. Id. at 10. Father states that Paternal Grandmother later moved to the Poconos to care for an elderly fri end. He complains that CYS never contacted her as a placement resource for the Children, despite Father’s request to consider her. O ur Supreme Court held, however, that the trial court is not required to consider reasonable efforts in relation to a decision to terminate parental rights under section 2511(a)(2) . In the Interest of: D.C.D. , ___ Pa. ___, ___, 105 A.3d 662, 675 (2014). T hus, we find his argument lacks merit. The facts, as found by the trial court, nevertheless, support the conclusion that CYS made reasonable efforts to reunify the Children with Father, and Father failed to make sufficient progress with the services offer ed to him. The trial court stated:J - S04028 - 16

- 9 -

[T]he [C]hildren were placed in foster care in 2011 due to the parents’ drug use as well as their failure to provide appropriate medical care and safe and appropriate housing for the [C]hildren. Again in 2014, the [C]hi ldren were placed in foster care because [Father] failed to comply with his own treatment, failed to provide appropriate medical care, and failed to provide [a] safe and appropriate home for the [C]hildren. For the past thirteen (13) months [Father] prove d unable to remedy these circumstances. Furthermore, he did not consistently comply with his own services while the [C]hildren were in placement. For these and all of the above reasons, the [c]ourt found that the Agency met its burden by clear and convin cing evidence that grounds for termination under Subsection [2511] (a)(2) existed. Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/15, at 19 - 21. Although a reasonable efforts inquiry is not an element to a termination decision under section 2511(a)(2), our review of the rec ord shows that there is ample evidence to support a determination that CYS made reasonable efforts, yet Father failed to make sufficient progress with the services provided to successfully be capable of parenting the Children. As the trial court’s 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, we affirm the trial court’s orders with regard to subsection 2511(a)(2). In re Adoption of S.P. , 616 Pa. at 325 - 26, 4 7 A.3d at 826 - 27. Next, we review the termination of Father’s parental rights under section 2511(b). Our Supreme Court recently stated as follows. [I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). The emotional needs and welfare of the child have been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles such asJ - S04028 - 16

- 10 -

love, comfort, security, and stability.” In re K.M. , 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa. Super. 2012). In In re E.M. , [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], this Court held that the determination of the child’s “needs and welfare” requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent and child. The “utmost attention” should be paid to discerning the effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond. In re K.M. , 53 A.3d at 791. In re: T.S.M. , 620 Pa. 602, 628 - 629, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013). Father asserts that there was no expert testimony regar ding the bond between the Children and him, and no evidence of a true bonding assessment. He also asserts that the evidence presented at the hearing indicated that there is a close bond between the Children and him. Father’s Brief at 14. For these reaso ns, Father claims the trial court failed to properly conduct its bond analysis under section 2511(b). Id. We have stated that, in conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony, but may rely on the testimony of social workers and caseworkers. In re Z.P. , 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010). This Court has also observed that no bond worth preserving is formed between a child and a natural parent where the child has been in foster care for most of the child’s life, an d the resulting bond with the natural parent is attenuated. In re K.Z.S. , 946 A.2d 753, 764 (Pa. Super. 2008). It is appropriate to consider a child’s bond with his or her foster parent. See In re: T.S.M. , 620 Pa. at 629 - 630, 71 A.3d at 268. In additio n, in In re: T.S.M. , our Supreme Court set forth the process for evaluating the existing bond between a parent and a child, and theJ - S04028 - 16

- 11 -

necessity for the court to focus on concerns of an unhealthy attachment and the availability of an adoptive home. The Supre me Court stated the following: [C]ontradictory considerations exist as to whether termination will benefit the needs and welfare of a child who has a strong but unhealthy bond to his biological parent, especially considering the existence or lack thereof o f bonds to a pre - adoptive family. As with dependency determinations, we emphasize that the law regarding termination of parental rights should not be applied mechanically but instead always with an eye to the best interests and the needs and welfare of th e particular children involved. See, e.g., R.J.T. , [9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)] (holding that statutory criteria of whether child has been in care for fifteen of the prior twenty - two months should not be viewed as a “litmus test” but rather as merely on e of many factors in considering goal change). Obviously, attention must be paid to the pain that inevitably results from breaking a child’s bond to a biological parent, even if that bond is unhealthy, and we must weigh that injury against the damage that bond may cause if left intact. Similarly, while termination of parental rights generally should not be granted unless adoptive parents are waiting to take a child into a safe and loving home, termination may be necessary for the child’s needs and welfare in cases where the child’s parental bond is impeding the search and placement with a permanent adoptive home. [The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105 - 89] ASFA[,] was enacted to combat the problem of foster care drift, where children . . . ar e shuttled from one foster home to another, waiting for their parents to demonstrate their ability to care for the children. See In re R.J.T. , 9 A.3d at 1186; In re Adoption of S.E.G. , [901 A.2d 1017, 1019 (Pa. 2006)]. This drift was the unfortunate bypr oduct of the system’s focus on reuniting children with their biological parents, even in situations where it was clear that the parents would be unable to parent in any reasonable period of time. Following ASFA, Pennsylvania adopted a dual focus of reunif ication and adoption, with the goal of finding permanency for children in less than two years, absent compelling reasons. See , 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f)(9) (requiring courts to determine whether an agencyJ - S04028 - 16

- 12 -

has filed a termination of par ental rights petition if the child has been in placement for fifteen of the last twenty - two months). In re: T.S.M. , 620 Pa. at 631 - 632, 71 A.3d at 268 - 269 . In the present matter, the trial court considered the needs and welfare of the Children, and set fo rth its bond - effect analysis. The trial court also provided an explanation of why its termination decision was not based on matters that were outside of Father’s control. We adopt the trial court’s discussion herein. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/15, at 21 - 26. The trial court properly considered the best interests of the Children in rendering its decision that, although there was evidence of a bond between the Children and Father, it was in their best interests to sever that bond. See id. ; In re: T.S.M. , 620 Pa. at 631 - 632, 71 A.3d at 268 - 269 . Father testified that he loves the Children very much. N.T., 6/25/15, at 121. As we stated in In re Z.P. , 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.” Id. at 1125. Rather, “a parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of his child is conver ted, upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” In re B., N.M. , 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004). Again, as the trial court’s 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, we affirm the trial court’s decision with regard toJ - S04028 - 16

- 13 -

section 2511(b). In re Adoption of S.P. , 616 Pa. at 325 - 26, 47 A.3d at 826 - 27. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders terminating Father’s parental rights. As we have adopted portions of the trial court’s opinion as our own, the parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial co urt’s opinion of August 26, 2015 to any future filings with this Court. Orders affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/5/2016_ .. ~· :. .. .J ,· · , L ') , ( - ·

_ ; _~. :\ . !.. ·

6391 ( 1 ) an d ( 5) . 9/1 0/0 3 ) an d Z. H. (D .0. B . 9/1 1 /05 ) d epe nd e n t c hildr e n pu r su ant t o 42 Pa . C . S . A . § Age n c y ( (( Th e Age n cy") fi l e d a p etition w ith th e Co u rt to a djudi cat e F . H . (D. 0 . B . On Marc h 2 1 , 2 0 11, th e W as hin gt on C ou nty C h ildren & Y outh S erv i ces Procedur

a l History mi n o r c h ildr e n. be e n se v e r e d b ecau se o f th e de trim e nt a l effec t s uch t e rminati on wi ll h ave on th e s t abl e housin g. Fath er asse rts th at hi s d os e bond w i th hi s c hi l dr e n s hould n ot h ave s erv ic es h e fa ce d e n v i ro nm e n ta l c h a ll e n ges includin g th e la ck of emp l oy m e n t an d ri g ht s termin ate d. Fath er c ont e nd s th at d espi t e his co mpl ia n ce w ith c o urt or d e r e d App e ll ant 

### M. H ., F ather, cl aim s th at th e Cou rt erre d w h e n it o r de r ed hi s p ar e n tal Th e Court p ro vid es it s o p in ion p ursu ant to P a . R. A. P. 1 92 5 (A )( 2) (i i ). ;· . ) . _ ) '• · . OPINION - ) .

. ) Minor ch i ldren. A pp eal o f 

### M.H. , F ather · Dt -63-1 5- 24 1 O C.. -6 3 -15-242 1 1 16 WDA 2015 11 17 WD A 2 0 1 5 Z.H. F.H., In r e: Ad o pti o n o f IN T H E C OURT O F COMMON PL E AS O F WASH I NG TO N C O UNTY, PENNSYLV A NIA O RP HANS ' C O URT D IVI SI O N Circulated 01/29/2016 01:10 PM2 1 Prior to the March 29 hearing the children were temporarily placed in foster care pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement between the Agency and the parents. The voluntary placement agreement was set to expire before a rescheduled adjudicatory hearing could be heard. family since September of 2010. The Agency alleged that M.H. was abusing Mr. Paluso's findings indicated the Agency had been involved with the children pursuant 

### to 42 Pa. C.S.A . 6302 (1). hearing, the parties stipulated to finding both Z.H. and F.H. to be dependent care hearing was converted into an adjudicatory and disposition hearing. At the parties appeared represented by counsel. By agreement of the parties, the shelter On April 5, 2011, Mr. Paluso held the emergency shelter hearing. Both Paluso. 1 for C.I(., and scheduled the shelter care hearing for April 5, 2011 before Mr. temporarily placed pending a shelter care hearing. He also appointed legal counsel Petition that was granted by Judge DiSalle . Judge DiSalle ordered the children hearing be set. On April 1, 2011, the Agency presented an Emergency Shelter counsel. Mr. Paluso granted this request and recommended to the court that a new scheduled hearing Mother C.I(. requested a continuance in order to acquire private 29, 2011 at 3:45 p . m. before Juvenile Hearing Office Dennis R. Paluso. At the first The Honorable John F. DiSalle scheduled an adjudicatory hearing for March I. Adjudication3

pr es cripti on drug s and meth a don e an d th at C .I ( ., wh o was al so abu s in g dru gs , h a d left the h o m e in July o f 2010 onl y to return in F ebru ary 2 01 1. Th e famil y h a d b ee n un s ucc ess full y di sc har ge d fro m Justi ce W o rk s Yo u th Car e i n - ho me s e rv i ces and in- ho m e H o m e m ake r Se rvice s i n th e fa ll o f 20 1 0 . Th e c h ildr e n 's' sc h oo l n u r se h a d comp lai n e d th at th e c h i ldr en ap pe ared m a ln o uri s h ed and filth y in sc h oo l. Foll o win g th e r eferral , the A g ency c as ew orke r went to th e h o me to sp eak w ith M. H . , a f t e r w hich M.H. rep o rtedly le f t th e hom e wi th th e ch i ldre n and b ro ke cont a ct with th e A ge n cy . Th e A ge n c y lo cate d M . H. o u tsi de a meth a d one cl in i c app rox im ately o n e m on th l ate r. M.H. pe rmitt e d th e casewo rke r to see th e c hildr e n, w h om h e was ke e p i ng in a h o tel r o om, an d at th at time sig n e d a vo lunt ary pl a c eme nt agreeme nt. Th e caseworker r efe rr e d th e par e n ts t o th e Ju s tice Works Par e nting E du cati o n p rogram , but again , th e p ar ents did not suc c es sfull y foll o w th ro u g h w ith p arti ci p atin g in th e p ro gram . F. H . su ffe r s fro m hol o pro se n ce ph a l y -b ase d c e re b ral p a l sy, a cep h a li c /crania l bi rth d e fect th at c au se s d e v e l o pm e nt al d e lays an d si g ni ficant mo t or d y s f un ctio n. S h e i s w h e e lch air

- bo und , h as r e qu i re d in

- h o m e n ur sing c are, and i s l earnin g to s p eak. At th e ti me of th e h earin g , h e r par e nts h a d fai l e d t o seek med i c a l tr eatment to ass i s t o r mitigate her illn ess . At th e tim e of th e a d j ud icatory heari n g , Z . H . h a d an u n treat ed eye co n dition. In March 2 01 1, M . H. t es ted p os iti ve fo r b e n zo d iaz e p in e, an an ti -an x i e ty me d icati o n fo r whic h h e l ack e d a pr e s c rip ti on . M . H . a d m i tte d to4

pur c h a s i n g th i s drug ill e g a lly . A t th e sam e ti m e , C . K . p arti c ip at e d in dru g t es ti ng and t es ted po s i tiv e f

o r b e n z odi azep ine and o pi ate s. At th at tim e , s h e h a d a pre s c ripti on fo r V ico di n and X an ax . A t th e time o f th e dru g te s t , C.I( . showe d e mp ty bottle s o f b o th to the a g e n c y c a se work e r, and she a dmi tt ed that sh e had sold her m e dic ati o n. A s o f the he aring , Z . H . h a d miss e d tw e nty four (24 ) days o f pr es cho o l s in c e November 12 , 2010 and F.H. h a d miss e d e ighty -eight (8 8 ) day s o f s cho o l for th at school y e ar . As p art o f Mr. Palus o ' s Adjudication and D i s p o s ition Ord e r, h e ord e red M.H . and C.I (. t o e a ch sub mit to rando m drug and a lco hol t e s tin g, particip ate in dru g and a lcoho l evalu ati o ns, m e nt al h e alth e v a lu ation s, and a Ju s ti c e Work s Yo u th C ar e Nurturing P are ntin g Pro g ram . H e f urther or d e red M . H. and C.I ( . t o maint ain sa fe and app r opri at e h o u s ing. B oth p arents w e r e gran t ed sup ervis e d visit ation two (2) hou r s e v e ry o th e r w ee k. 

### II . Permanency Hearings C. K . di e d un ex pectedly on Jun e 7, 201 1. Mr. Pa l us o h e ld the initi a l p e rmanency r e vi e w h e ari ng on July 5 , 201 1. S ince that time, M . H. h a d begun and followed through on s o m e o f his o r d e red s e rvic e s , including g ai n in g p re s c ripti ons for his m e d ic ati on an d att ending p are n ting e duc ati o n cl a s se s . A t the ti m e of th e5 2 A r e v i e w heari n g was se t fo r D ecemb e r 9, 2 0 13 . H o wever , F . H . r eq ui r e d hi p s u r g e ry in De c e mbe r. O n No ve mb e r 26, 2 0 13 , th e A ge n c y , w i th co n s e n t o f M . H. , r e qu es t e d a c on ti n u an ce i n or d e r to pro v i d e F . H . tim e t o rec u perate. Th e H o n o rabl e Kath eri n e E m e ry grant e d th is moti on . T h e r e vi e w he arin g wa s p u s h e d t o Janu ary 27, 2014 . un ab le t o m e e t th e ph ys i c al an d m e di ca l n e e d s of b o th c hi l dr e n and b ec aus e h e w a s w e r e pl a ced fir st in kin s hi p c ar e and then in foste r care becaus e M. H . h a d bec o m e Fo llo w in g th e Janu ary 2 7, 2 014 p e rm a n e n cy r e v i e w h e aring , th e c hildr e n h o m e with M .H. , w ho r e c e i ve d in

- hom e se rv ic e s , un til Jan u ary 3 1 , 20 1 4 . th e Co urt g rant e d a c ons e n te d -t o m o ti o n pre s ent e d 

### by the Age n c y . Th ey r em a in e d y e ar an d on e m o n th , until th e y we r e r e tu rn e d h ome t o M . H . o n M ay 1 1 , 2 0 12 w h e n a djudi cat ory /s h e lt e r h eari ng . T h ey r e ma in e d in pl ac e m e n t fo r approxi m ate l y o n e Z.H. and P.H. w ere p l a c e d i n A ge n cy fos ter car e aft er th e A pril 5 , 2 011 

### III. Plac

e m e nt to t al o f e ight e en ( 1 8) pe rm a nenc y r ev iew he ari n g s w e r e c o ndu cte d . 8 , 2014, No v e mb e r 3 , 2014, January 5 , 2 01 5, M ar c h 9 , 2 0 1 5, and June 8 , 2 0 15 . A 2013, June 7, 2013, January 27, 2 0 1 4 2 , A pril 4 , 2 014 , A u g us t 4 , 201 4 , S e p te mb e r h e ld p e rm an e n c y r e vi e w hearing s o n O c tob e r 1 2 , 2011 , J anu ary 1 1 , 2 01 3 , M ar c h 8 , The c a s e w a s then tran sfe rr e d to J uv e nile H e arin g O f fi c e r J e s s i c a R o b e rt s, who J a nuary 3 , 2012, M ar c h 6 , 2012 , April 3, 2 01 2 , M ay 1 , 2012, and Ju ne 12 , 201 2 . Mr. P a lu so h e ld furth e r perm an ency re v ie w h e arings on Octobe r 4 , 2 011 , p ar e nt s, w i th a co n c urr e n t pl an of a d o pti o n . h e aring , the p e rmanency pl an 's prim ary g o a l was t o re turn th e c hildr e n t o th e ir6

fa cing ev icti on fr o m hi s r e si d en ce. Th e childre n re main e d in fo s te r car e p l a c em en t until th e termin ati o n pro ce ed i n g, h a ving mo ve d be tw e e n severa l p l a c e m e nt provider s due t o th e ir s p ec i a l tr eatmen t n ee ds. C o mp li anc e w i th co urt o r d e r e d s e rvice s and th e d e gre e t o which p ro gr e s s in a lleviating th e c i rcum s t an ces n e ce ss it ating p la c em ent gr eatly i nfluen c ed th es e pl ace m e n t d e ci sio n s . 

### IV. Compliance and Progress A s of the initi al pe rm anency re v ie w h earing o n July 5 , 2 01 1, M . H. h a d be en m o derat e ly c ompli ant wi th the p e rman e n c y plan bu t h a d m a d e li ttl e p ro g re s s tow ar ds ail e viating th e ci rc um s t a nc e s that had n ec e ss it ate d th e ori g in a l plac e m e nt. H e h a d b e gun m e di c ation m a nagem e nt and h a d und er go n e an int ake app o in tm e nt fo r hi s m e nt a l health a s se s sm e n t bu t no t followed up. H e h a d a s i g nificant am o unt o f m iss ing pr e scription m e di cati o n . He had b ee n inc o n sis t e nt w ith atte n di n g par e nting e duc ati on and the chil dren's do ct or app o i ntm e nt s, but h e b eg an consi s tently att en ding par e nting e ducati on a ft er C.K. ' s death. By the s ec o nd perm an e nc y review h e aring in Oct o b e r 2 011 , M . H . was mo d e rately compli ant, participati n g in s e rv ic e s, displ ay ing a s anit ary h o m e, a n d atte nd i ng his mental h ea lth a ss es s m e nt , but w as still mi ss ing medicatio n . B y the third p e rman e ncy r e vi e w hearing on 

### January . S , 2012, M . H . 's progr ess an d c ompli a nc e h a d impro v ed. He was att ending a lmo s t a ll v i sitatio ns an d doctor s ' appointmen t s fo r th e c hildr e n . H e h a d be e n s uc ce s s full y di s c h ar g e d from7

s ev e ral s e rvice s an d wa s takin g p art in dru g and mental h e alth tr e atm e n t. At each s uc c es s iv e p e rm an e ncy r e vi e w he aring, his vi si tation was i ncre as ed. At the M ar ch 3 , 201 2 p e rman e ncy r e view he ari n g, beha vi o ra l problems in Z .H . r e quired further s erv i c e s in th e home o f his fost e r par e nt s . On M arch 30, 201 2 , the Agen c y pre s ented an e mergen c y motion to th e Honorable Paul Po z on s ky to mov e th e children from one fos te r car e plac e m e nt to another. The Ag e ncy's motion s tat e d an ori g in al int e nt t o r e turn the children hom e at that time, but due to a dis a gr e ement with th e Guardian a d Litem r equested tran s fer to a diff

e re n t pla ce ment provider. Judg e P o zo n s ky g rant e d the m o ti o n. The M ar c h and April 2 01 2 p erm an e n cy r e vi ew h eari ngs p ri maril y conc e rn ed Z . H ., w ho wa s s ho w in g s i g nifi cant beh a vi o ral pr o bl e m s in hi s fo ster ho m e. At both he arin g s , M.H . was n ote d t o b e fu ll y co mp l yin g an d m akin g si g n ifi c ant pro g r e s s : H e wa s parti c ip atin g in m ed i cati o n man age m e n t treatme nt , r e gularly att en din g m eth a done tr eatment w ith n o tably g o o d pro g r ess, atte nd i n g th e childr e n ' s m e dical ap p o intm e nt s, k ee ping a cl ean and appro p ri ate hom e , uti li z ing th e p ar e nting s kills t aug ht by his pr e vi o usly d i s c h arge d p ar entin g e du c ati on servi c e s, and att e ndin g inc rease d visitati o n. A t th at ti m e , th e W as hin gto n C ommuniti es Men t al H e alth pro gram indic at ed th e y w o uld a d va nc e M . H . to bl e nd e d c a se m an a g e m e nt serv ic es u pon th e r e turn of th e c hildr e n to hi s h o m e . M . H . w a s p ermitt e d overni g ht v i s it ati o n w ith th e chil dr e n .8 At th e M arch and April hearing s , th e i ssue of Z.H . 's compliance and pr o gre s s held b a ck reunifi c ation. He h a d been displayin g s eriou s beh a vior problem s in h is f

ost e r hom e s: in addition to v e rb a l threats and physic al aggress i on dir e ct e d towards h i s fost e r mother, Z.H. h a d to be r estrai n e d i n a helmet to prev e nt h e ad injurie s when he would r e peatedly b ang bis h e ad into walls . A psychologic a l ev a luation recommende d Clonodine and Atomox e tin e , both medicati ons comm o nly used to tre at Attention D e ficit Hyperactivity Dis o rder ("ADHD"), as well as wr ap-around servic e s to includ e twen ty (20) hours per w ee k o f therap e utic staff s upport , two (2) hours per we e k of mobile therapy , and four ( 4) hours p e r w ee k with a b e h a vi o ral s peci a list. The recommend e d s e rvices with th e beh a v i oral specialis t were to be r e du c ed to four ( 4) hours a f t e r the first month , and then Z . H. w a s r ec omm e nd e d to be furth e r ev a luated after s ix (6) weeks to dete rmin e i f he h a d a diagno s i s on the autism spec trum. At the May 1, 2012 p e rmanency r e view , Mr. P a lus o indic at ed that up o n Z . H.'s a cc e pt ance by Pres s ley Ridge for F amily B a sed Therapy, th e children could re turn hom e to M.H . by way of motion . The children w e r e returned o n May 11, 2015 a fter th e Hono rabl e John F. D i Salle granted the A g ency's motion to r e turn the c hildren to M . H . ' s h o me. The July 10, 2012 , Oc t ober 12, 2012 , and J anu ary 11, 2013 perman e ncy re v iew hearing s indi c ated improving o utcom e s: i n additi on to M.H . 's continued9

full compli an c e and s ignific ant pro g r e s s , Z . H . was r e spondin g w e ll t o hi s treatment and th e family had b e gun t aking part in blended cas e m an a gem e nt s ervic e s. F.H. 's pedi atri c i an pre s cribed in

- home nur s ing s e rvices to a s s i s t M . H. in c aring full

- time for F.H . which b e g an b e tw ee n the July and Oc t ober h earing s . Juvenil e H earin g Of fi cer Je s sic a R o b e rt s t o ok over th e c as e for Mr. P alus o o n Octob e r 1 2 , 2012. 

### At the M arch 8 , 2013 p e rman e ncy revi e w hearing , Mrs . Roberts not e d that r e cently provid e d in-home s e rvi c e provid e rs had result e d in "a gr e at deal o f improvem e nt " in th e home . How eve r, th e childr en' s truan c y b e gan to b e a n o t able problem , with F . H . missing thirt e en (13) of the p r evious thirty eight (38) d ay s o f school. Th e Jun e 7, 2013 p e rm anency re view h e aring similarly indicated c o mpli a nc e o n M . H . ' s part and significant progre s s , indicating th at whi l e Z.H. and F . H . had miss e d inc r e a sing am o unts of school days , M . H . w a s h andling Z . H . ' s r e fus a l to att e nd sch oo l i n an improv e d and appropri ate manner . A review h e aring was s et for D e c e mber 9 , 2013 . How e ver, F .H. r e quir e d hip surgery in D e cember. On Novemb e r 2 6 , 2013, the Agen c y , wi th cons e nt of M . H . , request e d a continuanc e in orde r to provide F . H. time t o re c up e rat e . The Honorab l e K ath e rin e Em e ry g ranted th i s motion. The r e view h earing w a s push e d t o Ja n uary 27, 2014 . At the J a nu ary 27 , 2 0 1 4 he ari n g, th e traject o ry o f th e cas e chan g ed s ign i fi cantly . While M . H. h a d continued t o particip at e i n h is m e di c ation10

m an age m e nt and me th a d one tr eatm e n t, he h a d fail e d to ke e p th e ch il dr en u p to date o n th e ir m e dical app o intm e n ts and was no l o n ge r co nsi ste n tl y att e ndin g m e nt a l h ea lth the rapy . Try-Ag ain Hom e s t e rminated th e in

- hom e F a mil y P r eserv atio n serv ices due t o M . H . 's non c ompli a nc e . P. H . 's h o m e n u r s e h a d b ee n r ea ssi g ned 

### to a diff

e rent h o me and was not r e placed by the se rvi ce provid e r. M.H . ' s in s urance c o mp an y , be fo re t e rmi n ati ng his i n su ranc e, r efu s ed to c o ver th e c o s t o f an in-home nur se fo r P. H . follow i ng her s ur ge ry . M.H . was al s o in c on si st e n t in e ns u rin g F.H.'s fo ll o w-up c are. She miss e d fo llo w- up app oi ntmen ts at a nu triti o n cl i ni c and w ith h e r p e diatrician . Z.H. ' s ab se n ces h ad inc re ase d to thi rty ( 3 0) fo r th e s c ho o l y ear, an d M.H. did not kee p a m en t a l h ea lth assess m e n t ap p oin tm en t for Z. H . F urth e rm o r e, Mr s . R o be rts indic at e d that i t was an i ssue at th e h earin g w h e th e r or n o t the hom e h a d su f fici en t fo od fo r th e c hildr e n and wh e th e r o r n ot th e home co ntin ued to b e a cl ea n , safe, and appr opriate env i ro n m e n t fo r the ch il dre n. M . H. h a d s u f

fi cie nt in come t o aff

o r d h is re n t at that tim e . S ee H . T. 53, In. 3, H .T 7 8, In . 23 . H o wever, h e was d e l inq u e nt on s evera l m o n th s' r e n t by J an u ary o f 2 0 1 4. S ee H .T. 46 In. 4 . M.H. a dmitt ed th at h e wa s to be ev i cte d o n J anu ary 31 , 2 01 4 . Hi s apartmen t w as p rov i de d t o h im fu ll y fu rni s h e d. See H . T . 53, In. 9 . Mu c h o f thi s fu rnitu re was m i ss in g at th e ti m e of hi s e v i c ti on . H. T. 5 3, ln . 14 . M . H . p roc ur ed s o m e ad d i tio n al r e plac eme n t fu rni tur e w i th o ut co nt actin g th e A ge n cy11 Due to the convergence of issues, M.H. ask e d the court to place the children at th at tim e . See Termination Hearing Transcript, pages 109, 132. Mrs. Roberts ordered the childr e n to be placed in kinship care with Patty Papa, on January 30 , 2014 . After the hearing , the Agency discovered that Ms. P apa could not take th e childr e n and r e qu e sted vi a e mergency motion to place the childr e n in fo s t e r car e . Th e Court granted this moti o n on J anu ary 30, 2014. The Agency requested joint signatory right s on F e bruary 27, 2014 in the e vent that M . H . could not b e locat e d to provide cons e nt for th e children 's m e dical car e . T h e Court grant e d this motion. M . H .' s complian c e and progr e s s did not r e cov e r to th e l e vels that ex i s t e d in 2013 . At the n e xt perm an e ncy review h earing, o n May 5, 2 014, Mrs . Roberts found M . H. ' s compli an c e and pro g r e ss t o be minim a l. H e h a d been att e nding the children ' s med i cal appointment s and conti n uing with his m e thadon e treatment, but h a d only att e nded 6 of the previous tw e lv e (1 2 ) m e ntal h e alth tr e atm e nt s essions. providers that assisted him in originally furnishing the apartment. See H.T. 53, 54. Inst e ad, he rented furniture through Rent-A-Center. See H.T. 104, 105. He explain e d at the termination proceeding that this was du e to F.H. being sick and ruining the existing furniture. 

### Id. The Court did not find this explan ation credible. See H.T. 80.1 2

Th e A ge ncy fil e d a pe ti ti o n to involunt arily t ermin ate M . H.'s p ar e n t a l ri g ht s on Febru ary 2 5 , 2 015 . At th e M ar c h 9, 20 1 5 Pe rma nen cy Rev ie w h e arin g, M r s . R o b e rts f ound M . H . ' s c o mpli anc e an d p rogr ess to b e m inim a l. M . H .'s bl e nd e d ca s e m an a ger indi cated that h e h a d n o t s e e n M . H . in a co n sid e rab l e amo u n t o f tim e , and h e r e m ain e d un e mp l oye d an d wi th o u t h o u si n g . H e h a d not b e e n reg ul arl y v i s i ti n g th e c hildr e n , p arti c ul arly F . H . 

### A t th e Jun e 8, 2 0 1 5 p e rma n enc y he arin g, M r s . Rob ert s a g ain fo u nd M . H . ' s co mp li ance and pro g r e ss to b e minim a l , agai n thro u g h mi n im a l and in co n sist e n t . H e h a d n o t y et se cur e d s a fe and appropriat e ho u s i n g . He was no long er co m muni c atin g with hi s bl e n d e d ca se m an a g e r. M . H . ' s c ompli a nc e and pro g r e s s did n o t i n c r ease at th e A u g ust 4 , S e ptembe r 

### 8, and No ve mber 

### 3 , 2014 perm a n e n c y revi e w h e aring s . H e wa s n o t abl e t o procur e s a fe and appropriat e housing and he co ntinued t o be incon s is t ent i n b o th dru g and m e nt al he a lth tr eatm e n t. He b e g an v is itin g th e childr en l e s s r e gul arl y . At th e J anuary 5 , 201 5, Mrs . Rob ert s found M . H . t o h ave mod erat el y c o mplied with th e p e rman e nc y plan , by r e - e n g a g ing in h i s services an d treatme n t. H oweve r , h e h a d n o t m an a g e d t o p ro cure h o u s ing and h a d n o family m e mbers will i n g o r able to as si s t in caring f o r th e c hil dre n 's n eed s . As s u c h , his pro gres s r e m ain e d minim a l.13 Standard of Review In an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, "[the Superior Court is] limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence." In the Interest of S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005), appeal denied, 586 Pa. 751, 892 A.2d 824 (2005) (quoting In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1199 (Pa. Super. 2000)). "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." In re M. G., 855 A.2d 68, 73 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting In 

### re Diaz, 447 Pa. Super. 327, 669 A.2d 372, 375 (1995)). The trial court, not the appellate court, is charged with the responsibilities of evaluating credibility of the witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the testimony. Id. at 73-74; In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa. Super. 2002). In carrying out these responsibilities, the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence. In re M. G., 855 A.2d at 73- 7 4. When the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence of record, we will affirm "even if the record could also support an opposite result." In the Interest of mental health treatment and visitation. She wrote "The Master believes that [M.H.] has a strong desire to be reunited with his children and love for his children; however, he puts forth minimal effort in obtaining reunification."14 Th e st atut e p e rmittin g th e termin ati o n o f p ar e nt al ri g hts o utlin e s cert ain irre duc ib le min i mu m r e qu ireme nts o f car e th at p are n ts mu s t p rov id e for th e ir c hil dre n . A pare n t who canno t or w ill n o t m ee t th e re q uir e ments within a r easo n abl e tim e fo ll ow i ng i nt e rv e nti on by th e s tat e, m ay p ro p e rly be consid e r e d un fi t and m ay p roperl y hav e hi s o r her right s t erminate d . In re. K . Z. S., 946 A .2d 7 5 3 (P a. S u pe r. 2 00 3 ), ci tin g 

### In re B .L. L , 7 8 7 A . 2 d 1 007 (P a . Sup e r. 2001) . 2 0 1 5 . Termination The A ge ncy fil e d it s p e tition to T e rminate M.H. 's p arental rights on F e bruary 25, 2015. Th e C o urt originally s ch e duled th e pro c eedin g f o r May 1 3 , 2015, but re s chedul e d the proce e ding to May 6, 2015 . On May 6, 20 1 5 , th e C ourt re s cheduled the pro c eedin g fo r Jun e 25 , 2015, t o provide M.H. an opp o rtunity to parti c ip at e i n T ermi n ati o n of Par e nt a l Rig ht s co n s ult atio n s erv ices . T he C ourt held th e t e rmin ation o f p ar e nt a l ri g hts pro c e e din g o n Jun e 2 5, 

### C.A1 . S. , 884 A.2d 1 2 84 , 128 6 ( P a. S upe r. 2005). S.H. , 879 A . 2d at 806. Absent an abu s e o f discretion, an error of law, or insu f ficient evid e nti ary support , th e trial court' s t e rniination order must s t and. In re15

d efiniti o n of p ar en ta l duti es. P ar e n t al du ty is be st unde rs to od i n re lati o n t o th e P e nn s yl van ia appell ate courts hav e observed that th ere i s n o s impl e o r ea s y 

### 2 3 P a . C .S.A . § 2 51 1 ( a )(1) , (2) , (5) , an d ( 8 ). 

### ( 8 ) The c hild ha s b ee n re m o ved fr o m th e c ar e of th e pare nt 

### by the c ourt or und e r 

### a v ol unt ary a gr ee m e nt wi th an age nc y, 

### 1 2 m o nth s or m ore ha ve e lap se d fr om th e d at e of r e mo va l or pl a c em e n t , th e co nd i tion s whi c h l e d t o th e remov a l o r pl a ce me n t o f the c hild c o ntinu e to e xi s t and te rminatio n of p arental right s wo uld b e st se rve the n e eds and w e l far e of th e ch i ld. 

### (5) T he c hild h as be e n r em o ved fr o m th e car e o f th e par e nt by th e c ourt or un de r a v o lunt ary a g re em e n t wi th an age n cy for a pe rio d of at l e as t s i x m o n ths, th e cond ition s which l ed t o the r em oval o r p l a cem e nt o f the child c ontinu e t o e xi s t, the p ar e nt c a n no t or will not re m ed y thos e c o nd ition s within a r e as o nable peri o d of ti me, the se rvic es or a ssi st an c e r ea s o nably a vail abl e to th e par e nt are not li ke l y to r e med y the co nd i tions w hich l e d t o th e r emo va l o r p la c e m e n t o f th e c hild within a re aso n abl e p e ri od o f ti m e and t ermin ati on of th e p ar e nt a l ri ght s wo uld b es t s e rve th e ne e ds and welfar e o f the c hild. (2 ) T he r ep e at e d and co ntinu e d incap a ci ty, abu se, n eg l e ct o r r efu s a l of the par en t h a s caus e d the c hild to be with o ut essen ti al p ar e ntal car e , co ntro l o r s ubs is t e nce n ec e ss ary for his phys ic al o r m e nt a l we ll-b ein g and the conditions and cau se s o f the i n cap acity , abu se, n e gl e ct o r re fu sal cann o t o r will not be r e m e d ie d by th e p are n t. (1) Th e p ar e nt by con duct con ti nuin g for a p e ri od o f at l e a st si x m o n th s im m ed iat el y p rec e din g the fi li ng o f the pe ti ti o n e ithe r h as e vid e n ce d a settled purpo se o f r el i nqu i sh i n g paren t a l cl aim t o a ch il d or h a s r e fu se d o r fai led to p e rfo rm p ar e n ta l duti es. en u m e rat e d b e low : pur s u ant to Su b s ec ti o ns 1, 2, 5 , and 8 o f ch apt e r 25 1 1 of the A do pti on Ac t, Th e A ge n c y r e qu es t e d th e Co u rt t o te rmi nate M .H . 

### ' s p ar e n tal ri gh t s16

M.H. has a clear commitment and love for his children, but the record indicated that M.H. did not have a commitment to reunification. [The Superior Court has] held that a parent's own feelings of love and affection for a child, alone, needs of a child. A child needs love, protection , guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the child. A parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance. This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; 

### it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child. In re J.T. 1 983 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2009), citing In re Burns, 474 Pa. 615, 379 A.2d 535, 540 (1977). Pursuant to Subsection (a)(l), the Court must determine if the Agency established by clear and convincing evidence that for at least the six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, M.H. failed to perform his parental duty or evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish his parental rights. § 2511(a)(1), see also In re Adoption of

R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006). Furthermore, in examining the parent's conduct, the court must look not only to the six 

### (6) months before the petition but also examine the totality of the circumstances of the case, including the parent's explanation and overall circumstances. In re 

### B., NM. 1 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004), citing In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283, 286 (Pa. Super. 1999).1 7

do n o t pr e vent t e rmin ation o f p are n t al ri g ht s. 

### In. re 

### T . 111 . T. , 64 A.3d 111 9 (Pa. Sup er. 2 013) , citin g In re L.M. , 9 2 3 A . 2d 505, 5 12 ( P a . Sup e r. 2 007) . Z . H . and F . H . have s p e n t o nly tw e nty-one (21) o f the pr e c e d i ng fifty (50) months in M.H . 's care . The childr e n were i n fo st e r car e placement for th e s i x month s prec e ding th e filing of th e petition . P arental rights are not p r eserved by w aiting for a more suitable or c o nv e ni e nt time to perform on e' s p arent a l responsibilities while othe r s pr o vide the ch i l d with his or her phy s ic al and e m otiona l ne e ds . In re B . , 

### N . 111 . , 8 5 6 A . 2d 8 47, 8 55 , citing In re D.J

. S. , 737 A.2d 283 , 28 6 (Pa . Super. 1999) . A p arent must utili ze all a va ilab l e res o urce s to pre se rv e th e p ar e ntal r e l atio n s hip, and mu s t e x e r cis e r e a s onable firmness in r e si s tin g obstacles p l a c e d in the path of m ain t ai nin g th e par e n t - c hild re lati o n s hip. In re B . , 

### N .A1 ., 8 56 A.2d at 8 55 , ci ting 

### In re C. M.S., 83 2 A . 2d 457, 462 (Pa . Sup e r. 2 003) . The childr e n w er e pla ce d i nto fo s t e r c ar e in 2 011 du e to M . H . and C . K.'s dru g abu se , un safe and in appropri ate h o m e environm e nt , and in ab i lity to m e et th e chil dr e n' s n e ed s . Since the second pl a c e m e n t o f th e c hildren in January o f 2014, M . H . mad e little to no pro g r e ss in all e viati n g simi l ar cir c ums ta n ces . H e did n o t reg ularly p articip at e in a ll of hi s dru g or m e nt a l h ea lth tre atment, h e failed to r eg ularly att e nd d o ctor ' s appointment s and vi sit ation, and he could no t pro c ure18

M.H. a dmi tte d hi s own c o ncern s w i th hi s ab il ity to car e for Z.H. and P.H. during a h e aring b e for e Mr s. Rob e rts in August o f 2014. H.T. 28 , ln. 1 9 , H. T . 10 9 , In. 13. Furth e rmor e, M.H. t es tifi e d th at he had appli e d for approximate ly "4 0 plu s" o r "50" j o bs. See H.T. 114. He d i d not elaborat e on what job s he h a d ap pli e d for o r wh e r e h e had don e s o. T he C ourt did not find this tes tim o ny c r edi bl e . Thi s is not a cas e w h ere th e ch il dren w e r e simp l y re turn e d h o m e t o M . H. with no se rvice s or s upport. The Agency did n o t s e ek termin ati o n b e c au se M.H . lack e d the fi n an cia l r eso ur ces to care fo r th e c hil dr e n . Si g ni ficant r es our ces we r e ex p e nded to provid e M.H. in-hom e c ar e s o that h e co uld prov id e fo r F .H . and Z .H. 's sp e cial need s. H e gain e d hi s h o usin g with a s si st an ce from the A gency . H e w a s p ro v ided fu rn itur e . Z .H . had multipl e se rvice p rov id e r s an d P. H. h a d in-h o m e nursin g c ar e . U ltim ate ly, M.H. did not c ompl y w ith hi s dru g or m en t a l h ea lth treatme nt , h e did n ot e n s ure h is c h i ldr e n r ece iv e d a ll nec es sary m e di ca l car e , and h e d id n ot m aint ain a safe an d ap p ro pri ate h o m e fo r th e c hildre n. T h e s e ci rcumst an ce s we r e e ntir e l y wi thi n his c on trol. F o r th e s e r e as o n s , th e Co urt fo un d th at th e A ge n c y m et its burd e n b y cl ear and c on v incin g evi d ence to p rove th at g rou n d s exis t e d fo r te rm i n atio n pur s uan t t o Sub sec ti o n ( a )( l ). employment or sa fe and appropriate hous i ng n e ces sary t o m eet th e children 's n eed s .19 Pursu an t t o S ubs e ction ( a ) (2 ) , the Co urt mu s t d e t e rmin e th at 1) M . H . ' s lack o f p ar e n ti ng ability (the r epeat e d and c ontinued i n capa ci ty , abus e , n e g l e ct , or r efus a l of th e parent) caus e d th e childr e n to b e with o ut e sse nti a l parent a l car e and contro l , 2) that the conditions and c au s e s o f the in c apacity, abus e, n eg l e ct , or re f us a l c ann o t or will not be rem e di e d b y M . H.

" (A] par e nt wh o i s inc ap abl e o f p er forming parent al du tie s i s just a s p arentally unfit a s o n e w ho r e fu ses 

### to pe r form the du ti es . " 

### In re Ado p t i o n o f S. P ., 61 6 P a . 309 , 47 A.3d 8 17 (P a. 20 1 2) , 

### c i tingAdop t i on o f J.J. , 511 P a . 590 , 51 5 A.2d 88 3, 89 1 (Pa. 19 8 6). As discus s ed abov e, th e childr e n w e r e pl a ced in fo s t e r c ar e i n 2011 due to th e p aren ts' dru g u s e a s w e ll as their failur e to provid e app ro pri ate medic a l c are and safe and appr o priat e hous i n g fo r th e childr e n. Ag ain in 2014, the c hildren were pl a ced in fost er c are b ecau s e M . H. fail e d t o c o mpl y wi th his own tr e atm e nt, fail e d to provide ap p rop ri ate m e dic al c ar e, and fail e d 

### to pro v ide s a f e and appropriate h o m e f or th e c hildr e n . Fo r the p ast thirte en (13) months M.H. pro v ed un abl e t o r emedy thes e cir c umstanc e s. Furthermor e, he did n o t c o n s i s tently co mply with hi s own s e rvic e s whil e th e childr e n w e r e in pla c e me nt. For th e se and all o f th e ab ove re a s o n s , th e Court fo und th at the Ag e n cy m e t its bu r d e n b y cl ear and con v inci n g ev id e n c e th at grounds for termin ati o n und e r Subs e ction (a ) ( 2 ) e x i s ted.2 0 Pur s uant t o Subsecti o n (a)(S) ) the c ourt mu s t det e rmi n e if 1) th e conditions th at l e d to th e r e m o val or placement o f the c hi l dr e n c on tinue to e xis t aft e r th e pa s sage of s i x ( 6 ) mo n th s , 2) M . H . cannot or will not r e m e dy thos e condition s within a re a sonabl e p e ri o d o f tim e , and 3) th e se rvic e s that are a vailable to th e paren t s are not l ikely to r e medy the conditions th at l e d to r emo v a l. A s s e t fo rth abo v e , th e Court found th at the c o nditi o ns th at led to th e plac e ment of F.H . and Z . H . con tinu e d to e xi s t and th at l\1.H . failed to rem e dy th e s e c onditions s in ce p l acem e nt. Th e s e rv i c e s made a v a il abl e t o M . H . hav e no t reme di ed th e se c onditi o n s and are not l i k e ly t o do s o. M . H . h a s b e e n in un i nt e rru p t e d M e th a d o ne tr eatm en t f o r ap prox i m ate l y s eve n and a h a lf y ear s . Se e H . T. 3 1 , 3 4 . T e s tim o n y at th e h earin g i nd ic ate d th at his m e d ic al p r ovi d ers r eco mm e nd e d ind efi ni te Me th a don e tr eatme n t. S ee H . T. 4 1. Th e c ond i ti on s th at l e d to pla c eme n t in 2 014 we r e s i m il ar t o tho se that l e d to p lace m e nt in 2 0 1 1. T h is r e l ap s e i ndic at es th at d es pit e h is g enuin e in t e nt 

### to a ll e v iate th e ci rcum s t ances that nece s s itate d pl ace m e nt , h e i s un ab le to c orr ect th ese pro bl ems in a tim e ly fas h ion . F our y ear s and thr ee m o nths is s i mpl y t o o lon g a p e ri o d o f time for Z . H . and F .H . t o wai t. F i na ll y, pur s u ant to S ubs e ction (a )( 8) , th e Co urt mus t de t ermi n e if 1 ) th e c ond i ti on s th at l e d t o th e re m ova l o r p l ace m e nt o f th e childr e n co ntinu e to ex i s t afte r th e passage of tw e l ve ( 12 ) m o nths . On c e th e 12

- mo nth peri o d h as b e e n21

est ablished , the court must n e xt d e term i n e wh e th e r th e c o nditi o n s that led t o the c hildr e n ' s re moval continue 

### to exis t, d e spite the rea s onabl e good faith efforts of [th e Agency] supplied o v e r a r ealistic ti m e p e riod . 

### In re T.111 . T., 6 4 A.3d 1 1 19 (Pa . Super. 201 3 ) , quotin g 

### In re K.Z.S. , 946 A.2d 753, 759 (P a . Super. 2008) . As o f the filing o f th e petiti o n, thirt e en month s had el ap s ed from the placeme n t of th e ch i ldr e n . The Court notes that whil e the r e have be e n varying findings of minimal and mod e rate compli a n c e s ince Janu ary 201 4, s uch finding s are not a s import ant as the finding s on progr e ss. A c a s e may rea dily exis t wh e re a p arty i s minimally compli ant but makes progress i n a ll e vi ating th e cir c ums t ances. However , M.H. ha s m a de o nly minimal progre s s s ince Janu ary of 2 014. For this , and for all of the above mentioned reasons , the conditi o ns that le d to placement continue t o exist. It is on th i s ba s is the Court found that the Agency met its bu r den under Subs e ction ( a )(8). In a ddition t o e s t abli s hing one of the enum e rat e d grounds for termination, th e Court must also determin e by cle ar an d convincing e v i d e n ce that t e rmin ati o n o f p ar e nt a l rights b e st me e ts the needs and w e lfare o f th e children. 2 3 Pa. C.S.A. § 251 1 (b ). Th e l a w regarding termin ation o f parental rights s h o uld not be applied m e chanic a lly but in s te a d always with an eye to th e best int e r e st s and th e needs and w e lfar e o f the particul ar children involv e d. 

### In re T . S.M. , 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013), citing 

### In re R.J.T., 60 8 Pa . 9 , 9 A .3d 1 1 7 9 (Pa. 2010 ) .22 (There] was no evidence presented during the hearing that Child is bonded with his current foster family. Further, there was notestimony as to whether or not Child's current foster placement is preadoptive. However, these concerns are outweighed in the instant case by Mother's repeated failure to remedy her parental incapacity, and by Child's need for permanence and stability. See 

### In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910, 920-23 (Pa Super. 2008); 

### In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 325 (Pa. Super. 2010), quoting 

### In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006). Clearly, it would not be in Child's best interest for his life to remain on hold indefinite! y in hopes that Mother will one day be able to act as his parent. 

### In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2003) ("A child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.") Superior Court recently held: find in favor of an existing but unhealthy bond in this circumstance. A panel of the placement. However, the best interests of the children do not require the Court to care placement providers and are not in a potentially permanent pre-adoptive In the present case, the children have not yet formed a bond with their foster 

### T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 269. weigh that injury against the damage that bond may cause 

### if left intact. 

### In re child's bond to a biological parent, even if that bond is unhealthy, and we must Attention must be paid to the pain that inevitably results from breaking a severance of that bond. 

### In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005). must examine the nature and strength of the parent-child bond and the effect of the In determining if termination best meets the needs of the children, the Court23

The Court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child's need for permanence and stability to a parent's claims of progress and hope for the future. 

### In re Adoption of

R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006). Both F.H. and Z.H. are special needs children. Z.H. is diagnosed with A.D.H.D., an autism spectrum disorder, and nystagmus. He has been undergoing treatment since 2012 with a variety of therapies and medications. See H.T. 61, 62. P.H. has cerebral palsy and has been diagnosed with a "failure to thrive" condition. She requires in-home care, handicap accessible housing, an enhanced diet, and several medications. See H.T. 59, 60. M.H. 's inability to provide the children with even the minimum of parental care underscores their need for permanence. M.H. testified that he loved his children and that they loved him. The evidence on the matter of the strong emotional bond between M.H. and his children was essentially undisputed. But M.H. proved over the past several years that even with extensive assistance, he struggled and failed to meet their needs. Given their needs and welfare, preserving this bond will only serve to harm the best interests of Z.H. and F.H. The Court could not, out of an effort at mercy or eternal optimism, prolong the instability that Z.H. and F.H. have experienced in their lives. The Court could not subject them to further uncertain temporary foster In re Adoption of C.D.R., 2015 PA Super 54, 111 A.3d 1212, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2015)24

M . H . was con s istently n o ted as h a ving min i mally compli e d with c o urt orde re d se rv ice s and havi n g m a de min i mal progr es s t o ward s all e viating th e c ir cumstan ce s th at led to plac e men t. T h es e findings w e re made at s e v e n (7) p erman e ncy revi e w h e ari ngs since the childr e n w e re pl a ced int o fos te r c are. M . H . h a d an o pportun i ty to c hall e ng e the se finding s at e ach hearing, or app e al th e C o urt 's Ord e rs , and did n o t. "Other con si deration s. "



### M . H . 's Compliance and Circums t ances M . H., in his conci se stat e m e nt o f e rr ors, cl ai m s that the Co urt terminat e d hi s p arent a l rights improp e rly on g rounds th at w e re outsid e o f M.H . ' s c ontro l. The t e rmin ation of p arent a l rights may not occur " s ol e ly on th e basi s of e nvi ro nm e ntal fa ctor s such as inad e quate housing and fu rnishings, incom e, clo thing and med i cal care i f fo und to be b ey ond the contro l o f the parent." 23 Pa.C . S . A. § 251 1 (b) pl ac ement s in the h o pe th at M . H. will e v en tually be able t o acquire s afe and s tabl e h o using , p ro v i d e fo r the i r ne e d s , an d p ro vid e fo r his o wn. 

### It w a s for thes e re a son s that the C ourt found th at the Ag e ncy met i ts bu r den by cl ear and convincing e vidence th at grounds fo r involunt ary t e rmin ati o n o f par e nt al ri ghts ex ist e d pursuant to 23 P a. C.S.A . § 2 51 1 .25 P a renta l Bond In h is c o nci se s tate m e nt of err o r s, M.H . cl ai m s th at the Co urt imp ro pe rl y t e rmi nated h i s par ent al ri g ht s w h e re t es ti mo n y indi cated th at h e ha d a close bo n d w ith th e c hi l dr e n and th at se v eri n g th e bo nd would h ave a de trim enta l effe c t on th e min or childre n . "Atte n ti o n must be p ai d to the pai n that i nevitab l y r esults from b re aking a c hild' s bo n d t o a biol og i ca l p ar ent, eve n i f th at bon d is unh ea lth y, a n d w e mu st we i g h th at inju ry again s t th e d am age th at bond m ay c ause i f left in tac t. " In re T. S. M

. , 62 0 P a . 6 0 2, 71 A . 3 d 2 5 1, 269 (P a . 2 01 3). Tes timo n y r egardin g M . H . 's b o nd wi th hi s c hil dr e n was esse n tia lly u ndi sp ut e d . Whil e thi s bon d was s tro n g, th e co u rt c on si d e r ed thi s b o nd i n r e l ati o n to th e best needs of Z . H . and F . H . an d d ete rmi n ed th at the b est i nte r es t s o f th e A s discu s s e d abov e, the circu ms tan ce s th at led to termi n ati o n of M . H . 's par en tal rights were within his c ontrol. M . H. had begun m aking progr es s to alle v iate the circ u m s t anc e s that r esult e d in the orig i n a l pla ce ment wh e n he w as comp l yin g with all co urt -o rdered services . How e ver , d e spit e all of th e se rv ic e s pla ce d i n his h o me , M.H . wa s unabl e to k e ep up with the n ee ds of hi s c hi l dr e n, could no t provide a sa fe and appropri ate home, and co uld n ot r emain co n si s t e nt with h i s ow n treatm e nt. As the r e co r d ind icate s that M.H. ' s par e nt a l rig hts we re terminat e d for r e ason s that w er e w i thin hi s c on tro l , th e C o u rt did n ot e rr.26 Conclusion At th e termin ation proceeding , M.H. att e mpted to p res e nt this case a s one with i n the co nfines o f

§ 251 1 (b ); that th e Ag e ncy sou g ht to s e parate him fr o m his c hildren du e to his poverty . This is simply not th e ca s e . The Co urt found clear and conv i ncing e vid e nc e in fa vor of t e rm i nati o n due to M . H. 's re o ccurring , p ro longed, and irreparable inability t o m e et the multifac e ted needs of his c hildren . 

### It is fo r th e se re as o ns th at this C ourt ' s o rd e r of terminati o n s hould b e a ffirmed . childr e n still r e quir e d th e termin ation of M.H. 's parental ri ghts . A s th e rec o rd supporte d this finding, the Co urt did no t e rr.